Organizing the Election Process Facilitating Voter Choice Recruiting & Aiding Candidates ...
-
Upload
gary-nichols -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
1
Transcript of Organizing the Election Process Facilitating Voter Choice Recruiting & Aiding Candidates ...
Political Parties
Organizing the Election Process Facilitating Voter Choice Recruiting & Aiding Candidates Organizing a Complex Government Educating Citizens Promoting Civic Participation
Why parties?
Timeframe Dominant Opposing1780-1828 Federalists Dem-Reps.1829-1856 Democrats Whigs1857-1892 Republicans Democrats1893-1932 Republicans Democrats1933-1968 Democrats Republicans1969-now ---Democrats/Republicans---
Party Systems
Why two parties? Why no dominance?
Questions
Why two parties???
Duverger’s Law◦ Plurality voting systems
Fusion Elimination
Why two parties???
Alternative?◦ Proportional Representation
Why two parties???
PR allows small parties to win seats
Why two parties???
Can still influence elections
Third Parties
Ralph Nader (2000, Green Party) Results
◦ Bush 47.9% (271 electoral votes)◦ Gore 48.4% (266 electoral votes)◦ Nader2.7% (0 electoral votes)
Was Nader a spoiler?
Third Parties
97,000 votes in Florida◦ Nader: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that
25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all.“ This is about 13,000 votes Gore would have gained
Nader a spoiler?
97,000 votes in Florida◦ Nader: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that
25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all.“ This is about 13,000 votes Gore would have gained
◦ Nader: blame the Supreme Court, Gore losing his home state, and the quarter-million democrats that voted for Bush
Nader a spoiler?
97,000 votes in Florida◦ Nader: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that
25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all.“ This is about 13,000 votes Gore would have gained
◦ Nader: blame the Supreme Court, Gore losing his home state, and the quarter-million democrats that voted for Bush
◦ Also…don’t forget uncounted military ballots!
Nader a spoiler?
No recount in Gore victories in◦ New Mexico (Gore won by .06%)◦ Wisconsin (.22%)◦ Iowa (.31%)◦ Oregon (.44%)
Numerous irregularities reported in Wisconsin State law guarantees right to recount if <.5%
Other notes on 2000
Ross Perot (1992, independent) Results
◦ Clinton 43% (370 electoral votes)◦ Bush 38% (168 electoral votes)◦ Perot 19% (0 electoral votes)
Third Parties
1992 Outcome
Third Parties
Perot voters…(without Perot running)◦ 38% would have voted for Clinton◦ 38% would have voted for Bush◦ 24% wouldn’t have voted
A spoiler?
Perot voters…(without Perot running)◦ 38% would have voted for Clinton◦ 38% would have voted for Bush◦ 24% wouldn’t have voted
◦ Or spoiled… 36% “would have voted for Perot” if they thought he
had a chance
A spoiler?
End of the “New Deal Coalition” Secret Ballot Primaries Merit System
Why no dominant party?
Ross Perot (1996, Reform Party) Results
◦ Clinton 49% (379 electoral votes)◦ Dole 41% (159 electoral votes)◦ Perot 8% (0 electoral votes)
Third Parties
Run-off elections
Two solutions…
Run-off elections
Two solutions…
Run-off elections
Two solutions…
Run-off elections Preference Voting
Two solutions…
Run-off elections Preference Voting
◦ Ireland (1990 presidential election)First Preference Final
Robinson 39% Lenihan 44% Currie 17%
Two solutions…
Run-off elections Preference Voting
◦ Ireland (1990 presidential election)First Preference Final
Robinson 39% 52% Lenihan 44% 46% Currie 17%
Two solutions…
Will these “more accurate” systems ever be adopted in the U.S.?
Two solutions