Electoral Systems/ Party Systems/ Instiutional Veto Players Quiz

In which electoral system are post-materialist cleavages more likely

to lead to the formation of new parties?

• Proportional representation systems

• Single-member district plurality systems

• Majoritarian systems

• None of the above

Answer explanation

Proportional representation systems lower the barriers to entry for smaller parties. allowing post-materialist cleavages (e.g., environmentalism, gender rights) to translate into political movements.

These systems more fairly convert niche support into legislative seats, fostering party formation.

Institutional veto players in federal systems contribute to legislative gridlock

by requiring multiple levels of agreement.

• True

• False

Answer explanation

Federal systems often involve institutional veto players such as state or regional governments, which add layers of negotiation and approval for policy decisions.

This requirement for consensus across multiple levels frequently delays or blocks legislative changes, leading to gridlock.

In a federal system with strong partisan veto players, which of the following is most likely to occur?

• Reduced influence of political parties

• Increased likelihood of policy gridlock

• Elimination of regional disparities in policymaking

• Faster decision-making due to centralized authority

Answer explanation

Partisan veto players, especially when they are ideologically distant, introduce additional barriers to decision-making.

This amplifies gridlock in federal systems as policies must satisfy both institutional and partisan interests.

What is the primary focus of two-round systems?

• Ensuring proportional outcomes for all parties

• Allowing the majority of voters to determine the winner

• Providing equal representation for small and large parties

• Allocating legislative seats based on party list votes

Answer explanation

Two-round systems are designed to ensure that the winning candidate secures majority support, either outright in the first round or through a runoff between the top two candidates.

This promotes legitimacy and broader acceptance of the result.

Which method is less proportional in systems with small district magnitudes?

• Sainte-Laguë

• D'Hondt

• Hare Quota

• Largest Remainder

Answer explanation

The D’Hondt method slightly favors larger parties due to its divisor system, particularly in small district magnitudes.

This makes it less proportional compared to other methods like Sainte-Laguë or the Hare Quota.

Countries with very high electoral thresholds are more likely to:

• Have multiparty systems with fragmented legislatures

• Ensure stable majority governments by reducing the number of small parties

• Eliminate large parties from the legislature

• Encourage niche parties to dominate the political system

Answer explanation

High electoral thresholds prevent small parties from gaining seats, leading to fewer parties in the legislature.

This consolidation supports stable majority governments but can reduce representation for minority interests.

How does the Alternative Vote system compare to proportional representation systems?

• AV is less proportional because it focuses on single-member districts.

• AV is more proportional because it redistributes votes.

• AV guarantees representation for small parties, similar to PR systems.

• AV eliminates the need for multi-member districts.

Answer explanation

The Alternative Vote system operates in single-member districts, which limits proportionality.

Although it allows voters to rank preferences, it does not ensure representation for smaller parties as proportional systems do.

Majoritarian electoral systems are better at representing small parties than proportional systems.

• True

• False

Answer explanation

Majoritarian systems, such as first-past-the-post, tend to overrepresent larger parties and marginalize smaller ones.

Proportional systems are better suited to ensuring representation for smaller parties

According to Posner (2004), what determines whether a cleavage becomes politicized?

• Cultural differences between groups

• Historical conflicts and hostilities

• The usefulness of the cleavage for political mobilization in a specific context

• The absolute size of the groups

Answer explanation

Posner (2004) argues that cleavages are politicized based on their electoral utility, not inherent cultural or historical differences.

Political actors mobilize cleavages when they can generate support and influence outcomes in a given political context.

What distinguishes congruent bicameralism from incongruent bicameralism?

• Congruent bicameralism exists when both chambers have equal power.

• In congruent bicameralism, both chambers represent similar political compositions.

• Congruent bicameralism occurs when one chamber is hereditary and the other is appointed.

• In congruent bicameralism, members are always selected by the same method.

Answer explanation

Congruent bicameralism occurs when the upper and lower chambers reflect similar constituencies or political compositions, reducing conflict between the chambers.

Incongruent bicameralism, by contrast, arises when the chambers represent different constituencies or have divergent interests.