Social Media: The New Efficient Secret?

            Donald Trump and Members of Congress like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have changed the way that American voters get information about politics, and as a consequence, changed the way the media reports on political proceedings. The United States, however, does not hold the monopoly on political change resulting from social media. Other countries have experienced dramatic change due to the rapid rise of social media as a primary news source.

            Writing about Victorian England, Cox quoted an English voter that,  “… would vote for a pig if the party put one up.” His argument centers around the idea that the rules and nature of parliamentary systems reduce the impact of individual Members of Parliament (MPs). This is due, in part, to the efficient secret – the phenomenon where the Cabinet serves both in an executive and legislative capacity. MPs toe party lines to ensure that when their party is elected they receive an elusive cabinet position. This concept of political systems, in Cox’s mind, exists to serve voters. At election time, voters are presented with a party platform detailing what each party plans to do while in office. The electorate votes for a local MP based on the platforms of their party. Once in office, the government generally focuses on executing promises from its campaign platform.

            This resigns individual MPs to mere cogs in the system of governance. The rise of social media has given individual Members of Parliament a voice outside of their whipped party line. MPs can post heated exchanges showing them standing up for their constituents in Question Period, or show their disagreement with the party during debates in the House of Commons (even if the member still votes on party lines), or advertise a newly tabled Private Member’s Bill that may never see the floor of Parliament. Social media can increase the accountability and connectivity of individual Members to their constituents and reduce the power of their party.

            To test this, I explored the relationship between social media posting, viewership, and media coverage of S031 statements from the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC). This is an excellent case study to explore this. An S031 is a statement made by a Member of Parliament following the daily Question Period. Allotment of S031s is split evenly among parties based on the number of seats each party represents in the House of Commons. Once each party receives its S031slots, the party divides these among individual Members, usually evenly between front and back benchers. Although the CPC typically allows its members to write their own S031s, sometimes the Opposition Leader’s Office steps in and requests (or writes entirely) that the Member deliver a statement on a particular issue. Canada has a parliamentary system modelled after the system in the United Kingdom, which makes it an excellent choice to test the merits of Cox’s theory outside the UK. The CPC is currently Canada’s official opposition which makes it an ideal case study; the official opposition receives the second highest allotment of S031s, and the opposition is less constrained by the Prime Ministers’ Office on the content of their statements. However, because the CPC is the official opposition it has a strong leadership team and shadow cabinet that mirrors the government’s cabinet.

            For the 2015-2016 Parliamentary session, I examined all of the S031s delivered by a Conservative Member of Parliament (353 statements) and determined if they were written by the individualMP or by the OLO based on whether they were partisan and policy focused or if they were non-partisan and constituency focused. Next, I looked at the Facebook page and YouTube channel of each MP to determine if the statement was posted and then calculated the S031s total number of viewers. Finally, I searched news sources to see if the S031 had received any media coverage.

Former CPC Leader Rona Ambrose Delivering a Statement in the House of Commons. Source: The Canadian Press

I tested the difference between OLO and MP written S031s based on posting, viewership, and news coverage. I found a statistically significant difference between the speeches that were written by  the OLO and those that were written by MPs. An MP written statement had an average viewership of 5,423.9 per statement, an OLO written statement had an average viewership of 10,920.7. This seems to prove Cox’s theory that voters are more concerned with the party than individual MPs. However, this could be due to other factors including the broader mass appeal of partisan S031s.

Other measures help explain the behavior of MPs in a partisan context; 84.47% of S031s that were posted to social media were written by the MPs themselves, and 88% of S031s that received news coverage were not written by the OLO.

These results pose several questions, especially regarding the ways that individual MPs feel about their parties and how MPs connect with constituents. These results could show a disconnect between the OLO and MPs, and they provide a case for MPs following the Cox model to focus more on seeking cabinet positions. These results could also show some dissonance between MPs and the central media in reporting material that is interesting to constituents.

Although this case study has some interesting implications, it also has some real limitations. First, it would be better if it was expanded to more years, political systems, and political parties. Additional controls for social media following would also be useful.  

Sources: 

https://www.ourcommons.ca/publicationsearch/en/

https://www.facebook.com/

https://www.youtube.com/ 

https://learningsuite.byu.edu/plugins/Upload/fileDownload.php?fileId=78e5a567-h5jc-Ykmi-qZSW-hzeeb92c28df

https://learningsuite.byu.edu/plugins/Upload/fileDownload.php?fileId=5b5947c5-KRbk-RwAE-TxjW-tH7e525c89c4

So What: Impeachment and Party Factional Splits

So What: Impeachment and Party Factional Splits



The impeachment proceedings which occurred over the past few months was not a common occurrence within the history of the United States. In fact, with the inclusion of President Trump, only three United States’ Presidents have formally been impeached by the United States House. With the increasing political polarization within the United States, it isn’t too surprising that evidence of polarization would appear among the votes for the impeachment of the President which is exemplified by all of the Republicans in the House that voted “no” for both articles of impeachment, and all but five Democrats voted “yes” for both articles of impeachment. These voting lines for the articles of impeachment clearly demonstrate the sorting of members within congress which is a product of political parties that exist to promote the collective goals and objectives of the party that is comprised of individuals who generally have the same ideological goals.


Nonetheless the concept of factional splits became a salient feature within Trump’s impeachment proceedings within the Senate. In the first Article of impeachment, Senator Mitt Romney stood alone in his vote to convict President Trump on Abuse of Power. Masket noted that social issues have caused rifts in the Republican party in between 2005 and 2010. He cited abortion related laws as a prevalent reason for why a fracture existed in the Republican party at this time. For Mitt Romney, the behavior of the President became the founding factor for his defection from the rest of his Republican colleagues in the vote of Article 1. While there is a great deal of disagreement over the motivations of his vote to convict the President on Abuses of Power, his action presents a relevant example for the significance of intraparty cleavages. Since Senator Romney’s historic vote, we are currently witnessing the implications of standing alone and voting in opposition to the other members of a political party and it’s likely that these observations would be seen within the Democratic party as well. 


The acknowledgment of factional splits should also be understood within the context of Party Cooperation. If members of a political party show signs of defection, the party coalition will be less inclined to involve them in matters that seek to advance the party’s agenda in fear of individual members undercutting it. In respect of Mitt Romney’s vote, we are currently seeing a mass condemnation directed at him by the President’s loyal followers which is not surprising given the emotional appeal that the President successfully advertised during his campaign which was a significant feature of his election success.  Regardless of Senator Romney’s 79.4% score which describes how often he votes in line with Trump’s policy positions, his impeachment vote had the most pervasive affect among members of the Republican party. The term “RINO” is often used on social media to describe Republican members of the House and the Senate as being Republican in name only and not in practice and given the impeachment proceedings of President Trump, many people on the right will understandably feel as though Senator Romney will continue to undercut Trump’s agenda. This relates to the overarching theme of how party cleavages and factions encourage a dramatic collapse in the party’s public perception.


When a factional split occurs within a party, we might expect to see a correction of sorts at the polls when senators like Mitt Romney are up for reelection. Senator Romney isn’t up for reelection until 2024 which is quite some time away and may perhaps benefit his reelection efforts during this year given the amount of time that will pass from now until then. There are many other variables that are also likely to play a role in Senator Romney’s reelection success in 2024. If the president is not reelected this year, then it’s unlikely that Mitt Romney’s vote to convict Trump on the first article of impeachment will be used against him during his reelection year. Nevertheless, factional splits within parties are usually addressed by threats of being primaried or being voted out of office, and when someone crosses the current President of the United States, Republicans are very unlikely to forget. Senator Romney’s vote was so impactful that “RecallRomney” trended for a while on Twitter which was a social media effort by Republicans to remove Mitt Romney from the Senate in retaliation for his vote to convict the President. While many users who participated in the growth of this trend may have been aware that sitting senators cannot be recalled, the likely motivation behind the trend was to voice their displeasure with his vote and to send a message to other Republican office holders should they refuse to fall in line with the party for votes that could be viewed as standing with or against the political party.

How to Succeed at Politics Without Really Trying: Mitt Romney Defies His Party, and Gets Away With It

After months of investigations, trials, and high political drama, the impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump are over. For better or worse, the President was acquitted of all charges brought against him by the House of Representatives.  The final votes to decide the fate of his administration were unsurprisingly partisan.  All Democrats voted to convict, while all Republicans voted to acquit. 

All Republicans except for one that is.  Mitt Romney, the freshman senator from Utah voted against the President. According to The Atlantic, He did so out of a sense of duty to uphold an oath to God to administer impartial justice through his vote.  The Senator has faced harsh criticism from his party after standing alone to defy its leader.

              
               Senator Romney Announcing His Intention to Vote to Convict
                          Photo Credit: USA Today

Senator Romney’s vote seems out of place when seen in the context of increasingly partisan American Politics.  Almost unanimously, Republicans have rallied around President Trump, and Democrats have condemned him with one voice.  The high stakes of the impeachment proceedings have only exasperated these trends.  So what lead Senator Romney to defy this trend by defying his party?

According to the Atlantic, the Senator cites his religious convictions.  These likely played a large role in shaping his sense of what the correct vote was, but other Republican senators espouse the same belief in justice and in duty to God as Senator Romney.  However, these Senators did not break party ranks and vote to convict the President.

Even some of our recent readings could be used to suggest that Senator Romney should have voted along with the president.  Bawn argues that parties are formed and influenced by a coalition of outside interest groups that strive to nominate those who have demonstrated loyalty to their interests and will vote the party line.  Masket shows how in most cases, strong partisan groups formed in the California Legislature, especially when strong interests played a role in nomination. With these arguments in mind, it seems Strang that Senator Romney would break with his party on something so important as a Presidential impeachment trial.

But Masket’s argument is also the key to why Senator Romney felt free to vote against the Republican Party. Masket also showed that when cross filing prevented interest groups from dominating the nomination process, party discipline in the legislature completely broke down.  Law makers preferred to vote moderately rather than as “partisan warriors.” Without pressure from the interest groups who got them their nominations, members of the legislature were free to act more in line with what they thought was best (perhaps what they believed personally but more likely, at least according to Masket, in a moderate way that helped them win reelection)

The situation surrounding Mitt Romney’s nomination to his current seat is more analogous with Masket’s account of cross filing. Like many of the politicians in Masket’s account, Senator Romney gained the Utah Republican Party’s nomination seat without the support of the establishment party.  According to the Washington Post, in June of 2018 the former presidential candidate, still hugely popular with the conservative Latter-Day Saint base of voters in Utah, was able to secure his nomination after losing a nomination vote at a Republican state convention.  Despite efforts by more radical members of the party establishment to control the nomination process, Mitt Romney was able to gain the support of his party.  This is similar to the way California legislature candidates were able to circumvent their party faction’s gatekeeping role.

Senator Romney may therefore feel less beholden to a group of more radically partisan state interests.  This could explain the difference in vote between Senator Romney and his fellow Utah Senator Mike Lee.  Both men are conservative Republican Latter-Day Saints with the same constituency.  But the difference in the way they came to power could explain the difference in how they voted.  Senator Lee may have felt the same conflict between party loyalty and duty to God but was not free to act without pressure from party interests the way Senator Romney was. Of course, this is not necessarily the case, Senator Lee may have felt that President Trump was indeed innocent. However, Lee’s similar religious convictions to Senator Romney suggest he may have experienced the same tug-a-war.

Because he was not beholden to special interests who had helped him gain power, Senator Romney was free to vote his mind in the impeachment proceedings of the President.  This suggests that efforts should be made to limit the ability of special interests to dominate legislative bodies, thus freeing congressmen and women to vote more in line with the truth, or at least more in line with their districts.

Atlantic Article: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/02/romney-impeach-trump/606127/

Washington Post Article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/live-updates/midterms/live-primary-election-results/mitt-romney-wins-senate-nomination-in-utah/?arc404=true

USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/02/06/mitt-romney-speech-senator-explains-vote-trump-impeachment-trial/4676921002/

Bawn Article:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/theory-of-political-parties-groups-policy-demands-and-nominations-in-american-politics/2F7996D5365C105C3B91CD56E6A1FAA3

Masket Article:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00263.x

In-Party Competition

               For the past several months, Democratic presidential candidates have been campaigning and participating in nationally televised debates in an effort to win the primary elections that are approaching. Although all of the candidates share some common ground, such as hating President Trump and despising his policies, they still differ in some key ways. Obviously, there is strong competition in between the Republican party and the Democratic party, but these debates provide evidence of in-party competition as well. This is a necessary component of parties because it allows the candidates to demonstrate who which of them is the strongest representative for the party. Through selecting the strongest candidate, a party increases their chances of winning the presidential election. This can be an ugly process, as we saw in the most recent Democratic presidential debate. Elizabeth Warren accused Bernie Sanders of saying that there is no way a woman could possibly win the 202 presidential election. In return, Sanders denied the accusation. After the debate, a hot mic caught the confrontation between Warren and Sanders in which Warren accused Sanders of calling her a liar on national TV. This was pretty astonishing to me. Not only are Warren and Sanders both members of the same party, but they are also the two most similarly leftist candidates in the running for the Democratic party. It was a bold move of Warren to initiate this confrontation with the candidate who is most similar to her. It is evidence though that politicians act completely out of self-interest when running for office.

            In the reading “Why Parties?”, Aldrich gives three reasons for why parties exist. I want to focus on the third reason, which is competition for office. Aldrich believes that this reason is representative of the rational choice theory because politicians seeking office are motivated out of self-interest to win elections. Parties facilitate this process by selecting the most competitive candidate to represent their party. It is a mutually beneficial process in which the politician benefits from the support of the party, and the party benefits from having their policy preferences represented and carried out by the politician who is elected to office. Aldrich compares this to the genius economic discovery by Adam Smith. Smith noted how individuals are always economically self-interested, and he discovered that the individual self-interest of the entire country is what led to the prosperity of the economy. Aldrich compared these self-interested members of society to self-interested politicians. Because politicians are self-interested, they seek to win elections. That is their ultimate goal. They realize that in order to this, they must represent the majority of the people in the policies that they support and propose because that is the only way for them to gain that majority’s vote. Without their votes, the politician has no hope of being elected. Thus, self-interest leads to a mutually beneficial relationship between politicians and their constituents.

            The campaigning efforts of the candidates and the Democratic presidential debates help me to better understand this aspect of politics. I used to wonder why presidential candidates who belonged to the same party would fight so ferociously with each other during debates when they are “playing for the same team.” It never made sense to me why they would bath-mouth each other in an effort to get ahead, such as we saw in the altercation between Warren and Sanders. It seemed to me that they should have been spending their time and effort on demeaning those in the opposing party, A.K.A. Donald Trump. What I did not consider, though, was the competitive aspect of elections. Even though candidates running for office are part of the same party, they are still competing with each other to be selected as the representative of the party. It is out of self-interest. The self-interest goes both ways, though. Not only do candidates try to outdo their opponents for their own benefit–to gain office–but the party itself votes on the candidate that most represents the policies and ideas that they support. Campaigning and debating are mutually beneficial practices for office-seeking politicians and also voting members of a political party. After the primaries, it will be interesting to see how the Democratic candidate changes his or her competitive approach. Instead of in-party competition, they will start competing with the other party’s candidate–Donald Trump. I cannot help but agree wholeheartedly with Aldrich when he compared this constant political competition to a capitalistic society. As long as there is competition, the country will thrive more than it would otherwise because politicians are constantly motivated to represent their party as much as possible so that they will be elected. As a result, parties have candidates who represent their interests more than they otherwise would without the element of competition.