GOVT 2301 Elections. Blog Posts: Campaigns Campaign Finance Candidate Characteristics Elections...
220
GOVT 2301 Elections
-
Upload
preston-walker -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
3
Transcript of GOVT 2301 Elections. Blog Posts: Campaigns Campaign Finance Candidate Characteristics Elections...
GOVT 2301
Elections
Blog Posts:
CampaignsCampaign Finance
Candidate CharacteristicsElections
Elections 2008Elections 2010Elections 2012
Initiatives
Blog Posts:
Primary ElectionsPrimaries 2008Primaries 2012
Recall Voting
Voting BehaviorVoter ID
Voting RightsVoter Turnout
What is an Election?
A formal decision-making process by which an electorate (the portion of the population eligible to vote) makes a collective. The choice can
be about any number of things.
- Who holds an office- Who will vote for who will hold an office- Who will represent a party in an election
- a public policy proposal- a constitutional amendment
etc . . .
In several previous lectures we have discussed the concept of
elections
We defined “democracy” in terms of elections.
Majority RulesUniversal Adult Suffrage
But pointed out that the concept of (minority) rights requires that
majority rules be limited.
Not all decisions are subject to majority rule – individual rights for
example.
Federalist #10 argued for the advantage of indirect democracy.
Direct democracies were unstable.
Federalist #51 alludes to different electoral systems for each
governing institution.
Votes by the PeopleVotes by the State LegislaturesVotes by the Electoral College
Appointments
The last point is important, not all offices are staffed with people who win elections. The Framers of the
Constitution did not trust the population to make selections for
judges for example.
Ex Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has been on a mission
against judicial elections since leaving the court.
It also reminds us the elections can be structured in many different
ways.
There are certain basic requirements we expect of
elections.
FreeFair
OpenFrequent
Elections are central to any democratic governing system, but
simply having elections is not enough. The manner in which elections are held is crucially
important.
Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes almost always holds
elections also, but the outcomes tend to be controlled in various
ways.
Often they not allow opposition candidates to run, and the votes
people cast are made public.
Examples:
Tunisian general election, 2009 Zimbabwean presidential election, 2008
Iraqi presidential referendum, 2002 Elections in Burma
To be legitimate, elections must be:
FreeFair
OpenFrequent
Free
Individuals are not charged to vote. Poll taxes at one point were used to limit access by the poor. These
were made unconstitutional in the 24th Amendment.
But there are many costs associated with getting on the ballot and running for office
successfully. Elections themselves are costly, if nothing else, in terms
of time.
Fair
Various sides should be able to compete equally in elections. Governing agencies generally oversee elections and provide neutral forums for redressing
disputes.
The Texas Secretary of State and the Federal Election Commission
are supposed to ensure that elections are fair on the state and
national levels.
Both sites are great sources of information about elections.
Questions: Are elections in the U.S. and Texas indeed fair? Can minor parties compete successfully? Are all ideas represented in elections?
Areas of Dispute:
Participation in debatesGerrymandering
Funding
Open
The electoral process should be as transparent as possible. We should know where candidates stand on
issues and who backs whose campaigns and why. Are there any backrooms deals that we should
know about?
The Media should be able to cover elections.
People and interest groups should be able to compete in them and support or oppose candidates.
The election process should be as transparent as possible.
Controversy: Should people know who is financing which candidates?
Is this a private matter or should people know who is bankrolling
whom?
Frequent
Elections should be scheduled on a regular basis so that the electorate has an ongoing ability to be able to
influence public policy.
Elections shouldn’t be occasional, with large periods of time between them. They shouldn’t be scheduled
strategically to enable those in power to influence outcomes.
But if they are too frequent government can’t accomplish it’s
objectives. For some this is a good thing, for others this isn’t.
Anti-Federalists wanted yearly elections at least.
American elections are held every two years.
Discussion question: Is this too frequent or not frequent enough? Do we allow policymakers enough
time to accomplish their objectives?
Since we are always within two years of an election, the election
season in a sense never ends.
All policy positions – every vote – is cast with at least some
consideration of how it will impact a candidate’s competitiveness.
Any vote for a bill that constituents oppose can lead to a primary
challenge within the party, or a general election challenger from
the other party.
Opposition can come from the left or right.
Question: Does this inhibit the ability of representatives to govern
effectively?
Campaigning is not governing.
The Winner Take All System
A basic, and consequential fact of American elections:
They tend to be winner take all elections held in single member districts
Each race is run independently. There is one position up for grabs.
The candidate with the most votes, whether that is a plurality or
majority, wins.
These are sometimes called First Past the Post elections
Comparison:
Proportional representation: A system where the electorate votes
for parties, and the parties then are assigned seats in proportion to
their vote total.
In a winner take all election, each election is separate and only the majority or plurality winner gets
the contested seat.
Winner take all elections discourage support for minor party candidates.
A minor party candidate might be more appealing than a major party
candidate, but can’t win.
Consequence:
The growth of two major ”catch-all” political parties. Voters opt to support the more acceptable of
the major party candidates.
Recent example: the Tea Party is not really a party. It is a faction
within the Republican Party. If they ran as an independent party they
would peel votes from the Republicans and give Democrats an
electoral advantage.
This explains why elections in the United States are dominated by
two parties. It just so happens that they are the Democratic and
Republican Parties.
We cover this story next week.
What Purposes Do Elections Serve?
Purposes of elections
- select party candidates - select office holders
- influence course of public policy- legitimate the governmental
system
Select party candidates
Primary Elections
Every two years the two major parties use – with some exceptions – primary elections in each state to
select the candidates they will present in the general election.
Select office holders
General Elections
In the U.S. and Texas Constitutions, and in city charters and local
purpose governments, it is stated that at certain times elections will
be held for top positions.
Influence Course of Public Policy
By voting for a sufficient number of candidates pledged to implement a
specific policy, the general electorate, acting in unison, can influence the gradual course of
public policy.
Examples
A liberal swing in policy was driven by election results from
1932 – 1968
A conservative swing in policy was driven by election results from
1968 - 2004
The electorate either votes for people whose policies they
support, or vote against people whose policies they oppose.
Legitimate the Governmental System
Creating a connection between the electorate and government
legitimates the decisions of the government since the populace
has had an opportunity to participate.
The lack of meaningful elections can lead to rebellion.
Eastern Europe – 1989Middle East – 2011
Tea Party animosity to government was reduced following the
elections of 2010.
Direct and Indirect Elections
Elections, as we already know, can take a variety of forms.
Direct Indirect
The Lesson of Federalist #10
Indirect elections are superior to direct elections. They allow for public input into the governing
process, but insulate government from the “instability, uncertainty, and confusion” common in mass
politics.
This point was not accepted by the Anti-Federalists. The Jacksonian
movement was based on the idea that the electorate should be
expanded and the general population could make informed
decisions about government.
Texas’ electoral system follows the Jacksonian model.
Jacksonian Democracy holds that the citizenry must have broad
influence over government. This includes elections for multiple offices and short term lengths.
Indirect Elections
The electorate votes for members of representative institutions and holds them accountable for their
actions in periodic elections.
The U.S. Constitution outlines four separate ways that members can
be indirectly elected to office.
Federalist #51 justifies this system by stating that it helps separate
powers.
The separated powers are augmented by unique, distinct
elections
Popular elections - HouseState Legislative Elections - Senate
Electoral College - PresidentAppointments - Judiciary
This means that each of the elected institutions are
accountable to a separate constituency.
The 17th Amendment changed how Senators were elected. From state
selection process to a direct election.
This has changed the fundamental nature of the Senate.
The Federal Courts are designed to be removed completely from the
electoral process.
Madison stated that this was to ensure that judges were qualified
to hold office.
Each elected official is elected from a given district that creates a
constituency that the official is then accountable to.
On the national level, members of the House of Representatives represent one of 435 separate
districts around the country. They represent a local constituency.
United States Senators represents a state wide constituency.
The President represents a national constituency
All of these are indirect elections.
While there are no direct elections on the national level, some states
and most cities have direct elections.
Three types:
InitiativeReferendum
Recall
Initiative
Eligible voters can place an item on the ballot directly if they are able
to get a sufficient number of signatures on a petition.
Here’s a description of California’s initiative process
.
California 2010 ballot propositions
Referendum
Certain types of laws do not take effect unless they are approved by
a public vote.
Recall Elections
The voters, by getting enough signatures on a petition, can
remove an incumbent from office.
Direct elections are products of the
Progressive Movement. Some states that were greatly influenced by the progressive movement have incorporated these elections into
their constitutional systems.
“the average citizen should have more control over his government”
Texas is not a referendum/initiative state.
The only vote Texas voters can cast is for or against the ratification of
amendments to the Texas Constitution.
Cities in Texas do allow for such elections however.
Pros and Cons of direct democracy
Pros
They make government more responsive to the immediate preferences of the electorate.
Cons
They make government more responsive to the immediate preferences of the electorate.
Can initiatives make a state ungovernable?
California
Initiatives in California have led to both tax cuts and increased
spending.
Controversy:
Are initiatives, referenda and recall elections truly democratic?
Sometimes a small group of well funded individuals can fund a
petition drive. It may seem more grassroots than it actually is.
The Reliability of Elections
Controversy:
Are elections reliable means of turning public opinion into policy?
Do elections provide clear-cut indications of what the electorate
wants?
Different electoral systems can provide different results.
Plurality winners are not always the same as majority winners, or
winners in races based on a hierarchy, such as a Borda count.
Read: Condorcet Critereon.
In a plurality election, the candidate with the most votes wins
the race, but a majority election requires at least 50% + 1 of the vote. Often run-off between the top two candidates are required.
But the run-off winner isn’t always the candidate who had the most
votes in the initial election.
Manipulating Elections
Whoever designs elections can distort the outcome of that
election.
Lets focus on two ways that elections can be manipulated.
Limiting Access to the Polls Gerrymandering
Access to the polls can be limited by either not allowing certain
people to vote (denying suffrage), or by making it difficult for some people to vote more than others.
Suffrage
The Right to Vote
In the early days of the Republic, suffrage was severely limited and included property and religious
requirements in addition to race, gender and age.
The U.S. Constitution originally left the question of suffrage
completely up to the states.
Article One, Section Two, Clause One:
“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every
second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall
have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of
the State Legislature.”
First: Is Voting a Fundamental Right?
Voter ID Controversy
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board
Expansion
Property OwnershipRace
GenderPoverty
Age
Property rights were removed state by state as part of the
expansion of participation that occurred during the Jacksonian
Era.
This allowed for mass participation in politics and elections and led to the development of large political
parties.
Race
1870 – 15th Amendment.
Gender
1920 – The 19th Amendment.
Poverty
1964 – 24th Amendment.
Age
1971 – 26th Amendment.
What allows for expansion?
Advocacy on the part of the disenfranchised.
Electoral Opportunity
Current Controversies regarding suffrage
Mental CompetenceFelony Conviction
Gerrymandering refers to the political manipulation of the
districts that representatives are selected from. The opposition can
be divided into separate districts so that they are unable to win any
races.
As opposed to Senators, House representatives represent districts that are subject to redesign every ten years. So do members of the
Texas House and Senate.
After every census a state can gain or lose representatives. This
creates a fight over where new districts will be created or which
districts will be removed.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that each district has to, when
designed, have the same number of people in them.
Baker v. CarrReynolds v. Sims
The actual design is decided by the state legislature, meaning that the
majority party in the state legislature gets to draw the
districts in the state.
They tend to draw then in a manner that will benefit them.
They will attempt to minimize the number of seats the minority party
can receive.
Gerrymandering techniques:
Vote PackingVote Dilution
Vote packing squeezes as many minority votes in as few districts as possible, vote dilution (or cracking) distributes minority votes across as
many districts as possible.
Click here for descriptions of each.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 made these tactics illegal when
used to dilute the voting strength of racial minorities.
It also subjects states that had histories of racial gerrymandering to preclearance (Section 5 of the VRA), meaning that any redrawn districts must be approved by a
panel of federal judges.
The continued need for preclearance has been a subject of
recent debate.
The constitutionality of preclearance was debated recently
Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v.
Mukasey
Problems:
1 - How can you prove racial discrimination has actually occurred?
2 – How can the problems of past acts of racial gerrymandering be addressed
without violating the law?
Some gerrymandering has resulted from the need to ensure minority
representation.
Benign GerrymanderingRacial Gerrymandering
But these have been found unconstitutional since they
explicitly take race into consideration when districts are
drawn. Shaw v. RenoMiller v. Johnson
Most districts show evidence of gerrymandering.
What consequences has gerrymandering had
for democracy in America?
Increased polarization?Undermined representation?
Gerrymandering may turn the electoral process on its head.
Rather than constituents selecting representatives, representatives
select their constituents.
Should a partisan institution like the state legislature, design
districts? Or should it be done by a more neutral process?
Iowa
Some History
One way to understand the manner in which elections have
changed over U.S. history is to look at how presidential elections have
evolved.
The first two presidential elections were dominated by Washington who was assumed would be the
first occupant of the office.
After Washington there were three phases in the evolution of
Presidential elections
1 – King Caucus2 – Nominating Conventions
3 – Primary Elections
King Caucus
By the mid 1790s political parties had developed in Congress and would dominate the electoral process until the late 1820s.
Nominations for the presidency were controlled by parties in
Congress, especially the Democrat – Republicans. This gave the
legislature additional influence over the executive. It also kept
politics an elite enterprise.
Westward expansion and agitation by non property owners fueled
Andrew Jackson’s efforts to remove presidential politics from the
Congress to the states and cities.
Nominating conventions first met in 1832.
Nominating Conventions
As political parties developed, they controlled the selection of
presidential candidates. Nominating conventions would
control the process.
The nominating convention provided an opportunity every four years for party members across the country to meet. But the meetings were dominated by party bosses who developed enough power to
handpick certain candidates.
These bosses grew to dominate party machines across the country
and were generally viewed as being corrupt, though political parties were especially strong
during this period.
A variety of reforms were proposed and implemented in the early 1900s to minimize the power
of party machines. Key among these was the primary election.
Primary Elections
Primary elections were developed to allow the voters to select presidential nominees for
whichever political party they affiliate themselves with.
Currently almost every state’s Democratic and Republican Parties
has a primary election to determine its nominees to all elected offices not only the
presidency.
Delegates are apportioned to each candidate based on the percentage of the vote the candidate receives
in the election. These delegates will vote for that candidate at the
party’s state and national conventions.
There are two general types of primaries
Closed: Voters must register ahead of time as a member of a party in
order to vote in that party’s primary. This allows the party to control its selection process by
limiting participation to its members.
Open: Voters do not have to register as party members, and can go to either party’s primary. They
can only go to one however.
Texas has open primaries.
Texas 2010 Primary Election Calendar
Texas 2010 Primary Election Results
Notice that there is no role for independent voters to play in the
selecting candidates for the general election. This matters, as
we will see below.
The increased use of primary elections has been argued to have
had an impact on the nature of U.S. Elections.
1 - The electoral process is now candidate centered.
Since candidates have to distinguish themselves from other
party members they forge their own unique identities with the
public apart from simply being a member of a party.
They also create their own campaign apparatus and
fundraising sources. This makes them less subject to their party.
When we discuss political parties further we will explore the idea
that this has led to a reduction in the power of parties as
organizations.
2 – Politics has become increasingly polarized ideologically.
Primary voters are different than voters in general elections.
By definition they are party identifiers and tend to be more
extreme in their ideological positions.
They tend to select candidates who reflect those extreme positions,
though the more extreme candidates sometimes are unable
to win general elections where independent voters hold more
influence.
Voter Turnout
Not everyone who is eligible to vote actually votes. The turnout rate refers to the percentage of
eligible voters who actually vote.
Wikipedia: Voter TurnoutU.S. Elections Project: Voter Turnout
Voter turnout in Presidential Elections from 1824 - 2008
Voter turnout has declined over American history. From 80%
commonly, to as low as 49% in recent elections.
Why?
Potential causes:
Voter apathy / alienationVoter satisfactionLess voter fraud
Voter apathy / alienation
People have grown more detached from politics and feel less able to influence the governing process. Why bother voting if that’s the
case?
Voter satisfaction
The turnout rate tends to decrease when the economy is expanding,
and increases when it is in decline. If things are going well, why vote?
Less voter fraud
High voter turnout in the 19th Century occurred often because
people voted multiple times. Registration requirements –
another Progressive Era reform – reduced the chance that this can
happen.
But it also creates barriers to vote.
An alternative reason. Is Voting Irrational?
Perhaps people don’t vote because it seems irrational to vote
Voting is not a rational activity if one expects their single solitary vote to impact the result of an
election.
Few elections are settled by one vote
There is evidence that elections where one candidate is far ahead
of the competition have lower turnout than competitive
elections. This can impact down ballot races.
But voting may indeed be rational if one thinks about it on terms of
group strength.
Group Turnout
Who Votes?Who Does Not?
Not all groups in society vote at the same rates.
-The old vote at higher rates than the young.
- The educated vote more than the uneducated.
- The rich vote more than the poor.
- Whites and Blacks more than Hispanics and Asians.
Why does this matter?
Legislators are more likely to vote in favor of the interests of groups
that vote rather than those that do not.
Age and Turnout in the 2008 and 2010 Elections
Voter Behavior
Once the decision to vote has been made, what accounts for the decisions people make at the
polls?
The study of voter behavior attempts to unlock this.
Three items have been found to be determinants of vote choice
Party IdentificationCandidate Characteristics
Contemporary Issues
Party Identification
Historically, parties have mobilized people to the polls and have forged relationships with certain electoral
groups that identify themselves with the party. We will review
these groups in the next lectures.
The stronger the identification, the more likely these groups will
consistently vote for the party’s candidates. Party ID is not static, it
fluctuates over time.
The Gallup Poll determines party identification by asking people if
they identify as Republican, Democrat or Independent.
If Rep or Dem, they ask of they are weak or strong identifiers. If independent they ask them
whether they lean to either party, or are truly independent.
Click here for an interactive Party Identification Chart from the Pew Research Center
.
Note that over the years the number of independents has increased dramatically. Fewer
people use party identification as a determinant of the vote. It is
argued that many have de-aligned from political parties.
(this is a controversial point)
Other factors influence the vote choice more.
Candidate Characteristics
Voters also take into consideration certain features of the candidates,
be they physical, moral or whatever. Often these perceptions can override partisan affiliations, or
lead to party realignments.
Contemporary Issues
Contemporary events can have an impact on which party’s candidate
gets wavering votes.
The public tends to think each party is better able to perform
certain functions than the other.
In times of economic hardship, Democrats tend to do better
In times of military threat, Republicans tend to do better.
Elections are sometimes decided by factors outside the control of
either party’s candidates.
Some argue that campaigns really are irrelevant.
Funding Elections
Elections cost money. This is true both for the campaigns run by
individual candidates and for the elections themselves. Campaign finance and
campaign finance reform continue to be controversial subjects.
The average U.S. House race costs more than $1 million
The average U.S. Senate race costs more than $10 million
Presidential Fundraising and Spending, 1976 – 2008
Total Contributions 1976: $171 millionTotal Contributions: 2008: $1,748 billion
Why so costly?
Areas of Increased costs:
Media PurchasesConsultants
PollsTravel
Members of Congress complain that much of their time is spent
fundraising for their next election.
This raises questions about what members are doing to earn those
funds.
Are contributors likely to have a greater opportunity to have their
needs addressed by legislators than will constituents?
Given the need for funding, whose interests are being represented in Congress and the White House?
Are we still a democracy, or perhaps a plutocracy?
Is a campaign contribution really a subtle form of bribery?
Attempts have been made over history to reduce the
influence of money in campaigns. Again, the Progressive movement drove many of these proposals.
Federal Corrupt Practices Act (1910)
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971
National Voter Registration Act of 1993
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
But constitutional questions have developed since political
participation is constitutionally protected.
Buckley v. Valeo
A 1976 decision that determined that spending money to influence an
elections is a constitutionally protected form of free speech. Limits
on spending money is unconstitutional since it impedes the ability of
candidates to get messages out.
Citizens United v FEC
This is a recent decision that found the campaign spending restrictions placed on corporations and unions
violated the free speech clause. Free speech rights applied to
corporations.
Lingering Questions:
Will the result of Citizens United lead to additional spending?
Will this spending benefit corporations at the expense of flesh and blood citizens?
Will it undermine fair elections?
![2301 A - Manual - 82020[1]](https://static.fdocuments.in/doc/165x107/577cb47a1a28aba7118c7dcd/2301-a-manual-820201.jpg)
