holidays

Black Friday is just one of many major shopping days around the world. Between now and Christmas, for example, there is also in China and in India. With just a couple of weeks until Christmas carols flood stores and the major shopping season begins, have you prepared your business for the uptick in sales traffic? Have you considered what marketplaces other than Amazon are doing and how your business might be able to leverage them?

If the answer is no to either of those questions, you have a lot of work cut out for you. Mobile has taken center stage and shopping options have never been more diverse for consumers. That diversity has also translated into more selling outlets and challenging established players.

As a small business, how do you best prepare for the holiday season?

Export.

The Christmas shopping season sees huge demand everywhere in the world. For example, Black Friday is now one of the biggest shopping days in the U.K. and Europe. The post-Christmas sales see shoppers flock online from Boxing Day to New Year’s Day.

Amazon’s fulfillment services () and other international fulfillment businesses make it easier than ever to export your goods overseas. Time is running out but if you hurry, you can still give your products exposure to some of the biggest shopping markets in the world.

Related: 

Mobile.

You’ve heard it time and again, mobile is the future. Not surprisingly, mobile has become a powerhouse for ecommerce. It had a breakthrough year in 2015 and is to reach more than $120 billion in sales in 2016. That’s a 39 percent increase over last year. What does this mean for vendors this shopping season?

Without a mobile-optimized website or app, you run the risk of missing out on reaching these mobile gift givers. Mobile is a dominant shopping platform, a conduit between in-person and desktop shopping experiences and a simple way to continuously be in contact with consumers. Adopt responsive design to facilitate the user experience, and build out your omnichannel experience. If you use marketplaces, consider , which now has hundreds of millions of mobile shoppers.

Related: 

Make transactions intuitive.

The payment process is by far and large the most critical for vendors. The average cart abandonment rate is about 69 percent, . That’s a massive missed opportunity for engagement and revenue.

Avoid this pitfall by making payments on your site easy and simple. Also, keep in mind the level you are playing at. For instance, being a vendor in international marketplaces means possibly losing up to 4 percent in foreign exchange conversion charges when converting funds back to your local, preferred currency. With this in mind, ensure you are maximizing profits from global customers by leveraging a system that does not eat into your margins.

Related: 

Don’t overlook the up-and-comers.

You can’t put all your eggs in one basket, especially at the global level. The of the trillion dollar global online retail market is not generated by the likes of Amazon and eBay alone. So try new retail sites.

is the top ecommerce site in India. is the Amazon of Japan,  reigns supreme in China, while dominates in Latin America. And the U.S. market has seen disruption from new players like , which . Not to mention the role that apps are now taking.

, a communications app, is looking to transform its messaging app into a one-stop “smart portal” for Asian users. It’s looking to expand its ecosystem with acquisitions in mobile gaming, artificial intelligence, advertising and video streaming — Japanese users already spend at least five times more time using the app than Amazon. Other apps, like Tencent’s and , are also becoming integrated platforms that include features such as shopping and payment.This holiday season, it’s time to think bigger, broader and better. Like vendors adjusted to the shift from brick-and-mortar to the web, it’s time online vendors adapt to the latest developments in the ecommerce space. Selling to a global audience has never been easier. It’s time to take the right steps so as not to miss out on any possible opportunities.

In recent years, the U.S. retail industry has averaged more than three trillion dollars during the holiday season, which is . With more and more consumers turning to their desktops, laptops, tablets and mobile devices when it comes time for holiday shopping, it’s important that you are prepared for the influx of website traffic.

Not only do you want to make sure your website is ready for the spike in visitors, but you also want to deliver a pleasant user experience, which will help achieve a high conversion rate and strong holiday revenue. Here are a few tips that will help you get your website ready before the hectic holiday season.

1. Optimize your website’s load time.

It’s very simple – if your website load time is lagging your visitors will become annoyed, and they will click the back button and find another option. With a large percentage of website traffic coming from mobile devices these days – customers in a hurry — you want to make sure you immediately serve up the content they are seeking as soon as they click-through.

You can quickly assess your load time by running your website’s URL through as well as . While these will kick back an overall speed score, more importantly, it will provide you with suggestions to drastically improve your load time. If you aren’t tech-savvy, pass on the suggestions to your website developer.

2. Limit your risk of website down time.

It blows my mind when one of the companies I work with through my consulting agency has $5 monthly hosting and a million-dollar business. Cheap, shared-hosting can be potentially dangerous since you are sharing a server with hundreds of websites — a bad neighbor can cause down time.

While a can cost more than $200 a month, you have to weigh that cost against what being offline during the holiday rush could mean for your business. For some, but not all, the increased cost of a dedicated server is money well spent, considering how much holiday revenue would be lost if the website went down.

Related: 

3. Get your holiday coupon codes ready, and build your promotion strategy early.

The holiday season means special deals, as businesses try to out-do one another, and capture a larger percentage of that holiday revenue pie.

“We see an increase in store submissions months before the holidays, as everyone from retail giants to smaller local businesses are eager to get their holiday coupon codes on the Internet,” Davide Baù, CEO of , said.

Getting your coupon codes listed on major coupon directories is a great strategy, but you should also find ways to leverage their appeal to convert more of your traffic to complete a purchase before leaving your website. Consider using an exit-intent popup to present your abandoning traffic an offer. It could be an instant discount code, or something like free shipping, to entice them to stick around and complete a purchase.

For an example of how an exit-intent popup works, visit , surf around a bit, and then try to leave – you will be greeted by an exit popup that presents you with an offer to join our VIP newsletter.

Related: 

4. Ensure your visitors can easily contact you on all device types.

During the holidays, a much larger percentage of your visitors have buyer-intent, making it very important that you enable them to contact you quickly and effortlessly. Make sure that anyone visiting your website, regardless of what type of device they are using, can immediately locate a means to contact you.

Make your contact menu item impossible to miss, along with your phone number, and if applicable, your address. Live-chat is also a great contact option, as many people don’t like using their phones to talk – as ridiculous as that may sound. This option allows your visitors to get answer to questions without leaving your website, which often translates into more conversions and revenue.

Related:

5. Instill trust so your visitors are confident entering payment and billing information.

Many websites have been switching over to Hyper Text Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS), after Google announced that it was . There are that go beyond SEO, including providing a safe environment for the personal information of your visitors.

As consumers become more Internet savvy, they are beginning to look for HTTPS, or “the green bar,” as some refer to it. I believe it’s the complexity of switching over, rather than the cost (you can get an extended validation SSL certificate for less than $100), that keeps many websites from switching over. You can get , but most business owners will want to consult with their website developer to let them handle the switch.

The Rise and Decline of the Socialist Party in the United States Throughout American history, there have been an array of factions vying for votes in our democratic system of government. These organizations consist of leaders who believe in an idea and have developed ways to achieve that idea. The success of a political organization, or party, is based on how well leaders can convince people to follow them and join their ranks. Socialism as a political idea is based on cooperative ownership and redistribution of goods, services, and production. The Socialist Party of America was one faction whose roots are based in socialism.

Created in 1901, the SPA was formed by the combination of the Social Democratic Party of America, a short-lived movement, and the Social Labor Party, a working man’s party. This combination attracted new members, as well as members from the progressive and populist parties, which made up the majority of the SPA. The rise of the Socialist Party of America was fueled by the working mans desire for a utopian society. Campaign promises for public ownership of utilities, better sanitation, and a social security program, at local levels, led to the party’s highpoint in 1912.

These small successes were short lived. The American citizen’s sense of individualism and pride as well as a lack in acquiring news members and support set the wheels of failure in motion. The party’s staunch opposition to involvement in World War I and the expulsion of its members led to The Socialist Party’s final moment. Faction polarization within the party crippled a once unified front, and finally President Roosevelt’s “New Deal” legislation effectively silenced the American Socialist party. The lineage of the Socialist Party of America (SPA) can be traced back to the early 1850s.

The United States was a bustling nation full of opportunity. Endless new eginnings and freedoms appealed to European citizens who were looking for a better life. Seeking a better life, a boom in 1850 brought 1,713,000 immigrants through Ellis island, bringing along with them their philosophical ideas of socialisml . The failed German revolution of 1848 procured the emigration of Germans to America. Some of these immigrants were the intellectual leaders of the failed revolution, but most were impoverished Germans that lost confidence in their government to provide for them the basic necessities of life.

Along with Germans, Italians, Finns, Jews, Hungarians, Ukrainians, Bohemians and Russians came to America toting their socialist values2. Finns were particularly strong in their socialists ideas. Settling in the Midwest, former Finnish citizens imported a revolutionary perspective of socialism to Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan3. Into the 19th century, German immigrants settling in Midwestern cities such as Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Dayton, Ohio, and St. Louis, Missouri put fourth major inputs and provided body to the growth of socialism in the United States.

Immigrants to the United States were not the only ones seeking change. The philosophy ot socialism in the states was viewed witn no interest by American itizens. This has to do with the character of American culture and our views. American culture has maintained a faith in individualism, economic advancement, and equal opportunity in the marketplace4. In short, Americans put their faith in capitalism. But capitalism does not always deal everyone a fair hand and there are inconsistencies in the market. This led to formation of radical, third party socialist based movements in America’s traditional two party political spectrum.

These third parties were viewed as radical because during the 1850’s to the 1930’s there was an expression of deep distrust towards the expansion and ntervention of states by citizens concerning their private affairs5. Alternatives to socialism were made. The Progressive party’s programs of modest state intervention through federal legislative mandate to preserve individual rights, entrepreneurial values, and the fundamental capitalist structure, appealed to many Americans as a moderate alternative to socialism6. The Populist party was one other third party movement the dabbled in socialist ideas.

Running on a platform of government intervention to offset economic troubles and preventing poverty in farming and orking class families ultimately led to the majority of the party consisting of farming and working class families. Many Populists would leave to become socialists7. Out of these movements, a man named Eugene V. Debs would step forward to ignite and unite what would ultimately be known as the Socialist Party of America. Eugene “Gene” Victor Debs Was born in Terre Haute, Indiana on November 5th, 1855 and died October 20th, 1926 in Elmhurst, Illinois at the age of 70 years old.

Debs was one of the founding members of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), a founding member of the American Railway Union and a democrat in the Indiana General Assembly. Eugene Debs would leave behind a legacy as being the most well known Socialist in the United States8. In 1894, the American railroad car manufacturer Pullman Company reduced hours and wages but not rents on housing for their workers. This resulted in a strike by the employees who then had Joined Debs’s American Railway Union.

The strike was broken up by President Grover Cleveland and Debs was imprisoned for failing to oppose the strike as leader of the ARU9. In prison Debs passed time by reading work written by Karl Marx. Released in 1895, Debs had become a socialist who believed apitalism should be replaced by a new cooperative system. Debs was for advocated radical reform, but was opposed to the revolutionary violence supported by some well known left-wing political movements10. In 1897 Debs Joined Victor Berger to form the Social Democratic Party (SDP).

The SDP was a short lived socialist movement that ran Eugene Debs as a candidate in the 1900 presidential election. After receiving only . 6% of the votes, the Social Democratic party combined with the even smaller faction, the Socialist Labor Party of Americal 1 creating the Socialist Party of America SPA) in 1901. The newly created SPA attracted members with various ties to socialism. Between the years ot 1 1 to 1912, the party grew trom 1 members to under 1 The demographic locations of theses voters ranged from the East coast to the West coast with the majority of party members being in Midwestern states.

The SPA drew support from Progressives, Populist farmers across the heartland, unions and unionists with the most voting 2 strength coming from immigrants. 13 The socialist Journal Appeal to Reason14, a mixture of articles and extracts from radical socialism based authors such as Karl Marks and Tom Paine, was selling 500,000 copies a week. Thus giving a way to advertise their ideas and party platform. The strength of the SPA was determined by the people who used a vote to cast their voice. Local level victories dotted the map from East to West.

New York state and New Jersey were two states that had consistent SPA voters due to immigrants. The Midwest proved to be where the highest concentration of SPA members resided. Ohio, Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin were the strong holds made up of German immigrants and Populist farmers. SPA members running as candidates tried to appeal to the working man. Public ownership of utilities, better city sanitation services for the poor, better labor standards and a social security program elected 70 mayors into officel 5. SPA victories at the federal level were small.

Eugene Debs ran as a presidential candidate in every election between 1900 and 1912, and once in 1920. 1900’s election was dismal. Debs received only . 6% of the popular vote. In 1904 Debs Ran again and received an increase in votes, 402,810 3% of the popular vote. Voter turnout in the 1908 election was slightly higher, 420,793 votes for Debs. The election of 1912 showed the Socialist Party of Americas highpoint. There was 117,984 members of the SPA, and Eugene Debs got a total of 901 ,551 votes, 6% of the popular vote. This was the most impressive showing of any presidential candidate in any United States election. 6 At the outbreak of World War I in 1914, the SPA took a staunch opposition against the war. They were opposed to all international wars but not opposed to class warfare. This opposition to the war caused membership to decline and started conflict within the party itself. In 1919, The left Wing Section of the Socialist party emerged as a faction inside the Socialist Party of America. During an election to elect new board members of the SPA, it was seen that the Left Wing Section of the Socialist party was going to gain the majority of seats.

Those not in the faction decided against this and said that votes were cast in fraudulent manners. These votes were not tallied and the whole election was rejected. On the 24th of May, 1919 the leadership expelled 20,000 members who supported the Soviet government. The process continued and by the beginning of July two-thirds of the party had been suspended or expelled. These expelled members would soon Join together to for the Communist Party of America. The growth of radicals worried President Cleveland and his administration. America soon entered into the Red Scare.

On 7th November, 1919, the second anniversary of the Russian Revolution, over 10,000 suspected communists and anarchists were arrested in what became known as the Palmer Raids. No evidence a revolution was tound but many radicals were still kept in Jaill As a result ot these raids people were afraid to Join leftist radical parties out of fear of being called a communist, which could result in the deportation to Russia. 3 On October 20th 1926, Eugene Debs died and Norman Thomas replaced him as he leader of the Socialist Party of America.

Thomas ran as a presidential candidate in the election preceding his rise to leadership, but the SPA was weak. Thomas did not get as many votes as Debs due to socialist ideas creeping into President Franklin Roosevelt’s (FDR) agenda. In response to the great depression, FDR created his “New Deal” to ease burdens on families trying to cope. The 1st new deal, FDR’s First 100 days, created programs like the civilian conservation corps, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Agricultural Adjustment bureau. These programs dabbled in socialist ideals .

The Agricultural Adjustment bureau in particular appealed to Populist-SPA farmers because it was a form of entitlements that helped a struggling farmer. Roosevelt’s 2nd New Deal appealed most to SPA members. It called for a Social Security act, the creation ofa labor board and a Fair Labor Standard act. These policies answered what the Socialist Party of America had been trying to push. As a result Norman Thomas urged his supporters to vote Democrat and the Socialist Party of America was turned into no more then a doctrinal sect. The immigration boom in the late 1800s brought Socialism to the United States.

The formation of the Populist and Progressive parties as alternatives to socialism started a movement of Socialist political parties. After converting his views to socialism, Eugene Debs united these small factions into the Socialist Party of America. The party achieved victories among local politics in the states, Midwestern states being a reliable stronghold. After presidential runs by Eugene Debs from 1900 to 1912, the SPA’s highpoint came in 1912 with 117,984 members. Internal breakdown caused party members to turn on each other which resulted in member suspension.

As the holidays approach, retailers should be brushing up their stores, websites, apps and to make sure they are spick and p for shoppers. That’s because this year’s holiday sales are predicted to overtake last year’s — with a 3.6 to 4 percent sales growth, according to a new study by . The recently released “” report polled more than 1,500 U.S. consumers, highlighting and behavior, while also uncovering how smartphones are changing the physical retail industry.

Related: 

Ninety-one percent of respondents say they visit physical stores at least once a week, while only 49 percent say they shop online at least once a week. The experience of seeing and trying products, browsing stores and getting to have the product right away are of the top reasons consumers shop in-person. Waiting in lines, going to the actual store and having a limited selection are why some people resort to .

People are always trying to snag the best deals — especially during the holidays. Online shopping lets consumers discover the best deals, promotions and sales, and lets them join online rewards programs. So why don’t stores employ these methods? It’s a good question. Fifty-three percent of consumers say they would be more inclined to shop in-stores if retailers offered smartphone features that provided the best deals, sales and that they could use during shopping. Indeed, 83 percent of shoppers admit to using their smartphones in-store — meaning creating an in-store digital experience is a solid way to compete with the internet’s offerings.

Related: 

It should come as no surprise that retailers feel threatened by Amazon — the site that helps consumers find the best deals, offers price comparisons and provides free shipping for Prime members. To fight against the giant Amazon, retailers should join the conversation, especially through social media. Although the majority of people discover new products through (47 percent), many turn to Facebook (37 percent). So if you haven’t already, make sure your shop’s Facebook page looks impeccable this holiday season — and you are engaged.

Parties matter in part because they influence the actions of elected officials. But scholars also note that lawmakers from the same party may not vote together. Party cohesion has varied over time – sometimes party members stick together on many key votes, at other times they are no more likely to vote with fellow party members than with the opposition. Parties have various means at their disposal to encourage members to cooperate in achieving a party program. Sometimes these tools are sufficiently compelling that individual members may back the party program at the expense of their constituents’ interest.

However the case is quite different in European Parliamentary systems of government where party cohesion is essential for the implementing of government policies that the party in power wishes to impose. Although party cohesion in American government has risen because of intraparty heterogeneity and the realignment of the South (Hetherington and Larson), the party discipline and unity is not nearly as cohesive as those found in Parliamentary systems. This is in large part due to the fact that the tools of the party leaders in each system are different.

In Parliamentary systems, because the risk of not voting in terms of party could lead to the collapse of the present regime and government system, party leaders tend to have more effective tools at their disposal to use in encouraging party cohesion/discipline. Party discipline or cohesion is the ability of a political party to get its members to support the policies of their party leadership. Party discipline is essential for all systems of government that allow parties to hold political power because it determines the degree to which the governmental organization will be affected by the political processes.

Party cohesion is closely related to party discipline (Aldrich). Distinctly, however, it is essentially “coordinated” behavior reflecting the interacting incentives of individual legislators, whereas party discipline is the outcome of a strategic game played within , in which legislators who are party members respond to rewards and punishments determined by some internal party decision-making regime. In political systems other than American presidential democratic system, straying from the party lines can result in the fine and/or expulsion of members such as in the People’s Republic of China (Aldrich).

Party discipline tends to be extremely strong in Parliamentary systems such as in European countries in which a vote by the legislature against their party is understood to cause the governmental “collapse” of the present regime (Huber). In these situations, it is extremely rare for a member to vote against the wishes of their party. Party leaders in such governments often have the authority to expel members of the party who violate the party line.

Weak party discipline is usually more frequent in congressional systems such as the United States Congress where power within in the party is more democratic than the authoritarian system seen in parliamentary governments, with leaders dictating order to the members to follow suit. In these American legislatures, it is routine for members to cross party lines on a given vote, typically following the interests of their region (constituents) or following other members of a borderline group within their party.

In America the risk is not that high, with party disagreement just results in the upsetting of the party elites without true damaging costs except for the withdrawal of their support. Party cohesion and party discipline are very distinctive under parliamentary government, where a lack of cohesion and/or indiscipline among parliamentarians belonging to government parties may jeopardize the very existence of the government. Certainly from the perspective of making and breaking governments, levels of party discipline are very high in European parliamentary democracies.

There are very few examples indeed of parties that have been “half-in, half-out” of government, in the sense that legislators from the same government party have voted in different ways on key legislative motions of confidence and/or investiture. In this sense parties do go into and come out of government in a unified manner. In the American democracy, this just isn’t the case. Politicians have more allegiance to their regions and constituents than to their party. Because of the way the nomination system works. Party nominations no longer rest in the hands of party elites but in those of the public.

Thus it’s better for one’s political career to appeal to the public and not to party. According to other scholars enhance this opinion by adding “the main influence of party discipline is not on the votes on specific roll calls but on the choice ideologically of the party” (McCarty, Poole and Rosenthal). This suggests that members will vote in line with their ideals rather than their leadership. To come to this conclusion they observed changing patterns of roll call voting among party-switchers and inferred that legislators appear o coordinate on roll calls because they change policy preferences to reflect those of their parties. Thus the question becomes, why do members of political parties even bother to behave in cohesive manners? Political scientists and elites have attributed this behavior to a trinity of solutions. Electoral incentives for legislators that arise from the value of a party label, strategic incentives within the legislature that reward legislators who behave in a coordinated fashion, and the ability of party leaders to implement a system of rewards and punishments are all attributed reasons (Hix and Simon).

Political scientists argue that electoral incentives might generate emergent party cohesion. By creating a type or brand that politicos can blanket themselves under in order for voters to infer information about candidates in elections. Recognized legislators join political parties to signal policy positions to voters, doing this so long as it increases their chances of election or re-election. Voters make inferences about candidates’ policy preferences only by observing their party membership.

Identifying candidates with their party and ignoring what candidates might actually say about their own policy preferences. Candidates in these models do have underlying policy preferences and thus prefer to join parties comprising like-minded colleagues (Krehbiel). This is because the party policy positions that are part of the brand with which each member is associated are influenced by the positions of all party members.

In this system it benefits a candidate to vote along party lines in order to be associated with a specific regime policies, outcomes, and therefore successes. Party membership involves costs that arise from this incentive. There are costs arising from associating with a party label indicating a unique policy position that differs from the ideal point of the member – and of being associated with a party that will actually implement this position if it is in a position to do so(Snyder and Ting).

Since the primary focus of this type of work is on the electoral phase of the political game, and despite occasional references to “party discipline”, this approach involves no explicit model of intraparty politics– except for the assumption that the party policy platform is chosen by either a dictatorial leader or simple majority voting by party members (Snyder and Ting). In addition, this incentive assumes that politicians are allowed to join, and to remain within, any party they choose. The only “filter” on party entry in such odels is party policy itself which, combined with the deadweight costs of party membership, discourages legislators with very divergent policy positions from joining the party (Snyder and Ting 2002: 95) This means that the underlying process being modeled is a type of sorting or the partitioning of voters between parties, but the logical engine of this model could also be applied to explain the sorting of politicians between parties on the assumptions that party positions are some function of the positions of party members and that politicians want to affiliate to the party with the closest position.

While this large body of work gives us useful intuitions about electoral incentives for legislators to affiliate to parties, the main lesson is that electoral incentives may well make a party label a valuable commodity. Thus, if a party’s decision-making regime can intensely threaten to withdraw the party label from party legislators if they fail to abide by party decisions about legislative behavior, then this will make those decisions easier to enforce.

On this perspective, party discipline is about legislators responding to explicit or implicit threats by party leaders to impose electoral costs by withdrawing the party label, by casting votes in otherwise costly compliance with party policy. The resources party leaders in both parliamentary and US federal government and parliamentary government context can deploy to structure the incentives of legislatures in a way that ensures party discipline include control over electorally valuable party labels (party identity) and control over sought-after perquisites in the legislature.

However, this incentive structure has an important new dimension under parliamentary government, arising from the fact that the legislature typically functions as a recruitment pool for the executive, and political ambition of its members are at the forefront. In Parliamentary governmental system, party leaders have the tools at their disposal to make or break candidates if they dissent, because the stakes are so high. If government parties cannot maintain firm party discipline, then they cannot retain a secure hold upon office.

When legislative parties do move into government, control over the allocation of important government jobs, whether these are cabinet or junior ministries or other key patronage appointments, typically rests in the hands of a very small number of senior party politicians, who can and do use these offices to reward loyal party members and who can and do punish mavericks by denying them the rewards of office. However, in American politics party leaders do not have the authority to simply dismiss a candidate.

They may only throw their endorsement or support candidates with funds and become “king makers”. It is unrealistic to think that Nancy Pelosi can tell a conservative democrat to go away. She can allow withhold resources (money and her name recognition support). But this won’t be enough if the candidates’ constituents carry him through to victory. Legislative incentives also coexist which derives from improved expectations in relation to a range of legislative payoffs that accrue to legislators who belong to larger rather than smaller cartels or coalitions of legislators.

A large part of the relevant literature has been concerned with the role of party in the US Congress, and how the main concern of those elected is to pass legislature and having a single legislative party commands a majority position. The main legislative resource is the ability to capture a majority coalition of legislators. This is achieved by controlling the allocation between legislators of agenda setting legislative offices, such as committee chairs.

On this argument, the power to make such allocations is delegated by party members to the party hierarchy, which can use this power to enhance party discipline, which in turn feeds back to enhance the value of the party label in the electoral game. This is important because the legislature is the main political arena in which legislators seek to fulfill their objectives, policy and otherwise. US parties impose discipline on their members by manipulating scarce agenda-control resources is in contrast an alternative influential argument, ( Krehbiel (1993, 1998).

This holds that what looks like legislative party discipline is an essentially emergent phenomenon. US legislators choose which party to affiliate to on the basis of their intrinsic policy preferences – in effect joining a party of like-minded individuals and then quite voluntarily behaving in the same way as these on the floor of the House without the need for any “externally” imposed party effect. Legislators are voting the same way because they like the same policies, or because they are responding to the same non-policy incentive structure put in place by the party hierarchy.

There are two roll calls put in place to ensure this outcome (Snyder and Groseclose). On one hand there are “lop sided” roll calls. In which first, legislators will treat these as a forgone conclusion and, second, that party leaders will see them as offering no rationale for the (by assumption costly) deployment of party discipline. On the other hand there are “close” roll calls, for which coordinated legislator behavior makes the difference between winning and losing. There is strong evidence suggesting that the “party effect” is much higher for close than for lop-sided roll calls.

They infer from this that US parties can and do influence the behavior of their legislative members when this makes a real difference, and do not attempt to do so when it does not. Cohesion seems to be closest when the party leadership has publicly identified as a priority, and find much more of a party effect on these than on issues that are not party priorities. Party cohesion in parliamentary government is important to the proper function of government because it essentially in lamest terms “makes or breaks government”.

Under the constitutional regime of parliamentary government, that is pervasive in Europe, almost certainly the most important role for the legislature arises from the fact that the executive gains and retains office as long as it maintains the confidence of the legislature. This requirement is constitutionally manifested in the parliamentary vote of confidence/no confidence in the government (Huber 1996; Lijphart 1992, 1999). The executive under parliamentary government, furthermore, the “cabinet” of ministers bound together under the constitutionally embedded rule of collective cabinet responsibility.

The stability and effectiveness of the government thus depends upon the ability of government parties to maintain disciplined behavior by party legislators. Effective party discipline means that a government is not defeated – either on votes of confidence/no confidence or on key pieces of legislation – because some legislators who belong to government parties vote against the government. Thus, while the vote of no confidence is the constitutional foundation of parliamentary government, the behavioral foundation can be seen as party discipline.

If the government parties maintain firm discipline on the part of their legislators, and if they control sufficient legislative support to take office in the first place, then they can maintain themselves in office, with firm control over the entire political process and facing few legislative impediments to the implementation of their policy and other objectives. Conversely, if government parties cannot maintain firm party discipline, then they cannot retain a secure hold upon office. The key point in all of his concerns the huge incentive in a parliamentary government system for senior party politicians – who themselves will often be members of the government – to maintain firm discipline over the members of their party. What is so striking about incentives for party cohesion and discipline under parliamentary government, as opposed to presidential government, is that these incentives cast the role of party leaders in a completely new light. “Party leaders” tend to play explicit and implicit roles. Party leaders tend to be seen as managers who essentially offer coordination and enforcement services to party members.

As agents of their party, such party leaders have incentives to shirk. Imposing party discipline, by whatever means, is thus the fulfillment of obligation The reason such models of party discipline can look bizarre and unrealistic in the context of parliamentary government is that an “agency/expensive-discipline” model of party leadership (Cox McCubbins) seems implausible in a constitutional environment where party leaders are senior politicians who are the key players in a series of interlocking at the essence of the political process.

Not only do party leaders make the really key decisions – about making and breaking governments, elections, but they also enjoy the benefits of office when this is achieved – whether these are perquisites such as the hefty check, the government jet, or the ministerial Mercedes, or opportunities to shift policy outputs in preferred directions as a result of controlling vetoes and agendas. In a nutshell, maintaining tight party discipline is highly incentive compatible for party leaders under parliamentary democracy.

Indeed it is difficult to think of reasons why party leaders in a parliamentary government system would not want to maintain tight party discipline. Except in the matter of a voting on a highly divisive, sensitive, and cross-cutting issue, such as gay marriage or stem cell research for which it is against party interests to be identified with a single unambiguous position – then a legislative “free vote” can be declared on the matter and legislators can be allowed to vote with their “consciences”. But the orderly ability to switch free votes on and off is an indicator of firm party control over the behavior of party legislators (Aldrich).

Parties are institutions in their own right. They are endogenous institutions, but parliamentary governmental parties are more deeply embedded into the constitutional rules of the political game of parliamentary government than a mere behavioral coalition of legislators. They are “political clubs” with their own set of rules to abide by. They are guided by their own system of rewards and punishment. In parliamentary government, membership of the party is completely dependent on the party label and the incentive of legislatives to be associated with the party brand or label. Cohesion and coordinated voting produce this benefit.

In which individual members have an incentive to take part in coordinated behavior if they can get away with doing so. As mentioned before, if members choose not to act in this fashion, they can be exiled from the party and thereby denied access to the party label. Acting in accordance to party can result in the placement of one’s name on the party ballot. Parties have the right to endorse particular candidates as official party candidates. Under the list-Proportional Representation electoral systems that are very common in parliamentary democracies, parties absolutely control access to and candidate placement on the party list.

Therefore, parties in parliamentary democracies directly control access to the party label on the ballot. If denied this, a putative candidate must be admitted to and endorsed by another party, or must form a new party, or must run as an independent. In addition, access to legislative perquisites, whether these are physical office accommodation, speaking time on the floor of the house (perhaps to impress constituents at the next election), or paid positions with access to considerable resources, such as committee chairs.

There are thus plenty of opportunities for party hierarchs to reward and punish individual legislative party members as they go about their daily lives. No doubt in the U. S. A. the movement towards the establishment of a disciplined and responsible party system is largely confined to the academic world. In the presidential system in US government rewards and punishment do indeed exist but not on the same level as in the parliamentary government (Cox and McCubbins). Party elites cannot simply cast away political hopefuls directly due to the constitution and the format of the political system.

Power is not solely in the hands of elites, but the major American parties, national and state, are not based on mass memberships. “Only here and there in the United States are attempts made to fix a large-scale party membership on a regular dues-paying basis and thus to correspond to the European parliamentary scale (Jackson Moselle). ” Party cohesion is absent even among the party workers and all the discipline that exists among party organizers before elections ceases to exist after elections. The problem stems from American attitudes about party.

Most Americans identify themselves with a particular party but do not feel that they are obliged thereby to work actively for that party’s nominees (Laver). Anyone can legally qualify himself as a party member just by going through some registration procedure. Unlike the parliamentary system where you must pledge party allegiance before even having one’s name considered on the ballot. No state demands work on behalf of a party’s candidates or contributions to its campaign funds as prerequisites for becoming a legal party member (Giannetti and Laver).

Structure of the American party has impact on party cohesion. The party structure in America consists of “a hierarchy of permanent party committees from precinct to national committee”. The National Committee which stands at the apex is made up of one man and one woman from each of the states picked by some kind of machinery within its State organization. The seemingly hierarchical structure does not produce party cohesion for power is decentralized and each unit is independent and needs not approval form the others.

For example, the Chairman of the County Committee does not depend for his post on the State Committee and the latter hardly depends for its tenure or powers on the National Committee. To add to decentralization of power is the absence of uniformity in structure. The most striking feature in the party organization in the U. S. A. is that it is regulated by State laws while in all other democracies party structure is determined by the party itself. Diversity in State laws regarding party organizations naturally does not give scope for political discipline for the parties in America.

In addition, primaries took the power of selection away from a band of leaders and activists and placed in by law in the hands of the voters. Unlike in Parliamentary systems where the local party organization selects the candidates, the national party organization is finally obeyed. V. O. Key express the view that “by the adoption of the direct primary the organization was stripped of its most important function, that of nomination”. Every political party has two divisions, the organizational and legislative, and party discipline is as essential in the latter as in the former.

If party cohesion is judged on the basis of the roll-call vote and the frequency with which members of a party differ among themselves, the index of cohesion in U. S. A. may be said to be very low. “The relatively low cohesion among Republican and among Democratic Congressmen” is mainly due to the non- parliamentary system of Government. The Congressman in U. S. A. need have no fear that division in the ranks of the party will lead to the dissolution of the legislature unlike in the Parliamentary system. So the significant feature with the roll-call vote in the American Congress is the absence of party cohesion.

Each of the two parties is divided into several factions and the factions in the two parties join or oppose one another irrespective of party labels, depending on the issue put for voting (Krehbiel). The decentralized structure of the parties makes a member depend for his success in elections more on his constituency than on his party. However, party cohesion in American government is not nonexistent, even though it is not as strong as those under the parliamentary democracies system. Each party selects a floor leader, whips and a Caucus Chairman creating a somewhat centralized structure that in practice increase party cohesion.

Commonly, the party groups cohere more tightly on some party dividing issues than on others. For example 4,658 members of the House in 11 selected modern sessions only 181 or less than 41 per cent voted with the opposing party more often than with their own. The proportion was slightly higher in the Senate. Out of 847 senators in 9 sessions, 63 percent secured their parties on a majority of the votes. (Jackson and Moselle)” For there is a tendency for most Republicans to be in voting opposition to most Democrats on controversial issues, showing strong party discipline.

Indeed, American party cohesion is on the up rise. Realignment of the South played a role as the South has consistently voted conservatively since the Nixon years (Hetherington and Larson). Another key piece is the ideological differences among the two major parties (Democrats and Republicans) are greater today than they have been in years pass. Scholars have noted that the more ideologically extreme, the higher the cohesion. As parties have more interparty heterogeneity, each party has developed more intraparty homogeneity, which has given rise to roll-call voting (Hetherington and Larson).

Strong party leaders also play a role in this phenomenon. Members in each party endow their respective party leaders with powers to advance the policy agenda. Ideological unity in the 1970s with House Democrats, cause them to place the Rules Committee under the control of party leaders. Thus giving the house Democratic Caucus more power to oust wayward committee chairs who stood in the progress of the party’s initiatives. Demonstrating, American parties have been adjusting to their weak party model, and adapting in a way to influence party cohesive as exhibited so strongly in the American government.

It is the clear consensus that Parliamentary government is indeed stronger in party discipline and cohesiveness than its American presidential system counterparts. The main reason for this phenomenon rests in the power of the political elites in each party system and the tools the system provides for their disposal-party label, patronage, etc.. In American politics, elites can only indirectly influence party-line voting as granted to the present political system. However, in parliamentary government, elites directly have the authority to dismiss or elevate the position of their members, thus encouraging party cohesion.

Bibliography Aldrich, John H. 1995. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cox,Gary, and Mathew McCubbins 1993. Legislative Leviathan. Berkeley: University of California Press. Cox, Gary, and Mathew McCubbins. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the US House of Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming. Gallagher, Michael, Michael Laver and Peter Mair. 2005. Representative Government in Modern Giannetti, Daniela and Michael Laver. 2005. Policy positions and jobs in the government.

European Journal of Political Research. 44: 1-30. Hetherington and Larson. Parties, Politics, and Public Policy in America. 11th edition. 2009 Hix, Simon. 2001. Legislative behaviour and party competition in the European Parliament: an application of Nominate to the EU. Journal of Common Market Studies 39:4 (November 2001), 663-688 Huber, John. 1996. Rationalizing parliament: legislative institutions and party politics in France. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jackson, Matthew O. and Boaz Moselle. 2002. Coalition and Party Formation in a Legislative Voting Game Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 103, No. 1, pp 49-87.

Kollman, Ken, John Miller and Scott Page. 1992. Adaptive parties in spatial elections. American Krehbiel, Keith. 1993. “Where’s the Party? ” British Journal of Political Science 23 (1): 235–6 Political Science Review. 86 (December) 929-937. Laver, Michael. 2005. Policy and the dynamics of political competition. American Political Science Review, forthcoming. Snyder, James M. , Jr. , and Tim Groseclose. 2001. “Estimating Party Influence on Roll Call Voting: Regression Coefficients versus Classification Success ” American Political Science Review. Vol. 95, No. 3, 689-698 V. O. Key: Politics, Parties and Pressure Groups. p. 12.

Divya Reddy Pidaparti Composition I Novemeber 19, 2012 Mayra Garcia Diwali: Festival Of Lights (Extra Credit) The event I attended was the celebration of Diwali Festival sponsored by the Indian Student Association of Texas A&M University Corpus Christi. This event was held on Thursday, November 15 from 2:30-5:30 P. M. First the event started off with a speech by Divya Pidaparti talking about what Diwali is. Diwali is much more than sweets, lights and fireworks. It’s good over evil and light over darkness. Diwali is one of the most significant festivals in India.

Indians celebrate Diwali with family gatherings, glittering clay lamps, festive fireworks, flowers, sweets and worship to Goddess Lakshmi. Some belive that Lakshmi wanders the Earth looking for homes where she will be welcomed. People often their doors and windows and light lamps to invite Lakshmi in. The speech was followed by a prayer song called “Gananayaka” by Ravitej Kondepudy. Gananayaka is a song dedicated to Lord Ganesh. After that 4 girls (Pavithra, Haritha, Pratyusha and Varsha) danced to a song called Vande Maataram.

Vande Maataram is the nation anthem of India. This song praises India and its beauty. Followed by the song was a dance by Ravi and the 4 girls to the song called Desham Manade. It literally means “our country” in Telugu. It is a portrayal of unity in diversity. Dr. Bala is one of the faculty members of Texas A&M University Corpus Christi. His daughter, Adithi performed a dance called Bharathanatyam. It is a classical dance of India. Then the event almost came to an end by a sensational medley by Sandeep, Bharath, Ravi, Pratyusha, Pavithra, Haritha and Varsha.

The sensational medley was composed of four different songs- Barso Re, Dethadhi Dethadhi, Gaajulu ghallu mannave and Naka Muka. Barso Re is a country style dance. Dethadi Dethadi is a folk-style courtship dance. Gaajulu Ghallu Mannave is a song of bangles and finally Naka Muka is street dancing. After all the events concluded, president of ISA Naga Sandeep said thanks to everyone who attended the event and made it a blast. The stage was left open as a dance floor. Everyone went up there and danced. People danced, ate amazing indian food and had fun with family and friends. It was for everyone.

Valentines” redirects here. For the German/Italian wine grape also known as Valentines, see Valentines (grape). Saint Valentine’s Day Antique Valentine’s card Also calledValentine’s Day Observed byPeople in many countries; Anglican Communion (see calendar), Lutheran Church (see calendar) TypeCultural, Christian, commercial SignificanceFeast day of Saint Valentine; the celebration of Love and affection DateFebruary 14 (in most countries, see text) ObservancesSending greeting cards and gifts, dating Saint Valentine’s Day, often simply Valentine’s Day,[1][2][3] is observed on February 14 each year.

Today Valentine’s Day is celebrated in many countries around the world, mostly in the West, although it remains a working day in all of them. The original “St. Valentine” was a liturgical celebration of one or more early Christian saints named Valentinus. Modern romantic connotations were added several centuries later by poets. Several martyrdom stories were invented for the various Valentines that belonged to February 14, and added to later martyrologies. [4] Today, Saint Valentine’s Day is an official feast day in the Anglican Communion,[5] as well as in the Lutheran Church. 6] The day first became associated with romantic love in the circle of Geoffrey Chaucer in the High Middle Ages, when the tradition of courtly love flourished. By the 15th century, it had evolved into an occasion in which lovers expressed their love for each other by presenting flowers, offering confectionery, and sending greeting cards (known as “valentines”). [1][3] Modern Valentine’s Day symbols include the heart-shaped outline, doves, and the figure of the winged Cupid. Since the 19th century, handwritten valentines have given way to mass-produced greeting cards. [7]