Filtering by
- All Subjects: Latin America
- All Subjects: Elections
- Creators: Hinojosa, Magda
- Creators: García Fernández, Carlos J
I use quantitative and qualitative data to comparatively assess the use of reserved seats for integrating minority identity to the deliberative process and measuring empowerment impacts for minority-majority municipalities. This data includes an original dataset of electoral outcomes across seven cycles (1990-2010) and transcripts of congressional plenaries spanning three legislative periods (2002-2014). I take into account constituency dynamics identifying the concentration and geographical sources of votes in minority districts. These outcomes translate to expectations of representative behavior, hinging on the theoretical belief that constituency dynamics act as signals of legislator accountability to minority constituents.
This dissertation is located at the intersection of the comparative politics literature on minority quotas and representation, on one hand, and ethno-racial minority politics in Latin America, on the other. I find that ongoing electoral reforms have impacted constituency outcomes in post-reform cycles. More importantly, I observe that reserved representatives from both groups have integrated identity into deliberative processes often, but that only in the case of indigenous representation has the use of identity in plenaries been responsive to constituency variables. In addition, empowerment effects are identified in indigenous-majority communities that have strong linkages to minority districts, while the same empowerment cannot be conclusively identified in Afro-majority communities.
In the 19th and 20th centuries, many Latin American intellectuals began to question why their countries had failed to modernize and produce the type of economic prosperity and democratic societies that they desired. Influenced by the scientific theories of their time, many of the explanations offered by these intellectuals centered on a single issue—race. Yet scientific and historical definitions regarding “race” have varied greatly ranging from a conceptualization of race as a cultural to a biological construct. This same time period also saw the emergence of two new literary genres which addressed “racial” conflict in their own right—indigenismo and neo-indigenismo. In the last thirty years, postmodernist and postcolonialist readings of these texts have tended to articulate these interethnic conflicts in highly racialized terms which diminish the importance of any cultural differentiation that may exist (i.e. attitudes, aptitudes, norms, religions, expectations) while simultaneously augmenting perceived racial discord between groups—even where racial difference barely exists.
This dissertation is an analysis of Pueblo enfermo (1909) and Raza de bronce (1919) by Alcides Arguedas, as well as Sociología guatemalteca: el problema social del indio (1923) and Hombres de maíz (1949) by Miguel Ángel Asturias. By taking an interdisciplinary approach and drawing on texts from history, anthropology, economics and literature I challenge many of the commonly held notions regarding the issues of race in these texts. I argue that, despite tinges of what social scientists have termed “scientific racism” that these works should be interpreted as criticisms of what the authors understood as cultural problems and deficiencies within their societies. Additionally, I argue that this highly politicized cultural criticism of their countries by Arguedas and Asturias was meant to challenge the mestizo and Ladino hegemony of their times as a means of making their countries more democratic, and that the strident postmodernist and would-be postcolonial readings reveal actually hidden anachronistic and ahistorical bias of their authors.
The right to cast a meaningful vote, equal in value to other votes, is a fundamental tenet US elections. Despite the 1964 Supreme Court decision formally establishing the one person, one vote principle as a legal requirement of elections, our democracy consistently falls short of it. With mechanisms including the winner-take-all format in the Electoral College, disproportioned geographic allocation of senators, extreme partisan gerrymandering in the House of Representatives, and first-past-the-post elections, many voters experience severe vote dilution. <br/><br/>In order to legitimize our democratic structures, American elections should be reformed so every person’s vote has equal weight, ensuring that the election outcomes reflect the will of the people. Altering the current election structure to include more proportional structures including rank choice voting and population-based representation, will result in a democracy more compatible with the one person, one vote principle.