Lesson Report:
Title
Elections and Party Systems: From Definitions to System Design
This session transitioned from abstract frameworks to applied political analysis, focusing on how electoral systems shape outcomes and party dynamics. Students defined democracy and political parties, compared First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) and Proportional Representation (PR), interpreted election results under both systems, and began advising a fictional country (Oridos) on constitutional electoral design.
Attendance
– 4 students mentioned absent for the original midterm (make-up required with spravka). Instructor later did not take roll and marked everyone present for the day.
– Note: “missing two othersâ€� was mentioned in passing but appears to refer to the same midterm-makeup group, not a separate absence count.
Topics Covered (chronological)
1) Administrative opener: Midterm feedback and logistics
– Instructor apologized for late start (overrunning meeting).
– Midterm grading update:
– Majority performance clustered at A- (~70% of those graded); several As and Bs; zero Ds/Fs so far.
– What an A- typically indicated: understood question/instructions; used class concepts and followed formatting; minor issues (missed 1–2 required terms, some paragraphing issues, underemphasis on public debate dimension in the COVID essay).
– Make-up exam logistics:
– 4 students still need to take the midterm; must email spravka (medical/absence note) before sitting.
– Proposed make-up slots: tomorrow at 3:30 pm suggested; instructor available tomorrow, Friday, Saturday; later in class, a group of four set Saturday at 12:00 in room 215.
– Grades will be released after all make-ups are completed and graded.
2) Conceptual warm-up: What is democracy? Why elections?
– Elicited definitions: freedom of speech; relationship between citizens and power; representation of common people.
– Core definition: democracy is when people choose their leaders; elections are the mechanism (expression of the people’s will to choose leaders).
– Set up for systems: there is no single “democraticâ€� election system; different systems produce different political incentives and outcomes.
3) What is a political party?
– Student-sourced elements: a group (not an individual); shared goals and ideology (what the future should look like and how to get there); represents people’s interests.
– Completed definition:
– Institutionalized actor recognized by the system (operates within/against formal rules).
– Core goal: to gain and exercise governmental power (distinguishes parties from interest groups).
– Campaigns require resources, organization, and recognition; parties aggregate resources and coordinate candidacies.
– Discussion of exceptions and appearances:
– Authoritarian regimes often retain party labels and democratic language for legitimation (e.g., Soviet/Bolshevik history, DPRK).
– Noted exceptions without party competition (e.g., UAE), but instructor emphasized focusing on the general “ruleâ€� for course purposes: parties seek to obtain and wield power, typically via elections.
4) Worked example: AUCA student senate election
– Scenario:
– Blue Party (lower tuition): 40%
– Gold Party (more scholarships): 35%
– Green Party (sustainability): 25%
– Class debate: Who “won,â€� and why?
– Naive/majority view: Blue “winsâ€� because it has the highest plurality.
– Counterpoint: 60% voted against Blue; in some systems, win requires a majority (>50%), often achieved via coalition.
– Key insight: The definition of “winnerâ€� depends on the electoral system’s rules.
5) Core lecture: Two major electoral systems and their downstream effects
– First-Past-The-Post (FPTP, plurality; “winner-takes-allâ€�):
– Winner is the party/candidate with the most votes, even if <50%.
- Tends to produce two-party systems due to strategic voting and coordination (Duverger’s Law). The US given as the extreme example.
- Proportional Representation (PR):
- Seats allocated proportionally to vote shares (often with thresholds).
- Governing majorities typically formed via coalitions; encourages multiparty systems.
- “Winner� often means assembling a governing majority (>50%) through coalition agreements, not necessarily being the top vote-getter.
– Framing questions:
– Is it acceptable for a party to govern with a mere plurality if most voters preferred someone else?
– How do coalition dynamics affect stability, representation, and policy?
6) Workshop: Interpreting election results under different systems
– Given results:
– Party A: 45%
– Party B: 35%
– Party C: 12%
– Party D: 8%
– Task: Interpret winners in the US (FPTP) vs Germany (PR).
– US (FPTP) outcome:
– Party A wins (plurality). State-by-state complications via Electoral College bracketed out; numbers treated as final tallies.
– Germany (PR) outcome:
– All parties above threshold enter parliament with proportional seats.
– No single majority; potential governing coalitions:
– B + C + D (35 + 12 + 8 = 55%) as a majority coalition.
– A + C (57%) or A + D (53%) also possible, depending on ideological compatibility.
– Majority importance:
– Control of >50% of seats enables legislative action (passing bills, approving governments).
– Students raised coalition risks (instability, internal veto players); instructor flagged these as common critiques of multiparty coalition governance.
– Clarifications:
– “Majorityâ€� is instrumental for parliamentary decision rules; differing national rules apply when no coalition forms (some permit minority governments; others push new elections).
7) Simulation setup: Advising the Republic of Oridos on electoral design
– Context:
– Oridos can rewrite its constitution; just held elections:
– Gray: 45%; Brown: 40%; Pink: 15%.
– Socioeconomic cleavage: wealthy coastal population vs poorer rural interior.
– Partner activity instructions:
– Each pair assigned to advocate either FPTP (1) or PR (2).
– Deliverables (oral pitch prep):
– Explain in simple terms why your system is best for representation/outcomes in Oridos.
– Anticipate and refute the opposing system, including flagged risks for Oridos.
– Consider the current results and social cleavages when arguing system fit.
– Time ran out; work to continue next session, culminating in designing a ballot for Oridos.
8) Wrap-up and forward planning
– Reading: 5–8 pages to be posted on eCourse; requested skim before Thursday to support next activity.
– Next class: continue Oridos exercise by designing an election ballot; connect electoral rules to ballot format and voter choice architecture.
– Attendance note: Instructor forgot to take attendance; all marked present.
– After-class Q&A highlights:
– Reflection paper: legitimacy themes acceptable; 1 piece of evidence (e.g., ambassador Q&A) is sufficient; if question cannot be asked, email for alternative plan.
– Upcoming speaker: German ambassador next Wednesday (students to confirm exact date/time; aim to attend and ask prepared questions).
– US system queries: third-party viability thresholds; independents in Congress (e.g., Bernie Sanders aligns with Democrats for influence); protest voting dynamics under FPTP.
Actionable Items
Urgent (before Thursday)
– Post to eCourse:
– Short reading (5–8 pages) for Thursday’s class.
– Reflection paper assignment page (instructor set a reminder; ensure it’s live).
– Midterm make-up:
– Confirm Saturday 12:00 room 215 for the 4 make-up students.
– Ensure all 4 submit spravkas before sitting the exam; current count on file: 1.
– Prep Thursday activity:
– Bring sample ballot formats illustrating FPTP vs PR design differences (district magnitude, thresholds, list/open-list options).
– Provide a clear task sheet for Oridos ballot design (constraints, objectives, evaluation criteria).
This week
– Clarify details to class:
– Exact date/time/location of the German ambassador talk next Wednesday; reiterate expectation to attend and ask questions.
– Reflection paper expectations: minimum evidence (1 source/Q&A), acceptable alternatives if question cannot be asked, and deadline (no extension planned).
– Continue grading midterms; communicate timeline for grade release (after make-ups).
Later/ongoing
– Follow up on US third-party/threshold question with precise references and share a brief note or link.
– Plan next lessons to bridge elections to legislatures and government formation:
– Coalition formation rules, cabinet stability, majority vs minority governments.
– Deeper dive into Duverger’s Law and mechanical/psychological effects of electoral systems.
– Return graded midterm essays with comments once grades are posted; provide brief rubric-based feedback on common issues (missing required terms, focus alignment, formatting).
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Short pre-class reading on electoral systems and ballot design
You will skim a short 5–8 page reading to prepare for Thursday’s in-class activity where you will design an election ballot for the Republic of Oridos. This will help you connect today’s discussion of first-past-the-post vs. proportional representation to clear, fair ballot choices for a society split between coastal wealth and rural poverty, and to the vote distribution examples we analyzed.
Instructions:
1) Access the short reading the instructor will post and skim/read it carefully (5–8 pages).
2) As you read, annotate key ideas we discussed today:
– First-past-the-post (plurality/winner-take-all): how “most votes winsâ€� works even below 50%, and how it tends to favor two-party systems.
– Proportional representation: how seats align with vote shares, coalition-building to reach 50%+, thresholds, and multi-party dynamics.
– Basic ballot design elements that improve clarity and legitimacy (clear instructions, party/candidate listing, visual layout that reduces confusion).
3) In your notes, connect the reading to the Oridos scenario we used in class:
– Given Oridos’ recent results (Grey 45%, Brown 40%, Pink 15%) and its coastal-wealthy vs. rural-poor split, list two pros and two cons of each system for representation and stability.
– Note at least three concrete ballot features you think Oridos should use (e.g., how parties/candidates appear, instructions wording, how to present choices under the system you favor).
4) Bring your notes to Thursday’s class; you will use them to propose and justify ballot design choices for Oridos during the group activity.
5) Aim to complete the reading and notes before Thursday’s class so you’re ready to contribute.
ASSIGNMENT #2: Missed midterm: schedule make-up and submit spravka (only for students who were absent)
If you missed the midterm, you must schedule a common make-up time and submit your spravka before you take the exam.
Instructions:
1) Check your email immediately for the instructor’s message about scheduling the make-up.
2) Coordinate with the other students who missed the exam; all of you must take the make-up together.
3) Propose a time that works for all of you on one of the available days the instructor announced (tomorrow, Friday, or Saturday). The instructor suggested tomorrow at 3:30 p.m. as a starting option.
4) Once you agree on a time, email the instructor to confirm your group’s final slot.
5) Before the exam, email your spravka documenting your absence/sickness. You must submit this prior to sitting the make-up.
6) If your group confirmed in class for Saturday at 12:00, report to Room 215 (faculty offices) at that time.
ASSIGNMENT #3: Reflection paper: integrate evidence from an ambassador talk (ongoing assignment reminder)
If you are working on the reflection paper tied to the ambassador talks, use at least one piece of evidence from a talk Q&A, as discussed today. The instructor will post the assignment page; the deadline remains as previously announced (no extensions).
Instructions:
1) Finalize a focused, concrete question you will ask at a talk. Narrow broad prompts (e.g., instead of “aspects of democracy,� try “Which qualities have most supported democratic legitimacy in Germany, and how might Kyrgyzstan adopt them?�).
2) Draft most of your paper before the next ambassador session so you can integrate the answer efficiently afterward.
3) Attend the upcoming talk next Wednesday (German ambassador) and ask your prepared question during Q&A.
4) Integrate at least one direct piece of evidence from that talk into your paper (the instructor confirmed “just one is fine�).
5) If you cannot attend, or if you attend but cannot ask your question due to time limits, email the instructor immediately to arrange an approved alternative. Do not substitute external interviews/videos unless you receive explicit permission.
6) Keep the original due date in mind; the instructor stated the deadline cannot be extended. Bring your draft and question to the talk so you can incorporate the response promptly.