Elections

1
11

• Elections

2
The Logic of Elections
American democracy is representative democracy. M
adison emphasized the main differences between a
democracy and a republic The two great points
of difference are first, the delegation of
the government, in the latter, to a small number
of citizens elected by the rest secondly, the
greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of
the country, over which the latter may be
extended. Delegation of authority raises the
possibility of agency loss one solution is to
hold regular, free, competitive elections
3
The Logic of Elections
Elections work to ameliorate this problem
they give ordinary citizens a say in who
represents them the prospect of future
elections gives officeholders who want to
keep or improve their jobs a motive to be
responsive agents elections provide
powerful incentives for the small set of
citizens who want to replace the current
officeholders to keep a close eye on
representatives and to provide critical
evaluations of them to the public at large
4
Suffrage for White Men

• The practice of selecting leaders by ballot
  arrived in North America with the first English
  settlers.
• They also brought with them the practice of
  limiting the franchise
• every colony imposed property qualifications for
  voting, and many denied suffrage to Catholics,
  Jews, Native Americans, and freed black slaves
• no colony allowed women to vote
• Only about half of the free adult male population
  was eligible to vote at the time the Constitution
  was adopted.
• The initial property requirements for voting in
  early American history were a reflection of the
  social reality at the time
• most adults were poor, illiterate, and dependent
• those in an advantaged position were not inclined
  to risk the social order, which helped them
  maintain their position

5
Suffrage for White Men
However, the nature of the New World made access
to property somewhat easier property
requirements were not enforced strictly
the Revolutionary War itself exerted a
powerful influence on the demands to
enlarge the franchise Universal suffrage for
(white) men was not fully achieved until the
1840s in the wake of Jacksonian democracy. The
vote was not extended simultaneously (as it was
left to individual states to decide who could
vote), but as it was extended, opposition to
extending it became a political liability - as
the electorate expanded, it became political
suicide to oppose more democracy
6
Suffrage for Women

• The womens suffrage movement grew directly out
  of the antislavery movement
• shared its underlying ideas
• shared many of its activists
• The resistance to womens suffrage was gradually
  overcome by a combination of social change
• the expansion of education for both sexes
• the entry of women into the workforce outside the
  home
• political need

7
Suffrage for Women

• As womens suffrage grew at the state and local
  levels, politicians competing for womens votes
  naturally supported further expansion.
• Only southern Democrats held out to the end,
  fearing that inroads for women would reinforce
  federal support of suffrage for blacks.
• The Nineteenth Amendment, adopted in 1920,
  finally guaranteed women everywhere the right to
  vote.

8
The Right to Vote
We are not afraid to maul a black man over the
head if he dares to vote, but we can't
treat women, even black women, that way. No,
we'll allow no woman suffrage. It may be right,
but we won't have it. - Sen. John Sharp Williams
(D-MS)
9
Suffrage for African Americans and Young Americans
Suffrage for African Americans was not universal
until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The most
recent expansion of voting rights, the
Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971), lowered the voting
age to eighteen this was also a political
move what motivated it? the Vietnam
War eighteen-year-olds were old enough to
fight, therefore they were old enough to
vote.
10
The Right to Vote
The propertyless did not despoil the
propertied. the conformity cost most dreaded
did not emerge Women did not alter the
nature of politics. Indeed, no distinctive
pattern of womens voting was evident until the
1980s. The only discernible consequence has been
the decline in voting that occurred when the
right was extended to eighteen-, nineteen-,
and twenty-year-olds. The Fourteenth and
Fifteenth Amendments did not prevent a century of
racial discrimination at the polls. only the
Voting Rights Act quickly and effectively
achieved its goals
11
Who Uses the Right to Vote?
Voting is the essence of democracy. Yet millions
of Americans do not vote. Is this irrational?
Paradoxical? Benefits are collective. Makes
sense to demand the right to vote. But rational
not to use it.
12
Who Uses the Right to Vote?

• How we measure turnout matters!
• Whats wrong with simply calculating voter
  turnout by dividing the total number of votes
  cast by the total number of voting age residents?
  
• What effect would this have?

13
Who Uses the Right to Vote?

• Turnout has varied widely over time
• Important sharp decline in turnout between 1960
  and 1972.
• Since then, an average of only 58 of eligible
  voters has registered and voted in presidential
  elections.
• 2004 race only about 60

• Factors that influence turnout
• Age, education, race, region, community, internal
  and external efficacy, partisanship.
• Living in politically competitive areas with
  lower barriers to voting.
• Gender has no impact. Nor does trust in govt.

14
Who Uses the Right to Vote?

• Voting and other forms of political
  participation incur costs but produce benefits.
• Those with Money, education, experience, free
  time, and self-confidence find it easier to meet
  the costs.
• Those with A greater psychological stake receive
  greater benefits.

15
The Non-Representative Electorate

• The assorted demographic and institutional
  influences on voting produce an electorate (the
  voting public) in which
• Wealthy, well-educated, older white people are
  overrepresented.
• Poor, uneducated, young, and nonwhite people are
  underrepresented.
• People like this are more likely to be mobilized
  by parties, interest groups, and campaigns
• they are targeted as the cheapest to reach and
  the easiest to mobilize
• the pressures that political leaders face to use
  their own resources most effectively build a
  class bias into their efforts to
  mobilize.Rosenstone and Hansen

16
Variations in Turnout over Time
Earlier discussion focused on the factors
that explain variations in participation
among individuals, but what accounts for
variations in turnout over time? Puzzling While
voter registration laws have eased and
educational attainment has increased, why has
voter turnout declined over time? These changes
should have increased turnout. While these two
trends have had a positive effect on turnout,
other factors have had the opposite effect
extending the vote to eighteen-to twenty
year-olds lessening of community roots
(increased mobility), lessening of political
efficacy, lessening of partisan attachment
17
Variations in Turnout over Time

• The major reasons for the decline, however, are
  institutional a decline in the efforts of
  parties, interest groups, and campaigns to
  mobilize voters has resulted in fewer voters
  being mobilized
• Fewer people voting because fewer people are
  being mobilized
• most parties and candidates have replaced
  labor-intensive door-to-door campaigns with
  money-intensive television and direct-mail
  campaigns
• focus scarce resources on tightest races
• diminishment of Civil Rights movement to mobilize
  black voters
• diminishment of labor union movement and their
  efforts to union workers and their families

18
Variations in Turnout over Time

• When campaigns invest heavily in grass roots
  activities to get out the vote as they did in
  2004 and 2008, turnout does rise significantly.
• When mobilization efforts are cut, those that are
  most dependent on outside stimulation are likely
  to be effected more
• bias in electorate tends toward upper-class
• this bias increases with decreases in
  mobilization efforts

19
Voter Turnout is Lower than a Century Ago
20
How do Voters Decide?
Acquire information to reduce uncertainty. Cues
and shortcuts. Opinion leaders Personal
characteristics of the candidate. Party
label. Free information.
21
How Do Voters Decide?
Assessing past performance. Evaluating
incumbents. Are you better off now than you
were four years ago? Role of the
economy. Utilize direct experience/experience of
others via the media.
22
How Do Voters Decide?
Comparing future policy options. Focus on
issues but which ones dominate? - Guns,
abortion, tax cuts, civil rights,
etc. Depends (single-issue voters versus those
who make decisions based on bundles of issues).
23
How Do Voters Decide?
Voters may take cues from opinion leaders. Voters
also make predictions based on the candidates
personal characteristics one set of personal
considerations includes qualities such as
competence, experience, honesty, knowledge,
and leadership skills
24
How Do Voters Decide?

• However, the most important information shortcut
  voters use to make predictions is party label.
  The party label provides useful information for
  both performance voting (voting for the party in
  control, or in-party when one thinks the
  government is performing well voting for the
  outs when one thinks the government is performing
  poorly) and issue voting (the typical positions
  of Republicans and Democrats the parties differ
  in predictable ways on many issues).
• Most voters simplify their electoral evaluations
  and decisions by developing a consistent bias in
  favor of the candidates of one of the major
  parties, making the party label the most
  influential endorsement of all.

25
Party Identification and the 2008 Presidential
Election
26
Party Identification and the 2012 Presidential
Election
27
Election Campaigns
Common features found throughout competitive
campaigns Candidate Message Why should
I vote for you -Its the economy,
stupid! Way to inform voters about both of the
above. Role of public image. Media
scrutiny. Importance of debates.
28
Going Negative
Why do candidates go negative? Because it
works. They exploit uncertainty about a given
candidate.
29
Going Negative

• Campaign messages emphasizing one candidates
  personal suitability for the job invite rebuttals
  from the other side.
• Negative campaigning, pointed personal criticism
  of the other candidate, is thus a normal, if
  sometimes ugly, component of the electoral
  process
• generally thought to be effective
• examples George H. W. Bush ads against Dukakis
  in 1988
• branding the opposition as soft on crime
• Clintons campaign employed a rapid response
  team
• Kerry in 2004 did not have a rapid response to
  ads run by the Swift Boat Vets
• negative or not, campaign ads are rarely subtle
• rely on simplicity, repetition, exaggeration, and
  symbolism

30
Campaign Money and its Regulation
A good candidate and a good message are not
enough. Without money, the voters do not see
the candidate or hear the message. In
contemporary, candidate-centered campaigns,
candidates (as opposed to the party
organizations) must assemble their own campaign
teams, raise their own money, hire consultants
and technical specialists, and design and execute
their own individual campaign strategies.
31
Campaign Money and its Regulation
Contemporary elections are very costly. Funded
primarily by private funds. Regulation of
campaign money. Pursuit of money can subvert
the very purpose of elections. Prior to
the 1970s campaign money was basically
unregulated. Changes to the political
environment. Candidate-centered
campaigns. Television. Thune-Daschle 36
million dollars in South Dakota in 2004.
32
Campaign Money and its Regulation
Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971, extensively amended in 1974. Law
provided partial public funding for presidential
campaigns and required full public reporting of,
and strict limits on, all contributions and
expenditures in federal elections established
the Federal Election Commission to enforce the
law and to collect and publish detailed
information on campaign contributions
and expenditures
33
Campaign Money and its Regulation

• Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
• Question(s) Does the FEC Acts spending
  restrictions violate the first amendment?
• The SC ruled NO.
• It upheld reporting requirements and
  contribution limits to prevent corruption or the
  appearance of corruption
• Rejected spending limits FREE SPEECH
• Allowed candidates to spend as much of their own
  money as they wanted

34
Campaign Money and its Regulation
Concerned that spending limits were choking
off traditional local party activity in federal
elections, Congress liberalized FECA in 1979.
this amendment of the act allowed
unrestricted contributions and spending for
state and local party-building and get
out-the-vote activities these monies are
commonly called soft money monies given
directly to the candidate are known as hard
money. In March of 2002 Congress passed a
law prohibiting parties from raising and
spending soft money for federal candidates
the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act
35
Campaign Money and its Regulation

• The flow of campaign money has continued to
  outpace inflation.
• total funding from all sources for the general
  election campaigns for president rose from 453
  million in 1996 to 676 million in 2000, and to
  1.262 billion in 2004
• Spending in House and Senate campaigns also has
  continued to grow, rising by an average of about
  9 percent in the House and 12 percent in the
  Senate from one election year to the next
• average House campaign in 2006 953,000
• average Senate campaign in 2006 7.9 million
• Both supply and demand have driven campaign
  spending up
• supply grows because the stakes are so high.
• candidates appetites for funds have grown as
  well, as they need money because the cost of
  developing a message and getting it out to voters
  continues to climb

36
Campaign Money

• Congressional candidates tap four basic sources
  for funds
• Individuals.
• Tend to favor winners
• Political Action Committees
• Party organization
• Coordinated expenditures
• Independent expenditures

• Coordinated expenditures are those on behalf of
  the candidate for activities such as polling,
  ads, and opposition research
• Independent expenditures go for campaign
  activities that are not supposed to be
  coordinated in any way with the candidates
  campaign.

37
Campaign Money

• Contributors tend to favor winners
• thus incumbents generally are favored and
  challengers have a more difficult time
• Candidates for open seats are usually in a much
  better position to raise funds
• contributors correctly see open contests as their
  best opportunity for taking a seat from the other
  party.
• Money is not likely to win a presidential
  election for someone, but it does help the
  candidates get their message out. The more
  uncertain the election (the less information
  available about the candidates), the more likely
  money can matter
• this is certainly the case for presidential
  primaries.
• In House and Senate races, money (primarily the
  lack of it) is frequently the deciding factor.

38
How is Campaign Money Spent?

• Generally, campaign money is used to reach voters
  with the candidates message
• advertising is a key component
• Only a small portion of funds is spent on
  traditional campaigning (direct candidate-voter
  interaction).
• Todays campaigns are made-for-television
  productions
• best-funded campaigns for president or important
  Senate seats get the most attention from the
  media the poor get ignored
• Often as large as one quarter of a campaigns
  money goes to overhead costs
• staff salaries, office and furniture rental,
  computers, telephones, travel, legal, etc.
• .

39
How is Campaign Money Spent?

• Incumbents and non-incumbents have somewhat
  different spending patterns.
• weak opposition leaves incumbents free to spend
  relatively less on reaching voters or not to
  spend any money at all
• House incumbents (1992 data) gave away 6 percent
  of their campaign money (to charities or other
  candidates)
• non-incumbents spend about two-thirds of their
  funds on activities designed to reach voters
  directly

40
How is Campaign Money Spent in Presidential
Elections?

• Presidential candidates spend money based
• on their Electoral College strategy.
• Since one needs to piece together enough
• state victories to win at least 270
• electoral voters, the strategy is as
• follows
• Concentrate on states that polls indicate could
  go either way and that are populous enough to be
  worth winning (Ohio in 2004, for example).
• Ignore states that are locked up by either
  side.

41
How is Campaign Money Spent in Presidential
Elections?
Obama (2008) 744,983,795 Media
427,600,000 Administration
174,900,000 Campaign Expenses
72,900,000 McCain (2008) 368,093,763 Media
129,400,000 Administration
100,900,000 Campaign Expenses 35,300,000
42
The Electoral College in 2008
43
The Electoral College in 2012
44
Elections Revisited

• Does money contributed to elections provide
  benefits to those who give?
• Access yes.
• Policy favoritism no indisputable evidence.
• Suggested reforms
• Spending ceilings.
• Limiting donations and eliminating PACs.
• Public funding.
• Many have their own problems, trade-offs.
• No consensus on what would be best reform.
• Ultimate barrier First Amendment.
• Campaign Finance system is very pluralistic
  today, however.

45
Campaign Finance Regulation