Description
QUESTION 1: Electoral Violence need read those essay and write 1000 words
Horowitz and Lijphart agree that, in order to reduce violence in ethnically divided societies,choosing the right electoral institutions is critical. They both see first-past-the-post (FPTP) plurality rulesas dangerous. However, they disagree strongly about which alternative electoral institution would mosteffectively reduce the risk of inter-ethnic violence.
(a) Read the two articles summarizing the Horowitz-Lijphart debate about which electoral institutionswould best minimize conflict in the aftermath of apartheid in South Africa:
i. The Horowitz (1991) reading describes some of the differences between FPTP plurality, propor-tional representation (PR), and alternative voting (AV). He makes the case for AV.
ii. The Lijphart (1991) reading summarizes and criticizes Horowitz proposals. He promotes PR.
(b) The Brass (2013) chapter describes the city of Aligarh in Uttar Pradesh, India.
i. In 1991, 45% of the city identified as Hindu, 37% as Muslim, and 17% as Scheduled Caste (mostlysocially disadvantaged Hindus).
ii. Three patterns of political competition have emerged there: Hindu-Muslim polarization (Hindus+ Scheduled Castes vs. Muslims), Muslim-Scheduled Caste combination (Muslims + ScheduledCastes vs. Hindus), and three-way division of the vote (Hindus vs. Muslims vs. Scheduled Castes).
(c) Imagine that Aligarh has ten seats that are up for grabs via FPTP (winner takes all), PR (closed list),or AV (with three preferences).Drawing on the Horowitz-Lijphart debate and evidence fromthe Brass article, explain:
i. How the FPTP system in India could give rise to these three patterns of political competition.
ii. How implementing PR or AV (choose one) would change the risk of inter-group violence.