Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries Arend Lijphart New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984, pp. xv, 229
Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries Arend Lijphart New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984, pp. xv, 229
复制标题
民主：二十一个国家的多数主义和共识政府的模式 Arend Lijphart New Haven：耶鲁大学出版社，1984 年，第 xv 页，229
DOI：
10.1017/s0008423900029401
复制
发表时间：
1985
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
G. Amyot
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
G. Amyot
完全是为了办公室的战利品犬儒主义增加了，公众和政客之间的鸿沟扩大了，“政治效能的指标......自20世纪60年代中期以来，大多数人认为他们对政府的所作所为没有任何发言权，或者政府非常关心他们的意见”（179）。鉴于选民对自由党和保守党政府的不满，他们为什么不给艾德·布罗德本特和新民主党一个创造理想经济条件的机会呢？为什么选民一次又一次地回到两个老党派？作者没有问这些问题。如果他们这样做了，如果他们试图回答这些问题，结果将是明确破坏他们的第三个论点，即加拿大选民的特点更多的是波动性，而不是稳定性和一致性。作者在这里的分析始于一个概念性的决定，它扭曲了他们对党派关系的衡量，即他们将省级和国家政治忠诚这两个独立变量混合在一起。这两个变量来自13个不同的选举制度，被视为一个制度的一部分。例如，在不列颠哥伦比亚省成为一名省级社会信用党派人士，与成为一名全国性的保守党忠诚者并不矛盾。然而，他们的措施将此视为选民不一致，因此，作为选民波动。他们自己的数据显示，在任何一次选举中，只有大约五分之一的选民会转换选票。如果我们调查所有合格选民，这个数字就会少一些。同样，在1968年至1980年的五次选举中，58%有资格在1980年竞选中投票的人没有投票给一个以上的政党。当然，波动性比稳定性更有趣，正是少数选民的行为与上次选举不同，决定了赢家和输家。然而，我们不应忘记，相对党的力量被限制在狭窄的范围内持久的党的附件。这就解释了为什么新民主党无法超越这两个老政党，尽管公众对他们的冷嘲热讽越来越多。除了这最后的关注，这本书是一个优秀的学术研究，它表明了如何研究个别选民可以导致理解的意义，选举和民主的本质，因为它是在加拿大实行。
solely motivated by the spoils of office. Cynicism increased, a gulf grew between the public and the politicians and "indicators of political efficacy... declined over the period since the mid-1960s to the point where majorities do not think they have any say in what government does or that it cares much for their opinions" (179). Given the electors' unhappiness with Liberal and Conservative governments, why haven't they given Ed Broadbent and the New Democrats a chance to produce the desired economic conditions? Why do the voters return time and time again to the two old parties? The authors don't ask these questions. If they did and if they tried to answer them, the result would be an explicit undermining of their third argument, namely that Canadian voters are marked more by volatility than stability and consistency. The authors' analysis here begins with a conceptual decision which distorts their measurement of partisanship, namely their intermingling of the two independent variables of provincial and national political loyalties. These two variables, pulled from 13 different electoral systems, are treated as part of one system. For example, to be a provincial Social Credit partisan in British Columbia is not in any way inconsistent with being a national Conservative loyalist. Yet their measure counts this as elector inconsistency and consequently, as elector volatility. Their own data reveal that only about one-fifth of the electorate, if that, are vote switchers in any given election. The figure is less if we examine all eligible voters. As well, in the five elections from 1968 to 1980, 58 per cent of those eligible to vote in the 1980 contest did not vote for more than one party. Certainly volatility is more interesting than stability and it is the minority of voters who behave differently than they did in the previous election that determines the winners and losers. Yet, we should not forget that the relative party strengths are constrained to narrow ranges by enduring party attachments. That explains why the NDP was unable to move past the two old parties in spite of growing public cynicism about them. Apart from this final concern, this book is an excellent piece of scholarly research which shows how the study of individual voters can lead to an understanding of the meaning of elections and the very nature of democracy as it is practised in Canada.