DOCSLIB.ORG

JMWP 05 Stephen Gardbaum And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
JMWP 05 Stephen Gardbaum And THE JEAN MONNET PROGRAM J.H.H. Weiler, Director Gráinne de Burca, Director Jean Monnet Working Paper 5/17 SYMPOSIUM: PUBLIC LAW AND THE NEW POPULISM Stephen Gardbaum and Richard H. Pildes Populism and Democratic Institutional design: Methods of Selecting Candidates for Chief Executive in the United States and Other Democracies NYU School of Law • New York, NY 10011 The Jean Monnet Working Paper Series can be found at www.JeanMonnetProgram.org All rights reserved. No part of this paper may be reproduced in any form without permission of the author. ISSN 2161-0320 (online) Copy Editor: Danielle Leeds Kim © Stephen Gardbaum and Richard H. Pildes 2017 New York University School of Law New York, NY 10011 USA Publications in the Series should be cited as: AUTHOR, TITLE, JEAN MONNET WORKING PAPER NO./YEAR [URL] POPULISM AND DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN: METHODS OF SELECTING CANDIDATES FOR CHIEF EXECUTIVE IN THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER DEMOCRACIES Stephen Gardbaum* and Richard H. Pildes** ABSTRACT Donald Trump would most likely not be President but for the institutional change made in the 1970s, and analyzed here, in the nature of the presidential nomination process. In the 1970s, the United States shifted almost overnight from the methods that had been used for nearly 200 years to select party nominees, in which official representatives of the political parties played the major role in deciding the parties’ candidates for President, to a purely populist mode (primaries and caucuses) for selecting presidential nominees. This article explores the contrast between nomination processes that entail a central role for “peer review” – in which party leaders have a central voice in the selection of their parties’ nominees – and purely populist selection methods, such as currently used in the United States, in which ordinary voters completely control the selection of nominees and party figures have no special role. The first half of the article is historical and focuses on the United States. The second half is comparative and explores how other major democracies structure the process of choosing party leaders and candidates for chief executive. In the historical sections, we seek to show both how radical the change was that was made in the 1970s and yet how accidental, contingent, and inadvertent this transformation was. The “framers” of these changes did not actually intend to create the system with which we ended up, in which the primaries and caucuses completely determine the parties’ nominees. The comparative sections show that the U.S. system is an extreme outlier among major democracies: in no other democracy is the selection completely * MacArthur Foundation Professor of International Justice & Human Rights, UCLA School of Law. ** Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, NYU School of Law. Thanks to participants for helpful comments at the Public Law and the New Populism workshop at NYU, where an earlier version of this article was presented controlled by the mass of ordinary voters. Most other democracies use systems of pure peer review to select candidates for chief executive; or use systems that mix elements of peer review with popular participation; and in other ways continue to give official representatives of the parties much greater say than in the United States over the selection of the parties’ nominees for Chief Executive. The institutional design through which democracies choose nominees who compete to become a nation’s Chief Executive is among the most consequential features in the design of democratic elections. Yet there is surprisingly little scholarship that explores this issue in detail. This article also contributes to the general analysis of the rise of populist politics in many democracies today by showing how the institutional design for how party nominees are chosen can enable or constrain how easily and quickly populist political forces are able to capture control of government. The institutional framework and legal rules through which democracies choose the nominees who compete to become a nation’s Chief Executive (the President or Prime Minister) are among the most important features in the institutional design of any democracy. Yet despite the considerable academic attention “the law of democracy” has received in the United States over the last 20 years, surprisingly little scholarly focus has thus far been devoted to this fundamental attribute in the institutional design of American democracy. This lacuna is particularly striking because one of the most consequential and radical changes in the last 50 years to the way American democracy is structured is the fundamental change we made to the way the major party nominees for President are selected: the shift to a purely populist method in which primary elections (and a small dose of caucuses) completely determine the party’s nominees. Similarly, there is little comparative analysis and assessment of the different methods various established democracies use to structure the process of choosing the principal candidates for Chief Executive. Yet different selection methods inevitably can have profound selection effects on the kind of people who choose to run; on which kind of political figures are most likely to succeed in capturing nominations and office; and, POPULISM AND DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN most importantly, on how the resulting government functions and the interests and political forces to which it is most likely to respond. The primary aim of this article is to provoke more widespread reflection about how best to design this crucial feature in the institutional framework of democracy. Precisely because the dramatic new system put in place in the United States nearly 50 years ago has since then remained largely unchallenged and unchanged, most Americans undoubtedly have come to take for granted that our current system of presidential primaries and caucuses is the “natural” or the only “democratic” way to select nominees for President. We seek to unsettle that notion by providing both historical and comparative perspective on this issue. A secondary aim is to contribute to the more general debate over the rise of populist forms of politics in many parts of the world, including the United States and Europe, in the last several years.1 We seek to explore how different selection methods for party nominees might be relevant to the likelihood that populists will gain office as a country's chief executive. Part I briefly chronicles the historical development within the United States of the different methods and institutional frameworks that have been used over time for selecting presidential nominees. Part I demonstrates that for most of American history until the 1970s, the selection system included a significant role for what is called “peer review,” in which those who were existing officeholders and party officials had significant weight in deciding who ought to represent the party as candidate for President. As Part I shows, the change in the 1970s can be characterized as the replacement of this “peer review” system to a purely populist system in which voters, through primaries and caucuses, completely determine the presidential nominees.2 1 There is a good deal of debate currently taking place over how precisely “populist politics” ought to be conceptualized or defined. For the work which has received the most attention and inherently links populism to a rejection of political pluralism, see JAN-WERNER MÜLLER, WHAT IS POPULISM (2016). For a critique of Müller and a defense of a more expansive conception of populism, see Robert Howse, Populism—A Defense: Reflections on the History of Democratic Thought and Practice (unpublished manuscript) (on file with authors). 2 For clarification, by "populist" (versus "peer review") system, we are using the term in a procedural sense, where the mass of voters select a party's candidate, and not in the more general or substantive 3 After describing that shift, Part I also suggests that we did not so much intentionally choose this new “modern” populist system as much as stumble inadvertently into it. Part II then turns to comparative perspectives on how other major democracies structure the process of choosing party leaders or candidates for Chief Executive. In line with the framework just described, as a first cut the central divide is between more “populist” systems for making this choice versus ones in which “peer review” (the views of elected officials or party figures) plays a significant role. Comparative perspective can help further destabilize the idea that our current populist system is the “natural” or uniquely “democratic” way of choosing nominees for the highest office. Part II therefore explores how party leaders and/or nominees for chief executive are chosen in many other established democracies, including the major democracies of Western Europe— the UK, Germany, France, Italy—as well as a diverse range of other large or important countries, such as Canada, Japan, Israel, South Korea, Argentina. The comparative analysis in Part II is driven by, and organized around, three major aims: (1) to identify the greater role that “peer review” plays in many democracies than in the United States in the selection of party leaders and candidates for chief executive; (2) to explore whether significant changes have taken place in the methods of making this choice over recent decades among major democracies, and whether those changes, where they exist, have tended to move as far in the direction of greater popular control as they have in the United States; (3) to show the diversity of forms peer review has taken in other democracies, in recognition that different ways exist for building in a role for peer review in systems that are not purely populist ones. Although this article is on the surface primarily historical and comparative, we do not want to hide the normative concerns that animate it. We write to challenge the unexamined notion that our current populist system of candidate selection is the best way to choose the nominees who then compete in the general election for President.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Share — Copy and Redistribute the Material in Any Medium Or Format
    Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 KOREA You are free to : Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format Under the follwing terms : Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes. NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material. You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation. This is a human-readable summary of (and not a substitute for) the license. Disclaimer Master’s Thesis Securitizing China’s Military Rise: A study of security and defense policy reform under the Abe Shinzô administrations 중국의 군사력 강화에 대한 안전 보장화: 아베 신조 정권의 안보정책개혁에 관한 연구 August 2017 Seoul National University Graduate School of International Studies International Area Studies David Lucas Schlömer Abstract Securitizing China’s Military Rise: A study of security and defense policy reform under the Abe Shinzô administrations David Lucas Schlömer International Area Studies Graduate School of International Studies Seoul National University This study seeks to explain why major reforms in Japanese security and defense policy transpired in the first three years of the second Abe administration (2012-15), but not during his first stint as Prime Minister in 2006-07, despite retaining an almost identical political agenda.
    [Show full text]
  • The Essential Report 15 March 2016
    The Essential Report 15 March 2016 ESSENTIALMEDIA.COM.AU ESSENTIALMEDIA.COM.AU The Essential Report Date: 15/3/2016 Prepared By: Essential Research Data Supplied: Essential Media Communications is a member of the Association of Market and Social Research Organisations Our researchers are members of the Australian Essential Research is ISO 20252 (Market, Opinions Market and Social Research Society. and Social Research) accredited. Page 2 / 17 ESSENTIALMEDIA.COM.AU About this poll This report summarises the results of a weekly omnibus conducted by Essential Research with data provided by Your Source. The survey was conducted online from the 9th to 13th February 2016 and is based on 1,006 respondents. Aside from the standard question on voting intention, this week’s report includes questions on same sex marriage, party leaders and climate change. The methodology used to carry out this research is described in the appendix on page 17. Note that due to rounding, not all tables necessarily total 100% and subtotals may also vary. Page 3 / 17 ESSENTIALMEDIA.COM.AU Federal voting intention Q If a Federal Election was held today to which party will you probably give your first preference vote? If not sure, which party are you currently leaning toward? If don’t know -Well which party are you currently leaning to? Last 2 weeks 4 weeks Election Total week ago ago 7 Sep 13 8/3/16 1/3/16 16/2/16 Liberal 39% 39% 40% 40% National 3% 3% 3% 3% Total Liberal/National 42% 43% 43% 43% 45.6% Labor 36% 37% 38% 33% 33.4% Greens 11% 10% 10% 11% 8.6% Palmer United Party 1% 2% 1% 1% 5.5% Other/Independent 9% 8% 8% 11% 6.9% 2 party preferred Liberal National 50% 50% 50% 52% 53.5% Labor 50% 50% 50% 48% 46.5% NB.
    [Show full text]
  • Japan 2020: Abe's Well-Laid Plans Go Awry
    Corey Wallace and Giulio Pugliese “Japan 2020: Abe’s Well-Laid Plans Go Awry”, Asia Maior XXXI/2020 (forthcoming) JAPAN 2020: ABE’S WELL-LAID PLANS GO AWRY1 Corey Wallace Kanagawa University [email protected] Giulio Pugliese University of Oxford and European University Institute [email protected] Like elsewhere, the COVID-19 pandemic caused substantial disruptions in Japan. While generous fiscal spending mitigated the pandemic’s economic fallout, and Japan is poised in 2021 to rebound from its year-on-year 4.8% fall in GDP, there was significant political fallout in 2020. The postponement of the Olympic Games, the Abe government’s perceived inability to tackle the pandemic, and the (re)surfacing of political scandals led to Japan’s longest-serving Prime Minister popularity plummeting. The re-emergence of Abe’s health problems then precipitated his abrupt resignation. This ushered in the premiership of Suga Yoshihide, who promised to enact structural reforms and ambitious digitalization and environmental programmes, while also promising to continue significant elements of Abe’s policy agenda. Internationally, COVID-19 accelerated US-China tensions and, in connection to that, China’s regional assertiveness. This perceived assertiveness as well as China’s political involution and human rights violations in Hong Kong and Xinjiang, in turn, hardened the Japanese government’s position vis-à-vis Beijing. This happened despite Abe’s early 2020 efforts towards hosting a state visit by the Chinese president. Instead, the year instead ended with a «Quad» meeting at the ministerial level, hosted in Tokyo, rather than an entente with China.
    [Show full text]
  • Indian National Congress Sessions
    Indian National Congress Sessions INC sessions led the course of many national movements as well as reforms in India. Consequently, the resolutions passed in the INC sessions reflected in the political reforms brought about by the British government in India. Although the INC went through a major split in 1907, its leaders reconciled on their differences soon after to give shape to the emerging face of Independent India. Here is a list of all the Indian National Congress sessions along with important facts about them. This list will help you prepare better for SBI PO, SBI Clerk, IBPS Clerk, IBPS PO, etc. Indian National Congress Sessions During the British rule in India, the Indian National Congress (INC) became a shiny ray of hope for Indians. It instantly overshadowed all the other political associations established prior to it with its very first meeting. Gradually, Indians from all walks of life joined the INC, therefore making it the biggest political organization of its time. Most exam Boards consider the Indian National Congress Sessions extremely noteworthy. This is mainly because these sessions played a great role in laying down the foundational stone of Indian polity. Given below is the list of Indian National Congress Sessions in chronological order. Apart from the locations of various sessions, make sure you also note important facts pertaining to them. Indian National Congress Sessions Post Liberalization Era (1990-2018) Session Place Date President 1 | P a g e 84th AICC Plenary New Delhi Mar. 18-18, Shri Rahul Session 2018 Gandhi Chintan Shivir Jaipur Jan. 18-19, Smt.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Mcdonnell Amendment': Labour's
    Thomas Quinn (University of Essex) From the Wembley Conference to the ‘McDonnell Amendment’: Labour’s Leadership Nomination Rules Abstract A recent change to the Labour Party’s nomination rules for leadership elections was the eighth such major modification of this brief clause in the party’s rule book since 1981. These changes have provided a barometer of factional conflict over this period and indicate the importance of gate- keeping powers in leadership selection. This paper recounts the history of these eight rule changes. It shows how the proportion of Labour MPs (and later MEPs) required to nominate candidates in leadership elections has oscillated markedly, as the left has tried to reduce it while centrists have sought to increase it. The most recent change in 2017, when the threshold was decreased to 10% of Labour MPs and MEPs, was a victory for the left. The paper argues that the changes to Labour’s nomination rules, while lower-key than the extension of voting rights from MPs to ordinary members, have been just as significant. Keywords Labour Party; leadership elections; nomination rules; Jeremy Corbyn; electoral college; one member- one vote This is the accepted version of the following article: Thomas Quinn, ‘From the Wembley Conference to the “McDonnell Amendment”: Labour’s Leadership Nomination Rules’, Political Quarterly (forthcoming). DOI: 10.1111/1467-923X.12489. 1 Introduction At the Labour Party conference of 2017, delegates voted to support a rule change recommended by the party’s National Executive Committee (NEC) that reduced the nomination threshold for candidates in leadership elections. Previously, candidates contesting the leadership when the post was vacant, such as after the resignation or death of the previous leader, were required to collect nominations from 15% of the combined membership of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP), i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Inaugural Speech
    INAUGURAL SPEECH The PRESIDENT: I remind honourable members that this is the member's first speech and she should be given all due consideration. Before the honourable member starts, I welcome into my gallery members of the Hon. Rose Jackson's family, including her husband, Sam Crosby, their children, Oscar and Charlotte, her father, Mr Martin Butler, her mother-in-law, Mrs Bronwyn Crosby, and her brother, Joe. I also welcome into the public gallery the Hon. Chris Bowen, member for McMahon in the Australian Parliament. I welcome you all in the House this evening for the member's first speech. The Hon. ROSE JACKSON (18:01): The land we are on is called Eora. The first people here were the Gadigal. In 1909 this Parliament passed the Aborigines Protection Act, which gave legal force to the Aborigines Welfare Board and its wide-ranging control over the lives of Aboriginal people. In doing so, it introduced one of the deepest sources of our national shame by codifying the board's power to remove Aboriginal children from their families. I acknowledge the Gadigal today in this place not as a mere hat tip or commonplace convention but in solemn acknowledgement that the laws that gave the New South Wales Government power to steal the children of Aboriginal families, to take the babies from their mummies, were laws that were made in this very room, in this Parliament House, by our predecessors. The lives and resilience of the Gadigal should serve to inspire and humble us. They should stand as a profound warning: What we do here matters.
    [Show full text]
  • Macro Report Comparative Study of Electoral Systems Module 4: Macro Report September 10, 2012
    Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 1 Module 4: Macro Report Comparative Study of Electoral Systems Module 4: Macro Report September 10, 2012 Country: Argentina Date of Election: October 25, 2015 Prepared by: Noam Lupu, Carlos Gervasoni, Virginia Oliveros, and Luis Schiumerini Date of Preparation: December 2016 NOTES TO COLLABORATORS: . The information provided in this report contributes to an important part of the CSES project. The information may be filled out by yourself, or by an expert or experts of your choice. Your efforts in providing these data are greatly appreciated! Any supplementary documents that you can provide (e.g., electoral legislation, party manifestos, electoral commission reports, media reports) are also appreciated, and may be made available on the CSES website. Answers should be as of the date of the election being studied. Where brackets [ ] appear, collaborators should answer by placing an “X” within the appropriate bracket or brackets. For example: [X] . If more space is needed to answer any question, please lengthen the document as necessary. Data Pertinent to the Election at which the Module was Administered 1a. Type of Election [ ] Parliamentary/Legislative [X] Parliamentary/Legislative and Presidential [ ] Presidential [ ] Other; please specify: __________ 1b. If the type of election in Question 1a included Parliamentary/Legislative, was the election for the Upper House, Lower House, or both? [ ] Upper House [ ] Lower House [X] Both [ ] Other; please specify: __________ Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 2 Module 4: Macro Report 2a. What was the party of the president prior to the most recent election, regardless of whether the election was presidential? Frente para la Victoria, FPV (Front for Victory)1 2b.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Titles and Forms of Address for Dignitaries
    OFFICIAL A GUIDE TO TITLES AND FORMS OF ADDRESS FOR DIGNITARIES How referred to in Title Address block in correspondence Salutation person Governor-General His Excellency General the Honourable David Hurley AC DSC (Retd) Your Excellency or Initially ‘Your Excellency’ Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia Dear Governor-General thereafter ‘Sir’ Contact: Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia Governor His Excellency The Honourable Hieu Van Le AC Your Excellency At first meeting ‘Your Governor of South Australia Excellency’ thereafter Contact: Governor of South Australia ‘Sir’ Premier The Honourable Steven Marshall MP Dear Premier Premier Premier of South Australia Contact: Premier of South Australia Prime Minister The Honourable Scott Morrison MP Dear Prime Minister Prime Minister or Prime Minister of Australia Mr Morrison Contact: Prime Minister of Australia Lieutenant Governor Professor Brenda Wilson AM Dear Professor Wilson Professor Wilson Lieutenant Governor of South Australia Contact: Lieutenant Governor of South Australia Chief Justice The Honourable Chief Justice Chris Kourakis Dear Chief Justice Chief Justice Chief Justice of South Australia Contact: Chief Justice of South Australia Government Ministers The Honourable (Dr if required) (first name) (surname) MP or MLC Dear Minister Minister or Minister Minister for xxx (surname) Contact: State Cabinet Ministers If addressing a Minister in their electorate office Dear Minister Minister or Minister The Honourable (Dr if required) (first name) (surname) MP or
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise and Fall of the Labour League of Youth
    University of Huddersfield Repository Webb, Michelle The rise and fall of the Labour league of youth Original Citation Webb, Michelle (2007) The rise and fall of the Labour league of youth. Doctoral thesis, University of Huddersfield. This version is available at http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/761/ The University Repository is a digital collection of the research output of the University, available on Open Access. Copyright and Moral Rights for the items on this site are retained by the individual author and/or other copyright owners. Users may access full items free of charge; copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided: • The authors, title and full bibliographic details is credited in any copy; • A hyperlink and/or URL is included for the original metadata page; and • The content is not changed in any way. For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, please contact the Repository Team at: [email protected]. http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/ THE RISE AND FALL OF THE LABOUR LEAGUE OF YOUTH Michelle Webb A thesis submitted to the University of Huddersfield in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Huddersfield July 2007 The Rise and Fall of the Labour League of Youth Abstract This thesis charts the rise and fall of the Labour Party’s first and most enduring youth organisation, the Labour League of Youth.
    [Show full text]
  • Anthony Albanese Mp Leader of the Australian Labor Party Member for Grayndler Jim Chalmers Mp Shadow Treasurer Member for Rankin
    ANTHONY ALBANESE MP LEADER OF THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY MEMBER FOR GRAYNDLER JIM CHALMERS MP SHADOW TREASURER MEMBER FOR RANKIN BRENDAN O’CONNOR MP SHADOW MINISTER FOR EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRY SHADOW MINISTER FOR SCIENCE SHADOW MINISTER FOR SMALL AND FAMILY BUSINESS MEMBER FOR GORTON E&OE TRANSCRIPT DOORSTOP INTERVIEW PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA THURSDAY, 14 MAY 2020 SUBJECTS: ABS Labour Force data; unemployment/underemployment; bushfire crisis; people missing out on support from the Government during COVID-19; JobKeeper; Australia’s relationship with China; Queensland’s bid for an equity stake in Virgin. BRENDAN O’CONNOR, SHADOW MINISTER FOR EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRY: Well, thanks very much for coming. I just wanted to respond to the ABS figures today and just say a couple of things about the unemployment rate, underemployment rate, underutilisation rate of the labour market. What is clear is as a result of a number of factors, the labour market has contracted, and we have very, very high underemployment. And yes, unemployment has risen, and one of the reasons it hasn’t even been higher is that the participation rate has collapsed. A very low participation rate and a very, very high underutilisation rate. Almost 20 per cent, which is, of course, unprecedented. And the other thing to remember is this is a picture of the labour market of last month. This is a month ago when the surveys were conducted. So, this is not telling us the story of today, it is telling us the story of a month ago. And yet, these figures are quite frightening. And I think it does go to the question, it was always going to be the case that our nation would be challenged by this pandemic.
    [Show full text]
  • Dr. Robin T. Pettitt Is Senior Lecturer in Comparative Politics at Kingston University - London
    Dr. Robin T. Pettitt is Senior Lecturer in Comparative Politics at Kingston University - London. His main area of research is the internal life of political parties. 1 The ‘How’ of Election Manifestos in the British Labour Party: A source of ongoing controversy Introduction The organisational history of the British Labour Party is to a significant degree the story of an ongoing struggle over the ‘how’ of election manifestos, a struggle, somewhat ironically, partly driven by a broad based agreement over the ‘why’ of manifestos. British political parties and indeed British politics more widely, are programmatic – that is, based on the idea that election manifestos are a party’s plan for government. What is says in the manifesto is what the party will do in government, and anything less, or indeed more, becomes a source of criticism of that government. Because the manifesto is seen as a programme for government action, this also means that the answer to the ‘how’ takes on huge importance, because controlling the ‘how’ means controlling government action. In the Labour Party the answer to the ‘how’ question has been the source of a longstanding and often heated dispute. On the one hand there are those who believe that the party’s parliamentary leadership must control the ‘how’. The parliamentary party is responsible to the electorate and has to answer for their actions at election time. They should therefore have the main say in the policies they will have to defend at a general election. On the other hand, the parliamentary party is only there because of the work of the grassroots, who selected them as candidates, campaigned for them on the doorstep, and therefore have a right to influence what they do.
    [Show full text]
  • AISR 20202123 Sukeui Sohn.Hwp
    Asian International Studies Review Sukeui Vol. 21 Sohn No.2 (December 2020): 55-77 55 Received September 15, 2020 Revised December 4, 2020 Accepted December 11, 2020 Examining Opposition Realignment and Japan’s Rightward Shift in the 2017 General Election* Sukeui Sohn** The purpose of this study to examine the degree of ‘rightward shift’ among Japanese politicians as well as voters by analyzing the result of the 2017 general election, particularly focusing on the split of Democratic Party (minshintō) and the consequent realignment of opposition bloc between moderate conservatives, represented by Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (rikken minshutō), and hardline conservatives who joined newly-established Party of Hope (kibō no tō). Particularly, the district-level analysis of eighty-five districts reveal that the moderate-hardline alignment among voters appears to be solidified, and there seems low level of vote mobilities between the two blocs. Instead, the electoral results indicate that political parties are competing one another within its respective blocs. While the overall tendency of new voters to support new rightwing party may serve as one of indicators to elucidate Japan’s rightward shift, given the ambiguity of candidates’ positions on constitutional revisions as well as poor performance of PoH candidates against CDPJ, it is questionable whether such trend can be accounted for permanent or holistic shift to the rightist ideology. Keywords: Rightward Shift (ukeika), Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (CDPJ), Party of Hope, Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), The 2017 General Election, Opposition Realignment * This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2019S1A6A3A02102886).
    [Show full text]