The Report on Presidential Elections - Essay Example

Lecturer: The Report on Presidential Elections A presidential election is one of the constitution laws that allow voters to casttheir votes in order to choose the preferred candidate during the election period. Many candidates employ various tactics in order to compete favorably with their competitors. The candidates have their own parties some of which are fragmented. The electoral laws advocate that the candidates should employ an interactive model, which incorporates the political influence of institutions and social cleavages. Social cleavages are linked with social identity because in electoral institutions or in the society, there are always divided groups. This may determine the way the society behaves towards voting for their preferred presidential candidate. The empirical research in comparative politics reveals that social cleavages impact the number of presidential candidates or parties in the election process. The electoral process has been a political issue in the late 20th century; thus, many political scholars provide their viewpoints that the electoral policies should exercise an outstanding self-governing effect on the political party system. The electoral exercises are determined by the electoral laws of a state and they depend on the party systems. The electoral laws exercise significant roles in the political society because of the independent effect they create on the party system. The research indicates that the electoral system influence on a party system is significant and it is unpretentious when comparing it with the effect of sociological factors (Jones 106). The issue of the party system fragmentation is one of the causes that creates varying degree in the presidential elections. Scholars argue that the electoral institutions have ignored the issue of social cleavages, and yet it impacts the effective presidential elections (Diamond and Marc 67). Many of the prominent electoral institutions have historically examined social cleavages issues in their work, but they have not yet arrived to a clear solution. Some scholars recently made efforts of incorporating social cleavage measures in their political analysis in order to find the solution to social cleavage is in the electoral institutions. Thus, they advocated on the use of interactive model in assessing the combined political institution influences and social cleavages on the party fragmentation. Therefore, they came up with the solution of employing interactive model in political institutions. Though, the model is unclear as to whether it can be beneficial in understanding the party fragmentation in presidential elections. Understanding the party fragmentation determinants in the presidential elections is crucial because of the three main reasons. One of the reasons is that presidential elections exercise significant effect on the party system and the electoral laws (Jones 74). Another one is that the fragmentation level of the party system in the electoral laws may have a strong impact on the nature of the administration in the presidential democratic system. For example, one party government and the coalition government or effective or ineffective legislation; thus contributing to party fragmentation. The greater the fragmentation levels the more problems in identifying the probable governance option in the presidential elections (Jones 74). Many voters can be incapable of making effective choice in the presidential elections because of party fragmentation and poor electoral legislation. The presidential election with weak legislative support may end up being deemed as candidates with undesirable traits in fragmented party systems. The influence of electoral policies is restrictive on the extent of social cleavages polity. The social cleavages seem to impact effective presidential election process; thus, many scholars argue that institutional and interactive models are among the effective approaches in competitive presidential elections. Dickson and Scheve (351) argue that social cleavage can provide significant motivation for political behavior including the voting choice and the decision to seek for presidential office. However, employing effective models is essential for enabling the candidates to compete effectively for the presidential office. Social cleavages determine the number of candidates competing for elections and the mechanism they employ in order to become winners. In this case, the electoral institutions play significant roles in mediating the relationships between the presidential candidates in the electoral competition structure. Moreover, public opinion and voting choice in the social cleavage can offer an effective motivation for voting choice or decision towards the presidential elections. However, employing pure institutional models and analyzing the legislative election can be at times effective in the electoral process. On the contrary, having the knowledge of social cleavages in a nation may contribute to the better understanding of the electoral fragment at the presidential level (Jones 75). This is significant because it will enable the candidate to compete effectively in the presidential elections. Lijphart (76) argues that the electoral system in the contemporary society has changed because of constitutional reformation some of which are unclear; thus contributing to fragmentations in the party system. Therefore, employing the institution model in the electoral institution is essential because it will contribute to better a motivation towards making effective voting choice. Sometimes, the voters fail to make effective choices because of fragmentation of the party system and unclear legislative elections; thus, electoral institutions should implement efficient electoral models. The study analysis carried out on presidential elections attempted to examine the significant of social cleavages over the legislative elections, competition and presidential elections. The political analyzers sampled the population in different countries in order to determine the way presidential elections are carried out and the way social cleavages affect presidential elections (Hicken 856). The results indicated that the social cleavages are widespread, and they are common at district levels. The aggregate data on social identity or ethnicity or religion issues are not common in the legislative, national levels in many regions. However, many countries where public opinions are available, district public opinion data are not present in such regions. Secondly, the data revealed that many theoretical influences of electoral laws are mostly based on district level logic (Jones 75). This legislative analysis conducted at the district and national level provided unrealistic assumptions regarding the presidential vote influences by the electoral laws at the national levels. The most presidential electoral formulas employed across the globe are plurality and majority runoff method. About 87 nations employ direct multi- candidate presidential elections, whereas the rest use either majority runoff or plurality formula. Golosov (547) argues that the incumbent president can run for re-election, but this depends on the required presidential term; thus, the incumbent president competing for the presidential seat should influence other presidential candidate. However, voters are less likely to be unconcerned between the incumbent and a non-incumbent running for the presidential seat. Even though, countries employ varied formulas in the presidential elections, societal heterogeneity does not have an effect on the relevant candidate competing for the presidential seat. Although, employing varied model such interactive or institutional model for presidential competition is effective, the models have legislative, electoral variables. Work Cited Dickson, E.S, and K Scheve. "Social Identity, Electoral Institutions and the Number of Candidates." British Journal of Political Science. 40.2 (2010): 349-375. Print. Diamond, Larry J, and Marc F. Plattner. Electoral Systems and Democracy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006. Print. Golosov, Grigorii. "Party System Classification: a Methodological Inquiry." Party Politics. 17.5 (2011): 539-560. Print. Hicken, Allen, and Heather Stoll. "Presidents and Parties: How Presidential Elections Shape Coordination in Legislative Elections." Comparative Political Studies. 44.7 (2011): 854-883. Print. Jones, Mark P. "Electoral Institutions, Social Cleavages, and Candidate Competition in Presidential Elections." Electoral Studies. 23.1 (2004): 73-106. Print. Lijphart, Arend. Electoral Systems and Party Systems: Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies, 1945-90. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Print. Read More