Pat Lyons

Pragmatists, Ideologues and the General Law of Curvilinear Disparity: The Case of the Irish Labour Party

In this article we examine the opinion structure of Irish Labour party members and supporters. Our purpose is to test Mays law of curvilinear disparity by dividing party members into two groups as outlined by Kitschelt. By focusing on ideological differences within political parties Kitschelt identifies two types of members: ideologues and pragmatists. We use two individual-level data sets: the Labour Leadership Election Study (LLES) and the Irish National Election Study (INES), to test Mays law. We find some limited support for Mays law and Kitschelts extensions to this model.

The Irish Labour Party leadership election, 2002: A survey of party members

Taylor and Francis Ltd FBEP140111.sgm 10.1080/1368988042000258853 British Electio s & Parties Review 368-9886 (pri t)/00 -0000 (online) O ginal Article 2 04 & Francis Ltd 4 0 000 The election of party leaders is often based on the votes of a small number of electors, normally a party’s elected representatives in parliament. Internal party elections are of enormous importance to students of democratic theory and practice because such ‘organizational’ elections determine the choices offered to the electorate in general elections. Those who lead political parties into government generally find themselves, if not leading the government, then playing very important roles in government (Marsh, 1993a, 1993b; Müller, 2000). The election of Iain Duncan Smith as leader of the British Conservative Party in 2001 is a salient example of the issues which may arise for a party that embarks upon leadership elections based on a one-member, one-vote (OMOV) ballot of all members. 1 Although Duncan Smith had the legitimacy of being elected by party members, this did not make him an effective or respected leader among his parliamentary colleagues, nor did it make the Conservatives a more potent opposition party. In view of this, it would be fascinating to understand the factors that motivated Conservative Party members to support Duncan Smith in 2001. Unfortunately, no detailed academic survey of party members’ preferences was undertaken (although ICM ran a short survey commissioned by The Daily Telegraph in August 2001). 2 Instead, we are forced to rely mainly on official electoral and anecdotal evidence. In the past, explanations of party leadership contests have often been based on the views of expert commentators or the published views of participants. In essence, such explanations are based on opinion. However, where parties have adopted inclusive methods of election, new opportunities arise to study in greater detail the operation and nature of representation in parties (LeDuc, 1999). The study of internal party leadership elections opens up new opportunities to examine voter choice in an environment where the franchise is restricted to party members whose general profile is quite often different to that of the general electorate. 3

Can political inequality be reduced in the classroom? Testing the compensation hypothesis and the BFLPE on youth civic competence

ABSTRACT This study examines the general question of how classroom characteristics are linked with differences among students in civic competence, which is seen to be an important basis for political inequality. A resource-mobilisation account of youth civic competence is presented, and this is tested using hierarchical linear modelling and International Civic and Citizenship Study 2009 data. The determinants of youth civic competence are explored at the individual, family, and classroom levels, where resource and mobilisation factors at each level are examined. Evidence for classroom effects are tested using Campbell’s compensation hypothesis and insights derived from Marsh’s big-fish-little-pond effect (BFLPE). This case study of the Czech Republic shows limited evidence for an open classroom climate reducing civic competence differences between low- and high-SES students, and no evidence of BFLPE increasing such differences among youths.

Political Inequality among Youth: Do Discussions Foster a Sense of Internal Political Efficacy?

This study explores what factors help explain why some young people have more internal political efficacy (IPE) than others. IPE refers to subjective competence to understand politics and make informed choices. IPE is important because it has a strong positive association with many forms of political participation and also enhances the legitimacy of democratic regimes. Consequently, IPE forms part of the foundations of political equality. Using data from the Czech Republic and insights from personal information, social resource and social learning models (SLMs), this study shows that variation in youth IPE is most strongly linked with discussions among family, friends and classmates. In contrast to previous work, open classroom climate was not found to have a positive link with IPE, and Campbell’s (2008, Political Behavior 30(4): 437–54) compensation hypothesis could not be accepted.

Parental Example as a Motivation for Turnout among Youths

Fowler proposed a social learning model of voter turnout, and Bhatti and Hansen demonstrate that voter turnout among young (first-time) voters is highest among those living at home with their parents. Combining these theoretical and empirical results to a study of youth turnout, this article tests the hypothesis that the strongest determinant of attitudes towards turnout is parents’ record of voting. The data used to test this hypothesis are a representative survey of Czech high school students aged 17–19 years, fielded in 2012. This study finds that the attitudes of youths who reside with their parents to turnout are strongly determined by their parents’ example. Motivation also matters for voting, but the parental example is the most important determinant of turnout attitudes as a social learning model of turnout suggests.