PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION MECHANICS

The Franchise: 1789

• Under the original constitution, who had the right to vote?– for U.S. House?– for U.S. Senate?– for Presidential electors?– for state and local officials?

The Franchise: 1789 (cont.)• Voter qualifications (including for U.S. House and

Presidential electors) were set entirely by state law – Proviso: 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 qualifica-tions requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. [Article 1, Section 2]

• Property-owning/tax-paying qualifications were common, and– often scaled to level of office

• Perhaps 50% of adult white males were eligible to vote in early elections,– plus some free blacks (and even some women) were eligible to

vote in some elections in some states.

The Franchise: 1830s

• “Jacksonian Revolution”:– Almost all adult white males got the right to vote– All Presidential electors were popularly elected

(except in SC)– Voter mobilization campaigns by competing

(Democratic and Whig) political parties greatly increased voting turnout, i.e.,

• the proportion of eligible voters who actually cast votes.

– But non-whites (and most or all women) lost the right to vote (in so far as they previously had that right).

14th Amendment• Section 1. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall

abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ...; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

• Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state. [IMPLICATION FOR ELECTORAL COLLEGE]

15th Amendment

• Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

• Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The Franchise: Turn of the 20th Century• The “Jim Crow” regime was established in the South.

– “Jim Crow” had two main elements:• de jure segregation; and • de facto disenfranchisement (poll tax, literacy test, grandfather

clause, “white primary,” intimidation)– Blacks remain enfranchised outside the South (but relatively few

lived outside the South until WWI and WWII)

• Women gained the right to vote in some states (especially in the West) in late 19th/early 20th centuries.– Caused dramatic “apportionment effects” in Electoral College:

• E.g., 1916 State Electoral Vote Popular Vote IL 29 2,192,707 NY 45 1,706,305 PA 38 1,297,189

– 19th Amendment (1920)• The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied

or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

The Franchise: 20th Century• 23rd Amendment (1963)

– The District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct a number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a state, but in no event more than the least populous state; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the states, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a state; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

• 24th Amendment (1964)– The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other

election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

• Voting Rights Act (1965)• 26th Amendment (1971)

– The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

The Franchise: Continuing Issues• Failed 27th Amendment

– Section 1. For purposes of representation in the Congress, election of the President and Vice President, and article V of this Constitution, the District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall be treated as though it were a State.

• Felon disenfranchisement:– State laws vary

• Voter ID laws, etc.

• Presumably the franchise should be uniform across all states and DC if the Electoral College were replaced by a direct national popular vote through a constitutional amendment.

• Apportionment of electoral votes is based on total population,– including non-citizens and illegal immigrants (in so far as counted by

census)

Voter Registration• Prior to the late 19th century, only informal voter registration systems exists:

– probably a lot of fraudulent voting– “vote early and vote often”

• States adopted voter registration laws in the late 19th century,– which produced an evident decline in total turnout.

• Voter registration systems undoubtedly – reduced fraudulent voting, but also – may have had the effect of “vote suppression.”

• Typically, people who are eligible to vote have to take some initiative to get themselves registered.– Moreover, registration list were periodically purged of non-voters.

• Mid to latter part of 20th century, general liberalization of registration laws (by states, by courts, and by Congress)– “Motor Voter” Act (1993)– Help America Vote Act (2002) [provisional ballots]

• Voter registration evidently remains something of a mess in many states and localities.– “deadwood” problem

• There is uncertainty (and passionate academic dispute) concerning the typical turnout rate among registered voters.

Voting Turnout

• “Total actual vote”/ “Total potential vote”• In the U.S., voting turnout in Presidential elections is

usually calculated as– total recorded vote for President, – divided by the census estimate of the voting age population (VAP)

• However, such turnout is often (mistakenly) characterized as the percent of eligible (or even registered) voters who actually voted.

• Election workers who report “high” turnout on election night are looking at the number of voters who showed up as a percent of registered voters on their lists.

Problems with PV / VAP

• Numerator misses – spoiled ballots– Presidential abstentions

• Denominator – includes

• (legal and illegal) immigrants• institutionalized population (generally ineligible or unlikely to

vote)• felons perhaps not eligible to vote

– but excludes eligible voters overseas.

Some Reasons for National Differences in Turnout

• Some countries have compulsory voting.• Some countries make election day a holiday.• Most countries have (national) voter enrollment (vs. state

voter registration) systems,– in which case, about 90-95% of eligible voters are enrolled, and– turnout denominator is (usually) the number of enrolled voters

[not VAP].

• U.S has unusually frequent elections with many offices/propositions at stake in each (“long-ballot”):– federal/state/local offices– separate executive and legislative (and often judicial) elections

(sometimes with runoffs)– referendums– plus primaries (sometimes with runoffs)

TURNOUT IN SELECTED COUNTRIES, 1960-2005

TURNOUT DECLINE IN ALL OEDC COUNTRIES (1960-2000)

Ballot Types and Ballot Access

• Early voting was informal, perhaps oral, otherwise voters had to create own ballots, hardly secret

• Mass party competition (1830s on) led to party ballots– printed by parties– listing only party candidates– distribution to party supporters– hardly secret (differently colored

paper)

• Implications:– No “ballot access” problem

– Hard for voters to “split ticket”

– Enhanced influence of party leaders

– Easy to arrange (even on election eve) “fusion” between (major or minor) parties

“Australian Ballot” Reform (~1890)• Government election authority prints ballots

– all voters receive same ballot at polling place– ballots list all candidates for all offices– secures secret ballot

• Implications:– “Ballot access” must be regulated

• filing fee, deposit, petition, etc.– It becomes much easier for voters to cast “split ticket” ballots.– It reduces the influence of party leaders and organizations.– It becomes harder to “fuse” party tickets.

• In fact, “fusion” may be prohibited.– Partisan vs. non-partisan [Australian] ballots

• U.K. vs. U.S. example• what information listed for each candidate?

Fundamental Implication of a Partisan Australian Ballot

• Which candidate is entitled to be listed on the ballot under a given party label?

• This produces government [in U.S., state government] regulation of party organization and nominating procedures,– in particular, in the U.S. it led to primary elections,– by which a candidate is entitled to be identified on the

ballot as a party nominee by virtue of winning a government-run election.

Two Formats for U.S. [Australian Ballots]: Party-Column/Line Ballot vs. Office Block Ballot

• This distinction is relevant only if– the ballot is partisan, and– two or more offices are at stake in a single election; and– it is especially relevant if many offices are at stake [“long ballot”]

• Party-Column/Line Ballot:– Such a ballot is set up so that all candidates of a given party

appear in the same column or line.– In effect, it is several party ballots placed together on the same

page.– It encourages “straight ticket” voting.– It may provide for a “straight party” vote.– It raises the question of party order on the ballot.

• Office-Block Ballot:– Such a ballot groups together all candidates for a given office.– It encourages “split ticket” voting,

• though it can (but usually does not) provide a “straight party” vote.– It raises the question of candidate order in each block.

A Party-

Column

Ballot

(Indiana, 1956)

An Office-Block Ballot (Massachusetts 1956)

An Office Block Ballot

With a Straight Party Option

[Missouri]

The Notorious Butterfly Ballot

Presidential Election Ballots

• Does the ballot make any reference to Presidential electors? [Today, usually but not always]

• Does ballot list Presidential elector candidates individually? [Today, usually not]

• Does ballot allow or require voters to vote for electors individually? [Today, never]

• If voters are required to vote for electors individually, does the ballot indicate the candidates to whom the elector candidates are pledged? [Today, not relevant]

• Does state law allow “fusion” of elector candidate slates? [NY does]

Kansas

(1960)

Vermont: 1960 vs. 2012

New York (1960) [allows “fusion”]

Hawaii

(1960)

Alabama (1960)

Maryland (Baltimore Co.)

2008

No mention of electorsBut they actually exist =>