Summary: The Politics Of Reform

Read the summary and the most important questions on The Politics of Reform

• 1 Week 1

  This is a preview. There are 1 more flashcards available for chapter 1
  Show more cards here

• In what way do referendums threaten or help political parties?

  It encourages them to make a decision. But it is also a way around internal party divide

• Who is participating in new forms of democracy, such as referendums and committees?

  Those with strong opinions and not afraid to voice their opinion. This can be seen as a threat, since it looks like there will be yet another minority in place in decision-making. Still not all citizens get an equal vote

• What is the ideal way of decision-making in a democracy?

  Consensus -> taking all opinions and standpoints into consideration before making a decision

• When do we generally consider elections to be second-order elections?

  - anything that is not National -> although, many local politics is still about national politics
  - turnout 
  - most of the time local elections -> but given the fact that local parties are on the rise, is that still a valid argument that you could make?

• Do you need to have an enlightened understanding before voting in elections or referendums?

  It is up to the voter most of the time. But the amount of information and mis-information has grown so much, that it becomes more difficult to make an enlightened choice.

• 1.2.1 Esaiasson, et al.

  This is a preview. There are 1 more flashcards available for chapter 1.2.1
  Show more cards here

• What are three important concepts at the beginning of the process for outcome legitimacy?

  - voice, are you being heard?
  - equality, all citizens have the same opportunities
  - treated as a full person

• What was one of the most important factors in determining the fairness of an outcome in their study?

  Outcome favorability

• Why might outcome favorability be such a high indicator for perceived procedural fairness?

  Whether citizens perceive the outcome to be favorable, they were more willing to accept the outcome and the procedure that let to that outcome. However, did not seem to matter that much what the procedure had been.

• What are some arguments against this study?

  - they measured procedural fairness only 1 time, but it can also be seen as an ongoing process
  - might not be generalizable because in Sweden the institutions have a strong and much trusted position

• How can we see procedural fairness as a good thing to reform democracy?

  As an end in itself. It then indicates how the process went and is connected to basic principles of the democratic process. However, how willing are voters and politicians to reform the system?