3 hours writing, 1 hour researching, page count = 179
Continued with the reconstruction of Chapter 1. It went well today; I got through a section on explanations of La Violencia, and another on the definition of security forces. The use of literature definitely feels more organic. I'm starting to see more clearly the path from here to there, from disparate elements to a coherent whole.
In terms of research, I did a sidebar looking at party volatility in the 19th century, namely, the level of consistency in vote share for parties across elections. I'm not sure what to make of it, but there appears to be less evidence of two-party competition as far as presidential elections in the 19th century than I had expected. Nonetheless, the two historical parties, Liberals and Conservatives had relatively organized groups of partisans at a relatively early date. Worth pondering further.
Thanks to this week's monitor Diana Kapiszewski. Up next is Nicole Peterson, in Seattle. Have a great weekend!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The 2 party system has been stable since the 19th century? Isn't that interesting? And have the 2 morphed at all? Would a "conservative" from 1870 recoginze the rhetoric of a "conservative" from 2007?
I'm disturbed by our 2-party lock, wishing for more choices...
To follow up on Rebecca's comment, Uru has had a pretty stable 2-party system over time as well, no? (Pretty fractionalized parties, pero bueno.) It's cool to think about how a number of aspects of party systems vary, and how they combine in different party systems (for instance, stability, structure, fractionalization, location of the parties on the political spectrum, and how much parties actually organize politics at both the national and sub-national levels). Muy interesante, esp. in your countries. Do the different combinations of characteristics matter to your story?
Great week, my friend!! HLVS!!
Post a Comment