Political Parties, Campaigns and Elections

1
Political Parties, Campaigns and Elections

• Pt. 2

2
(No Transcript)
3
Comparison

• Class quiz

• National survey
• (Welch, p. 208)

4
Presidential Elections

• Electoral College Each state has a number of
  electors equal to its total number of Senators
  plus Representatives. (DC also has three, as a
  result of a Constitutional amendment.)
• SC 2 Sens. 6 Reps. 8 electoral votes.
• NC 2 Sens. 13 Reps. 15 electoral votes.
• 435 Reps. 100 Sens. 3 for DC 538 total.
• In order to be elected, a candidate must receive
  a majority of this vote, (538/2) 1, or 270.
  
  

5
Presidential Elections

• If no candidate gets a majority, the House of
  Representatives elects the President, and the
  Senate elects the Vice President this has
  happened twice, in 1800 and 1824.

6
Presidential ElectionsHow Many Times Has This
Happened?

• The two major Presidential candidates were the
  son of a former President and a Democrat from
  Tennessee.
  
• The election was close, controversial, and
  bitterly contested.
  
• The Democrat from Tennessee got more popular
  votes.
  
• The former Presidents son got more electoral
  votes, and was elected.
  

7
Presidential ElectionsHow Many Times Has This
Happened?

• The two major Presidential candidates were the
  son of a former President and a Democrat from
  Tennessee.
  
• The election was close, controversial, and
  bitterly contested.
  
• The Democrat from Tennessee got more popular
  votes.
  
• The former Presidents son got more electoral
  votes, and was elected.
  
• John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson, 1824.

8
Electoral College

• We do not have a national election for President
  and Vice President, but rather 51 separate
  elections one in each state plus Washington,
  DC.
• When you go to the polls, you are casting a
  popular vote, but you are actually voting for the
  electors who are pledged to your particular
  candidate. For example, if you voted for
  Bush/Cheney in South Carolina, you were actually
  voting for the electors chosen by the South
  Carolina Republican Party. When Bush and Cheney
  won the popular vote in South Carolina, all eight
  Republican electors were chosen to cast the
  states electoral vote.

9
Electoral College

• Electors are generally chosen by their state
  party organizations. They are usually people who
  have been active on the partys behalf U.S.
  Senators and Representatives are ineligible to be
  electors.)
• The Constitution provides that state legislatures
  choose the means by which the states electors
  are chosen all states, plus DC, have laws
  providing that the electors are chosen by popular
  vote. However, if the 2000 election controversy
  in Florida had not been resolved by the deadline
  for certifying electors, the legislature was
  prepared to pass a law simply naming the 25
  Republican electors to cast the states electoral
  votes.

10
Electoral College

• In 48 states plus DC, the candidate with the most
  popular votes wins all of the states electoral
  votes.
  
• Maine and Nebraska award one electoral vote to
  the person who wins the most popular votes in
  each Congressional District, and two to the
  winner of the state at large. Thus, they could
  theoretically split their votes, with one partys
  candidate winning one or two votes and the other
  partys candidate winning the rest.
• If you vote for the losing candidate in your
  state, your vote is essentially wasted you wont
  be represented in the Electoral College.
  
• Its possible to win the popular vote but lose
  the electoral vote (just ask Al Gore!)
  
• The electoral vote determines the winner.

11
Some election returns from 2000

12
Some election returns from 2000

13
Some election returns from 2000

14
Some election returns from 2000

15
Some election returns from 2000

16
Some election returns from 2000

17
Some election returns from 2000

18
Some election returns from 2000

19
Some election returns from 2000

20
Some election returns from 2000

21
Some election returns from 2000

22
Some election returns from 2000

23
Electoral College

• The way the Electoral College is structured, the
  small states actually have a disproportionate
  amount of influence.
  
• California has 53 Reps. and Wyoming has one.
• California has 53 2 electors, or 55.
• Wyoming has 1 2 electors, or 3.
• California, with 53 times the population of
  Wyoming, has only 17-2/3 times as many electors.
  In other words, an individual voter in Wyoming
  has three times as much clout in the Electoral
  College than does an individual voter in
  California even though the state of California
  has 17-2/3 times as much clout as the state of
  Wyoming!

24
Electoral Strategy

• The existence of the Electoral College, rather
  than a system using one national election,
  affects campaign strategies in significant ways.
  
• The states which get the candidates attention
  are the large, politically competitive states.
  
• California has 20 of the electoral votes needed
  to win the election, and one extra voter in
  California could decide the election.
  
• Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Florida
  get lots of attention as well.
  
• Texas was traditionally a Democratic state, which
  is now predominantly Republican New York was
  traditionally a competitive state which is now
  predominantly Democratic.

25
Electoral Strategy

• The states which get no attention are the small
  states and those which are overwhelmingly in
  favor of one party or the other.
  
• 2004 election
• Utah (5 electoral votes) Bush 73
• D.C. (3 electoral votes) Kerry 90
• There is no need for the Republican Presidential
  candidate to campaign in Utah, because he does
  not need to there is no point in the Democratic
  candidate campaigning there, because there is
  nothing he can do to win. The reverse is true in
  D.C. So Utah and D.C. are ignored by both sides.
  If we had one national election, in which each
  vote counted equally, candidates would be just as
  likely to pursue votes in Utah or Washington, DC,
  as they are in California or Illinois.

26
Why Dont We Change This?

• Electoral College reform is occasionally
  discussed (as was the case after the 2000
  election), but it is unlikely that the Electoral
  College will be abolished. Doing so would
  require a Constitutional amendment, which would
  have to be ratified by three-quarters of the
  states enough states benefit from the Electoral
  College the way it exists now so that they would
  not be inclined to vote for an amendment
  abolishing it.

27
Do the Electors Have to Vote for the Person Who
Won Their State?

• No.
• A faithless elector is a member of the Electoral
  College who does not vote for the candidate who
  won his or her state. Some states have laws
  prohibiting faithless electors, but the
  Constitution does not restrict the electors from
  voting as they choose. (South Carolina imposes a
  fine of 500 for faithless electors. This may be
  unconstitutional, but theres a great deal of
  peer pressure from the parties for the electors
  to support the candidates they were expected to
  support.)
• In 2000, Bush won 271 electoral votes and Gore
  267. Because Gore won more popular votes, there
  was an effort to persuade three Bush electors to
  be faithless and switch to Gore. If they had
  done so, and Gore had won 270 votes, he would
  have been elected President. (Gore actually
  received only 266 votes, because one Democratic
  elector from Washington, DC, abstained.) In 2004,
  one Minnesota elector apparently voted for John
  Edwards for both President and Vice President.
• No faithless elector has ever altered the outcome
  of an election.
  

28
Money and Politics

• For most of our history, money in politics was
  largely unregulated, and there was no
  accountability. There was no way to tell how
  much candidates raised or spent, where the money
  came from, or where it went.

29
Public Financing ofPresidential Campaigns

• In 1971, Congress enacted public financing of
  Presidential campaigns, through the Presidential
  Election Campaign Act. On the tax form, there is
  a checkbox allowing you to designate 3.00
  (originally 1.00) to go to the Presidential
  Campaign Fund. When you designate the money in
  this way, it goes into the fund, where it is
  gathered with others contributions and collects
  interest until the next Presidential campaign
  begins.

30
Matching Funds

• A candidate in a Presidential primary who raises
  10,000 in 250 contributions in each of 25
  states (thus showing a broad national base of
  support) is eligible for matching funds from the
  Campaign Fund. Each dollar the candidate raises
  thereafter is eligible for a dollar from the fund
  thus, the candidate ends up with a total of
  2.00.

31
Matching Funds

• Until the current election, almost all candidates
  have sought matching funds, because it doubles
  the money they have available for their primary
  campaigns however, accepting these funds
  requires agreeing to spending limits in each
  state, and other restrictions on how the money
  can be spent.

32
Matching Funds

• In 2000, George W. Bush did not accept matching
  funds in his campaign for the Republican
  Presidential nomination he raised more through
  private contributions, and did not have to abide
  by the restrictions which were imposed by the
  acceptance of matching funds. Bush raised more
  on his own than the total he would have received
  if he had agreed to be bound by the regulations
  on matching funds.

33
Matching Funds

• In 2004, Howard Dean, John Kerry and President
  Bush all turned down matching funds.
  
• In 2008, almost all of the major candidates for
  nomination in both parties rejected matching
  funds in order to raise and spend as much as they
  can on their own. John Edwards was the only major
  candidate who took matching funds.

34
Are Candidates Better Off With or Without
Matching Funds?

• 2008 expenditure limits w/matching funds
• Total primary campaign 42.5 Million
• New Hampshire primary 841,000
• (State limits are based on population, not
  strategic importance of primary)
  
• On their own, candidates have raised

35
Are Candidates Better Off With or Without
Matching Funds?

• 2008 expenditure limits w/matching funds
• Total primary campaign 42.5 Million
• New Hampshire primary 841,000
• (State limits are based on population, not
  strategic importance of primary)
  
• On their own, candidates have raised
• McCain 75 million

36
Are Candidates Better Off With or Without
Matching Funds?

• 2008 expenditure limits w/matching funds
• Total primary campaign 42.5 Million
• New Hampshire primary 841,000
• (State limits are based on population, not
  strategic importance of primary)
  
• On their own, candidates have raised
• McCain 75 million
• Clinton 175 million

37
Are Candidates Better Off With or Without
Matching Funds?

• 2008 expenditure limits w/matching funds
• Total primary campaign 42.5 Million
• New Hampshire primary 841,000
• (State limits are based on population, not
  strategic importance of primary)
  
• On their own, candidates have raised
• McCain 75 million
• Clinton 175 million
• Obama 234 million
• (usatoday.com, April 7,
  2008)
  

38
Matching Funds

• The entire general election campaign for the
  Democratic and Republican parties is paid by the
  campaign fund.
  
• Each candidate will receive 84.1 million.
• Third party and independent candidates qualify by
  receiving 5 of the vote in the previous
  election.
  
• Ross Perot, 1992, self-financed (60M)
  independent, got 19 of vote
  
• Ross Perot, 1996 Reform Party nominee, recd.
  matching funds, got 9
  
• Pat Buchanan, 2000 Reform Party nominee, recd.
  matching funds, got
• No parties other than Dem. and Rep. received
  matching funds in 2004, or will in 2008.

39
Federal Election Campaign Act

• Following the Watergate scandal (which revolved,
  in part, around campaign-finance irregularities),
  Congress enacted the Federal Election Campaign
  Act (FECA) of 1974. This Act imposes
  restrictions on the amount of money which a
  Congressional (House or Senate) candidate may
  raise from specific sources.

40
Federal Election Campaign Act

• Federal election candidates for House, Senate,
  President
  
• An individual may contribute 2300 per election
  (primary, runoff or general)
  
• A Political Action Committee (PAC) may contribute
  5,000 per election (primary, runoff or general)
  
• Individual limit was 1000 until 2002
• Raised to 2000 and now adjusted for inflation.

41
Federal Election Campaign Act

• The FECA is administered and enforced by the
  Federal Election Commission (FEC), a government
  agency. A candidate for Congress must file
  quarterly reports with the FEC showing how money
  he or she has raised, who contributed at least
  200 to the campaign, and what the contributors
  do for a living (thus showing if the candidate is
  unduly dependent on a particular industry for
  campaign contributions).
• You can look up contributions at
  opensecrets.org.
  

42
Political Action Committees (PACs)

• Specialized interest groups whose purpose is to
  contribute to campaigns. Members of a group,
  industry or company pool their money and
  contribute in the name of the PAC.
• From Congress lecture PACs are much more likely
  to contribute to incumbents than to challengers,
  thus giving incumbents even more of an
  overwhelming fundraising advantage than they
  would otherwise enjoy.

43
Political Action Committees (PACs)

• There is a controversy over what, exactly, PACs
  get for their money. Are they buying elected
  officials, or are they simply contributing to the
  election of candidates who share their goals
  (which is perfectly legal)? It is virtually
  certain that PAC contributions lead to greater
  access to the officials whom they choose to
  support, but its impossible to prove that
  campaign contributions lead to specific votes or
  other actions

44
Campaign Finance Issues

• Loopholes in the current finance system
• The FEC is weak and understaffed. It takes
  several years to conduct an audit of a campaign
  to discover irregularities or violations of the
  finance laws, and all the FEC can do to punish it
  is to impose a fine usually, lower than the
  amount of the violation and which can be paid out
  of campaign funds. This is an incentive for
  candidates and campaigns to violate the law in
  the interest of advancing their campaigns.

45
Campaign Finance Issues

• Soft money is money given to a political party,
  rather than directly to a candidate. It is not
  limited or regulated by the FECA. If I wish to
  support the election of a particular candidate, I
  may contribute 2300 per election to that
  persons campaign but as much as I wish to the
  candidates party. The party may then spend as
  much as it wishes on materials and resources
  supporting that candidate. Soft money is now
  illegal in Federal elections, but whether or not
  it is available to be used in state elections is
  a matter of each individual states laws.

46
Campaign Finance Issues

• Independent expenditures are campaign efforts
  carried out on behalf of a candidate, but without
  the involvement of that persons campaign. If I
  wish to support a particular person or mobilize
  voters on behalf of a candidate or cause, I may
  spend as much of my own money as I wish to buy
  billboards, bumper stickers, etc., advocating
  that candidates election, as long as I do not
  coordinate my efforts with the candidate or his
  or her campaign.

47
Campaign Finance Issues

• 527 groups (mentioned in the text on p. 296)
  emerged as a major category of independent
  expenditure group in the 2004 election. Both
  major-party Presidential campaigns accused the
  other of illegally collaborating with 527 groups.
  The Bush campaign accused the Kerry campaign of
  working with moveon.org, while the Kerry campaign
  accused the Bush campaign of working with Swift
  Boat Veterans for Truth.

48
Campaign Finance Issues

• The FECA as originally written imposed the same
  limits on contributions to ones own campaign as
  applied to other contributors (how much you could
  give yourself). However, in Buckley v. Valeo
  (1976), the Supreme Court ruled that this
  restriction on the expenditure of ones own money
  is a violation of the Constitutional guarantee of
  freedom of speech. (I may spend as much of my
  own money as I wish to get myself elected.) This
  gives an obvious advantage to wealthy candidates
  who can afford to finance their own campaigns,
  without having to ask others for contributions.

49
Campaign Finance Issues

• In order to curb the influence of
  special-interest money in politics, Congress in
  2002 passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
  (BCRA), also known as McCain-Feingold after its
  sponsors, which took effect the day after the
  2002 elections. This law doubled the limits on
  contributions by individuals and PACs in federal
  elections (from 1000 to 2000 per election for
  an individual, and from 5000 to 10,000 for
  PACs.) The individual amount is now adjusted for
  inflation (currently 2300).

50
Campaign Finance Issues

• However, it bans the use of soft money in federal
  campaigns, and regulates how groups may purchase
  radio and television ads which pertain to federal
  candidates and elections, within 60 days of an
  election. Both of these provisions have been
  challenged as violations of freedom of speech
  the U.S. Supreme Court upheld most of BCRA in
  2003.

51
Paper Guidelines

• Papers are now due by the final exam (Sat., May
  3, 1130 AM).
  
• Introduction What is your topic? Explain why
  its important. Give documented examples of a
  problem if its something youre trying to
  solve.
• - These can be done in any order, and you dont
  have to include all of them. This is just a
  guideline
  
• Is there legislation about it in Congress? (1st
  writing assignment comes in here.) What do the
  supporters and opponents say about it?
  
• Have the Presidential candidates taken a position
  on it? What do they say about it? (3rd writing
  assignment comes in here.)
  
• Are interest groups active on this issue (on
  either side or both sides)? What do they say
  about it? (3rd writing assignment again.)
  
• What do you think about it? Make an intelligent
  argument in support of your position.
  
• Conclusion

52
Sources

• I will probably have you submit the paper through
  turnitin.com.
  
• Cite your sources appropriately. Any method of
  citation is acceptable (MLA, APA, footnotes) as
  long as I can tell where you got your
  information.
• Feel free to e-mail me with questions, problems,
  etc. Ill be happy to help you find sources.
  

53
Wikipedia

• Youre in college, for Gods sake. Dont cite
  the encyclopedia.
  
• Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia
• Problems with Wikipedia
• Vandalism. Some people have nothing better to do
  with their lives.
  
• Unreliability. People just get their facts wrong
  sometimes.
  
• Anonymity. Reputable writers sign their names to
  their work.
  
• No peer review. If I write an article, its read
  over by other people with recognized authority in
  the field before its published in a reputable
  source.
• Many others.
• Dont use it as a primary source. If you get
  information from Wikipedia, trace it back to the
  source the article used, and cite that source.
  
• Wikipedia is useful for secondary sources and
  links. Some of the sources cited and linked in a
  Wikipedia article may be useful and reliable
  sources of information for your work. Wikipedia
  is good for a quick look for those types of
  sources.