Political Participation (Unit 5) |
5 |
When looking at the interrelationship between government and politics, you need to understand the nature of political participation. Government has an impact on our everyday lives in many ways. Our federal form of government has a huge effect on how we are able to function as part of our society—from how our recycled garbage is picked up to the speed limit on interstate highways. How citizens participate influence many policy decisions.
A working definition of government is those institutions that create public policy. Constitutionally defined, the formal institutions of government on the national level are the executive branch headed by the president, the legislative branch consisting of the Congress, and the judicial branch made up of the Supreme Court and lower courts. A similar structure exists on the state and local levels. In addition to government’s defined institutions, modern government is also characterized by those agencies that implement public policy—bureaucracies, including regulatory agencies, independent executive agencies, government corporations, and the cabinet. These institutions, sometimes acting independently, sometimes in concert, create and implement public policy. There are also linkage institutions that encourage political participation and utilize support to influence public policy. By definition, a linkage institution is the means by which individuals can express preferences regarding the development of public policy. Examples of linkage institutions are political parties, special-interest groups, and the media. Preferences are voiced through the political system, and when specific political issues are resolved, they become the basis for policy.
Government, politics, and participation thus can be defined by a formula that combines the three concepts and reaches an end goal: government plus politics and participation equals the creation of public policy. In other words, what government does through politics and participation results in public policy.
The media, through daily newspapers and television newscasts as well as columnists and editorials, attempt to influence the voters, the party, and the candidate’s stand on issues. The media have been accused of oversimplifying the issues by relying on photo opportunities (photo ops) set up by the candidates and on 30-second statements on the evening news (sound bites). The interaction of linkage institutions results in the formation of a policy agenda by the candidates running for elected office.
People with similar needs, values, and attitudes will band together to form political parties. Once a political party is formed, in order for the needs, values, and attitudes to translate into actual policy, the party must succeed in electing members to office. Thus, individuals running for office must have a base of electoral support, a base of political support (the party), and a base of financial support. Obviously, the issue of incumbency comes into play as those elected officials who are reelected become entrenched in the system and have an advantage over young political hopefuls who want to break into the system.
In order to implement their policies, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents have to be elected to public office. Candidates and political parties must assess the nature of the electorate. Is there a significant number of single-issue groups, those special interests that base their vote on a single issue? Or is the candidate’s stand on the issues broad enough to attract the mainstream of the voting electorate? The role of the electorate is also crucial in determining the means with which individuals become involved. How the voters perceive the candidate’s positions on issues, the way people feel about the party, the comfort level of the voter in relation to the candidate and the party, as well as the influence the media have on the election—these all come into play in the eventual success or failure of the candidate.
The measure of a democracy is open and free elections. In order for a democracy to succeed, these elections have to be open to all citizens, and issues and policy statements of candidates have to be available to the electorate so citizens can form political parties to advocate policies, and elections would be determined by a majority or plurality.
Amendments to the Constitution creating direct elections of senators; voting rights for freed slaves, women, and 18-year-olds; the elimination of poll taxes; and legislation such as the Voting Rights Bill have accomplished this. Participation in government and politics is another indicator. In 2012, many states attempted to pass legislation that would have made voting more difficult: these include voter-identification laws and limiting early-voting opportunities. Proponents of the legislation claimed these restrictive measures would prevent voter fraud. Opponents of these polices viewed it as voter suppression. Ultimately, the courts ruled many of these measures unconstitutional. In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, freeing nine southern states to change their election laws without advance federal approval. As a result, in the presidential election more states passed laws requiring voter IDs and restricting early voting. The courts invalidated many of these laws because they were discriminatory. In those states where the laws were implemented, there was a decrease in voter turnout.
Interest groups and political parties are both characterized by group identification and group affiliation. However, they differ in the fact that interest groups do not nominate candidates for political office. Their function is to influence officeholders rather than to end up as elected officials, and they are responsible only to a very narrow constituency. Interest groups can also make up their own bylaws, which govern how they run their organizations. Because the major function of these groups is the advocacy of or opposition to specific public policies, they can attract members from a large geographic area. The only criterion is that the person joining the group shares the same interest and attitude toward the goals of the organization.
How Civic Participation in a Representative Democracy drives elections and is impacted by the various kind of media.
How Competing Policy-Making Interests is driven by linkage institutions, the media, special-interest groups, political parties, and participation in elections, which are essential to the development and implementation of public policy.
How Methods of Political Analysis are used to measure public opinion.
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
Caucus
Closed primary
Coalitions
Critical elections
Demographic
Electoral College
Fifteenth Amendment
Free rider
Incumbency
Iron triangle
Issue network
Linkage institutions
Midterm election
Nineteenth Amendment
Open primary
Party convention
Party identification
Party realignment
Party-line voting
Political efficacy
Political platforms
Proportional voting
Prospective voting
Rational choice voting
Retrospective voting
Seventeenth Amendment
Single-issue group
Social movement
Twenty-fourth Amendment
Twenty-sixth Amendment
Winner-take-all voting
CONTEMPORARY CONNECTION
The 2020 Democratic presidential field had an unprecedented number of candidates, with 25 people having entered the race at the time of the first Democratic debate. The Democratic National Committee established new primary debate rules and eliminated the first ballot vote for superdelegates at the national convention. President Trump faced a primary challenge but had the support of a majority of Republican voters.
Participation in the political process is the key gauge of how successful political parties are in involving the average citizen. If you develop the actual vote as the key criteria, the future is certainly not bright. Unlike in many foreign countries, the American electorate has not turned out in droves in local or national elections. The reasons why people either vote or decide not to participate in the process depends on a number of factors. Then what does the future hold for the Democrats and Republicans? To answer this question, you must look at the continuum of political involvement.
There is no doubt that statistically the majority of the electorate participates in the political process in conventional ways. From those areas the majority of people participate in, to those areas that a minority participates in, the population as a whole generally is involved in one or more of the following:
■ discussing politics;
■ registering to vote;
■ voting in local, state, and national elections;
■ joining a specific political party;
■ making contact with politicians either by letter, phone, or social media;
■ attending political meetings;
■ contributing to political campaigns;
■ working in a campaign;
■ soliciting funds; and
■ running for office.
Yet one of the ironies of conventional political participation is that less than half of those who are eligible actually vote in most elections.
QUICK REVIEW OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL BASIS OF SUFFRAGE
■ Article I Section 2 Clause (1) required each state to allow those qualified to vote for their own legislatures to qualify as well to vote for the House of Representatives.
■ Article II Section 1 Clause (2) provided for presidential electors to be chosen in each state with the manner determined by state legislatures.
■ The Reserved Power clause of the Tenth Amendment gave the states the right to determine voting procedures.
■ The Fifteenth Amendment gave freed slaves the right to vote.
■ The Seventeenth Amendment changed the meaning of Article I Section 2 to allow eligible voters to elect senators directly.
■ The Nineteenth Amendment made it illegal for the states to discriminate against men or women in establishing voting qualifications.
■ The Twenty-fourth Amendment outlawed the poll tax as a requirement for voting.
■ The Twenty-sixth Amendment prohibited the federal government and state governments from denying the right of 18-year-olds to vote in both state and federal elections.
■ The Voting Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1965 increased the opportunities for minorities to register and allowed the attorney general to prevent state interference in the voting process.
■ The Supreme Court decision in Baker v Carr (1962) established the one-man, one-vote principle.
■ Supreme Court decisions in the 1990s established that gerrymandering resulting in “majority-minority” districts was unconstitutional.
Party Identification
If we assume party identification is a key factor in determining voter turnout and voter preference, then we would assume the Democrats would have the edge. This was definitely true in Congress, where Democrats dominated both houses from World War II until 1994, when the Republicans gained control of the House as well as the Senate. When you look at presidential elections, personality and issues rather than party have been conclusive factors in determining the outcome of the election. In many elections, ticket splitting occurred more than straight party-line voting. This was especially evident in 1996, 2010, and 2014 when the voters kept in office a Democratic president and a Republican Congress. In order to vote, you must be registered. Historically, this was an important factor explaining why voter turnout was low. Party identification in 2016, according to the Gallup Poll, had 36 percent of the electorate identify themselves as Independent, 32 percent Democratic, and 27 percent Republican. In 2016 there was very little ticket splitting as Republican candidates running for reelection won in red states and Democratic candidates won in blue states.
Voting Declines
Even though it is easier for people to vote due to early voting opportunities in many states and a greater number of people have registered, there has been a consistent downward trend in voting from 1968 to 2014. The number of people of voting age has more than doubled since 1932. Yet after reaching a high in 1960, the percentage of eligible voters who voted actually declined (except for a small increase in 1984 and 1992). Because of the increase in young voters and successful efforts to enroll minorities and get them to vote, there was a significant increase in the 1992 election when close to 55 percent of the registered voters turned out. In 1996, because of negative voter reaction to the campaign issues raised by President Clinton and Senator Robert Dole, the voter turnout was again below 50 percent. In 2000 the percentage rose to a little above 50 percent. In 2004, there was a record voter turnout that translated into a 60 percent turnout. The 2008 presidential election saw an increase in voter registration and voter turnout. A little more than 62 percent of eligible voters turned out. In 2012 and 2016, the turnout was 58 percent. Since 1932 the highest presidential turnouts (60 percent or more) were in the three elections that took place in the 1960s. National and international events, as well as new legislation that increased voting opportunities for minorities, were probably responsible for the higher numbers. After Watergate the percentage of voters dropped dramatically. It is interesting to note that in off-year congressional elections, voter turnout is significantly lower. From 1974 to 2014 turnout in midterm congressional elections averaged around 40 percent. In 2018, however, a record turnout of more than 50 percent of eligible voters cast ballots in a wave election that had the Democrats retake control of the House of Representatives. Democrats had a nationwide 8.6 percent voting margin over the Republicans and gained 40 seats.
There is a real inconsistency between voter participation and the amount and type of media election coverage provided during campaigns. Everything from presidential debates to town meetings and an increased use of the mass media should result in an increased voter turnout. But because of a decline in party identification and a distrust of politicians, it seems that many eligible voters would rather sit out elections.
The Right to Vote, Also Known as Suffrage
The country has seen a tremendous change in the legal right to vote. When the Constitution was ratified, franchise was given to white male property owners only. Today there is a potential for over 234 million people who are at least 18 years old to vote. It has been a long struggle to obtain suffrage for individuals who were held back by such considerations as property ownership, race, religious background, literacy, ability to pay poll taxes, and gender. In addition, many state restrictions lessened the impact of federal law and constitutional amendments.
The aftermath of the Civil War provided a major attempt to franchise the freed blacks. However, the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment was countered by the passage of literacy laws and poll taxes in most Southern states. The progressive era of the early twentieth century saw the passage of two key amendments, the Seventeenth instituting the direct election of senators and the Nineteenth granting voting rights to women. After the Brown decision in 1954, Congress began formulating voting rights legislation such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and these changes were backed by the passage of the Twenty-fourth Amendment, eliminating the poll tax (or any other voting fee). The final groups to receive the vote were Washington, D.C., voters, as a result of the Twenty-third Amendment in 1961, and 18-year-olds, as a result of the passage of the Twenty-sixth Amendment in 1971. In 1992 Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition increased minority voter registration. To make voter registration easier for all groups, the Motor Voter Act of 1993 was signed into law by President Clinton. This law enabled people to register to vote at state motor vehicle departments. In fact, not since the Voting Rights Act of 1965 have so many new voters registered: more than 600,000 registered to vote.
Even though these trends resulted in an increase in the potential pool of voters, it was still left up to the individual states to regulate specific voting requirements. Such issues as residency, registration procedures, availability of voting machines and voting places, and voting times affect the ability of people to vote. However, federal law and Supreme Court decisions have created more and more consistency in these areas. For instance, the Supreme Court has ruled that a 30-day period is ample time for residency qualifications. The Motor Voter Act does provide for the centralization of voter registration along with local registration regulations. Some states have permitted 17-year-olds to vote in some primary elections. Literacy tests have been outlawed in every state as a result of the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970 and Supreme Court decisions.
Important Legislation That Advanced Voting Rights
The two significant pieces of modern legislation increasing voting opportunities were the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, previously discussed.
There are some cases where restrictions can exist on a person’s right to vote. People in mental institutions, the homeless, convicted felons, and dishonorably discharged military have been denied the right to vote in some states. Many states have increasingly passed different kinds of voter identification laws to ensure voter integrity. Opponents of these laws claim that the real reason they were passed was to reduce voter turnout among minorities and other groups who traditionally vote Democratic. The Justice Department has stepped in, and many of these laws have been ruled unconstitutional. Although the impact on presidential elections has been negligible, laws that are implemented could potentially reduce turnout in future elections.
Models of Voting Behavior
The different methods of voting behavior include:
■ Retrospective voting—refers to the decisions people make on voting based on how political parties perform, how elected officials perform, and the extent to which an elected administration achieves its goals. Retrospective voters are more concerned with policy outcomes than the tactics used to achieve policy.
■ Rational Choice Voting—refers to voting based on decisions made after considering alternative positions.
■ Prospective Voting—refers to voters deciding that what will happen in the future is the most important factor. If the voter feels the party in power has done a poor job, that voter will vote for the other party. That is why, in a campaign, candidates stress what they will do for the voter if they get elected.
■ Party-line voting—refers to voting for the same party for every office that candidates are running for. Those voters who have the strongest party identification are most likely to vote the party line. A 2014 survey found that only 34 percent of voters voted on a straight party line.
Why People Vote
There are many factors that explain how attitudes, perceptions, and viewpoints individuals hold about politics and government impact voting. Some political scientists view this process as one of political socialization. It is interesting to see the parallels between the factors that influence voting patterns and the factors that shape public opinion and political socialization. They include:
■ the family,
■ the schools,
■ the church,
■ models of public opinion, and
■ the mass media.
People internalize viewpoints at a very early age and act on them as they grow older. “Family values” has become an overused phrase, but in fact it is the primary source of the formulation of political opinions. When Vice President Dan Quayle made family values an election issue in 1992, he touched a chord that set off a debate. The reality is that children internalize what they hear and see within their family unit. If a child lives with a single parent, that child will certainly have strong attitudes about child support. If parents tend to speak about party identification, most children will tend to register and vote for the same party as their parents. Schools and the church play a secondary role in the formation of political views. There is no doubt that the Catholic Church’s position on abortion has had a tremendous impact on Catholics taking a stand for the “right to life.” However, the family unit reinforces the viewpoint.
Schools and teachers inculcate the meaning of citizenship at very early ages. Children recite the Pledge of Allegiance and sing the national anthem. Depending upon how open the educational system is, students will also learn how to question the role of government.
Voting Patterns Influenced by Political Socialization, Party Identification, and Political Ideology
In order to understand why people vote, you must look first at the potential makeup of the American electorate. Demographic patterns are determined every ten years when the census is conducted. Besides establishing representation patterns, the census also provides important information related to the population’s
■ age,
■ socioeconomic makeup,
■ place of residence and shifting population movement,
■ ethnicity, and
■ gender.
The 2010 Census
Key aspects of the 2010 census reflect an increase in the aging of America, a population shift to the Sunbelt states, and a decrease in those who would be classified as earning an income close to or below the poverty level. The 2010 U.S. census results released by the Census Bureau indicated major changes in the population of the United States and in population shifts from large industrial states to the Sunbelt of the South and Southwest. Specifically:
■ the official U.S. population count is 325.7 million in 2017. In 2000 the population was 281,421,906. That is a growth rate of 9.7 percent, the lowest growth rate since the Great Depression.
■ minorities, especially Hispanics, make up a growing share of the U.S. population and are the largest ethnic group.
■ children are much more likely to be racial/ethnic minorities than adults.
■ the fastest-growing states are in the South and West.
■ southern and western states gained seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, while northeastern and midwestern states lost seats.
■ metropolitan areas with the fastest rates of growth are mostly in the South and West; the fastest rates of decline tend to be in the Northeast and Midwest.
■ most U.S. population growth during the past century has taken place in suburbs, rather than in city centers.
■ the states of Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania lost congressional seats. New York and Ohio lost two seats.
■ the states that gained seats were Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Washington. Texas gained four seats. Florida gained two seats.
Immigrant patterns and these factors have public-policy consequences and are therefore important to the political process. Other factors, such as whether it is a presidential election or a midterm congressional election, impact voter turnout. There is a greater turnout in presidential elections than midterm elections. Voter turnout in presidential elections since 1960 is between 50 and 60 percent compared to around 40 percent in congressional elections.
A Look at the 2020 Census
Although the 2020 census will not impact the presidential election held that year, it could have a profound effect on the 2022 midterms and the 2024 election. Some reasons are demographic. Racial diversity in the United States continues to increase. And, any census question regarding citizenship could have an effect. But, there have been significant state population changes since 2010, and studies show that 16 states will likely either gain or lose a congressional seat after the 2020 census. The biggest winner should be Texas, which could gain three or four electoral votes. Florida, Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina, and Oregon will also gain electoral votes. The biggest losers will be the Rust Belt states—Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. New York, West Virginia, Alabama, and Rhode Island will also lose votes. Many of these states are battleground states in presidential elections.
Optional Readings
Issue Salience and Party Choice, by David RePass
Key Quote:
“As the parties move farther apart on the liberal-conservative spectrum, cross pressured voters—those who pair left-wing economic positions with right-wing social attitudes and vice versa—face a starker choice between the two primary issue dimensions in American politics.”
Stepping Up: The Impact of the Newest Immigrant, Asian, and Latino Voters, by Rob Parel
Immigration Policy Center (2013)
“Across both Democratic and Republican congressional districts, demographics shifts are taking place that will significantly alter the composition of the electorates. Author Rob Parel points out that young Asian and Latino teenagers coming of age, as well as newly naturalized immigrants, will have a major impact on the profile of newly eligible voters in upcoming elections. Using data from the U.S. Census and the Department of Homeland Security, the paper finds that about 1.4 million newly naturalized citizens and 1.8 million first-time Asian and Latino voters will participate in each two-year election cycle, and together these groups will constitute 34 percent of all new eligible voters in the 2014 elections alone. Congressional districts across the country but particularly in California, Texas, Florida, Illinois, New York, New Jersey and New Mexico will see substantial increases in the Asian and Latino composition of new voters. As a result, Parel suggests that representatives must be cognizant of how their decisions today and in the future on matters such as comprehensive immigration reform will impact not only the current electorate but also the electorate in the 2014 and future elections.”
CONTEMPORARY CONNECTION
Party loyalty is a key factor in determining the success of a presidential candidate. About 90 percent of Democrats voted for President Obama in his two successful presidential runs. A significant reason that Donald Trump won in 2016 was that he had the support of around 90 percent of Republicans, while Hillary Clinton had the support of only 84 percent of white Democrats.
Today, the test to determine whether our democracy is working still relies on how the individual determines who runs the government and how policy is determined. Through linkage institutions and sovereignty, individuals must have a forum and a vote to determine their elected officials. The four main linkage institutions are political parties, elections, the media, and interest groups. To fully understand the function of these informal institutions of government, you should view them as input agents that result in output from the policy-making institutions covered in the last section.
The first linkage institution, political parties and how they influence policy making through political action, will be developed in this chapter. We will cover the major tasks, organization, and components of political parties. We will contrast the party organization with its actual influence on the policy makers in government. Then we will look at the history of the party system in America, evaluating the major party eras. The impact of third parties on the two-party system will also be discussed.
We will also analyze the ideology of the two major parties by looking at their platforms versus the liberal/conservative alliances that have developed. These coalitions may be the first step in the breakdown of the two-party system as we know it.
The Two-Party System
The nature of the party system in America can be viewed as competitive. Since the development of our first parties—the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans—different philosophies and approaches to the development and implementation of public policy have determined which party and which leaders control the government. Our system has been one of the few two-party systems existing in democracies; however, the influence of third-party candidates cannot be underestimated. Parliamentary democracies have multiparty systems.
Because the aim of a political party is to influence public policy, in order to succeed, parties must draw enough of the electorate into their organization and ultimately must get enough votes to elect candidates to public office. You can, therefore, look at a political party in three ways:
■ as an organization,
■ its relationship with the electorate, and
■ its role in government.
In order to achieve their goals, all political parties have the following common functions:
■ nominating candidates who can develop public policy,
■ running successful campaigns,
■ developing a positive image,
■ raising money,
■ articulating these issues during the campaign so that the electorate will identify with a particular party or candidate,
■ coordinating, in the governing process, the implementation of the policies they supported, and
■ maintaining a watchdog function if they do not succeed in electing their candidates.
The completion of each of these tasks depends on how effective the party’s organization is, the extent the party establishes its relationship with the electorate, and how it controls the institutions of government. A complete discussion of these components and functions will take place in other parts of the chapter.
Party Eras
The First Party era (1828–1860) was characterized by the Democrats dominating the presidency and Congress. The Second period (1860–1932) could be viewed as the Republican era. The Third era (1932–1968) gave birth to the success of the New Deal and was dominated by the Democrats. Divided government, in which one party controls the presidency and another party controls one or both houses of Congress, has dominated since 1968.
Party Realignment
Party realignment, the shift of party loyalty, occurred in 1932 after the country experienced the Great Depression. Fed up with the trickle-down economic theories of Herbert Hoover, the public turned to the New Deal policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. A new coalition of voters supported FDR’s New Deal. They included city dwellers, blue-collar workers, labor-union activists, the poor, Catholics, Jews, the South, and African Americans where they could vote. An unusual alliance of northern liberals and southern conservatives elected Roosevelt to an unprecedented four terms. This coalition, with the exception of Eisenhower’s election, held control of the White House and Congress until 1968. A direct comparison can be made among Roosevelt’s New Deal, Kennedy’s New Frontier, and Johnson’s Great Society philosophy and election coalition. The growth of the federal government and the growth of social programs became part of the Democratic platform. However, a party realignment began as Johnson fought for civil rights legislation. The Democratic “solid South” turned increasingly Republican, both on the state and national levels as southern white voters rejected the Democratic support for civil rights. In 1989, the so-called Reagan Democrats, blue-collar workers, signaled a new party realignment to the Republican Party. Reagan Democrats reemerged as a decisive factor in the 2016 election, many voting for Donald Trump, especially in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, three battleground states that he won.
Period of Divided Government
The ongoing Vietnam War and Nixon’s promise to end the war brought the Republicans back to power in 1968. Since then, they have won seven of twelve presidential elections but were unable to control Congress until 1994. That is why this modern period has been called the period of divided government. The Watergate scandal and Nixon’s resignation in 1974 saw a weakened GOP and the eventual loss by Gerald Ford to Jimmy Carter in 1976. That election signaled a new southern strategy, which Ronald Reagan was able to capitalize on in 1980. Pulling a constituency that has been labeled as “Reagan Democrats,” Reagan attracted a traditional Democratic base of middle-class workers to his candidacy. Reagan faced a Democratic majority in the House but had the support of a Republican Senate from 1981–1986. George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump had to deal with divided government during their presidencies.
Third Parties
Third political parties, also called minor parties, have played a major role in influencing the outcome of elections and the political platforms of the Democrats and Republicans. Even though these smaller parties and their leaders realize that they have virtually no chance to win, they still wage a vocal campaign. These third parties can be described as ideological, single-issue oriented, economically motivated, and personality driven. They have been called Socialist, Libertarian, Right to Life, Populist, Bull Moose, and United We Stand. But they all have one thing in common—an effort to influence the outcome and direction of an election. Let us look at some of the more successful third-party attempts.
The modern third-party impact has revolved around a political leader who could not get the nomination from his party. George Wallace’s American Independent Party of 1968 opposed the integration policies of the Democratic Party, and he received 13 percent of the vote and 46 electoral votes, contributing to Hubert Humphrey’s defeat in a very close election. John Anderson’s defection from the Republican Party in 1980 and his decision to run as a third-party candidate had a negligible effect on the outcome of that election.
The announcement by Texas billionaire H. Ross Perot that he was entering the 1992 presidential race, and using his own money to wage the campaign, changed the nature of that race. He announced his intention to run on CNN’s Larry King Show and said that if his supporters could get his name on the ballot in all 50 states he would officially enter the race. A political novice, he decided to drop out of the race the day Bill Clinton was nominated by Democrats. He then reentered the heated contest in October, appeared in the presidential debates, and struck a chord with close to 20 percent of the electorate. His folksy style and call for reducing the nation’s deficit played a significant role in the campaign. He did not win a single electoral vote, but won almost 20 percent of the popular vote. Ralph Nader running as the Green Party candidate hurt Al Gore’s chance in the contested 2000 election. In 2016, third-party candidates won 5 percent of the popular vote.
Even though there has been a history of third-party movements, they do not succeed at the ballot box because there are built-in obstacles. Factors like winner-take-all voting districts act as an impediment to third-party candidates.
Party Dealignment
If party realignment signifies the shifts in the history of party eras, then people gradually moving away from their parties has become more of a trend in today’s view of party loyalty. This shift to more neutral and ideological views of party identification has been termed “party dealignment.” Party dealignment is also characterized by voters who are fed up with both parties and register as independents. This trend has been on the rise and, in party-identification surveys, more than one-third of voters identify as independents. Those who are strong party loyalists believe the party matches their ideology. The shift of traditional Southern Democrats to the Republican Party came about because many voters perceived the Republicans as more conservative than the Democrats. Women activists, civil-rights supporters, and people who support abortion rights make up the Democratic coalition because the Democratic Party has supported these issues in their national platform. Party organization and party support have remained stronger than party identification because of the ability of the parties to raise funds and motivate their workers.
Optional Reading
A Comparison of the 2016 Democratic and Republican Party Platforms
Republican Platform |
Key Issue |
Democratic Platform |
“The Constitution’s guarantee that no one can ‘be deprived of life, liberty or property’ deliberately echoes the Declaration of Independence’s proclamation that ‘all’ are ‘endowed by their Creator’ with the inalienable right to life. Accordingly, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to children before birth.” |
Human Life |
“Democrats are committed to protecting and advancing reproductive health, rights, and justice. We believe unequivocally that every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion—regardless of where she lives, how much money she makes, or how she is insured. We believe that reproductive health is core to women’s, men’s, and young people’s health and well being…. We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment.” |
“We oppose the use of public funds to perform or promote abortion or to fund organizations, like Planned Parenthood, so long as they provide or refer for elective abortions or sell fetal body parts rather than provide health care.” |
Planned Parenthood |
“We will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood health centers, which provide critical health services to millions of people.” |
“We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.” |
Judges |
“We will appoint judges who defend the constitutional principles of liberty and equality for all, protect a woman’s right to safe and legal abortion, curb billionaires’ influence over elections because they understand that Citizens United has fundamentally damaged our democracy, and see the Constitution as a blueprint for progress.” |
“We value the right of America’s religious leaders to preach, and Americans to speak freely, according to their faith. Republicans believe the federal government, specifically the IRS, is constitutionally prohibited from policing or censoring speech based on religious convictions or beliefs, and therefore we urge the repeal of the Johnson Amendment.” |
Religious Liberty |
“Democrats know that our nation, our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith in many forms and the countless acts of justice, mercy, and tolerance it inspires. We believe in lifting up and valuing the good work of people of faith and religious organizations and finding ways to support that work where possible.” |
“We firmly believe environmental problems are best solved by giving incentives for human ingenuity and the development of new technologies, not through top-down, command-and-control regulations that stifle economic growth and cost thousands of jobs.” |
Climate Change/Global Warming |
“Climate change is an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time…. We believe America must be running entirely on clean energy by mid-century.” |
“We support options for learning, including home-schooling, career and technical education, private or parochial schools, magnet schools, charter schools, online learning, and early-college high schools. We especially support the innovative financing mechanisms that make options available to all children: education savings accounts (ESAs), tuition tax credits.” |
Education/School Choice |
“Democrats are also committed to providing parents with high-quality public school options and expanding these options for low-income youth. We support great neighborhood public schools and high-quality public charter schools, and we will help them disseminate best practices to other school leaders and educators. Charter schools focus on making a profit off of public resources.” |
“We renew our call for replacing ‘family planning’ programs for teens with sexual risk avoidance education that sets abstinence until marriage as the responsible and respected standard of behavior.” |
Sex Education |
“We recognize that quality, affordable comprehensive health care, evidence-based sex education, and a full range of family planning services help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies.” |
“Any honest agenda for improving health care must start with repeal of the dishonestly named Affordable Care Act of 2010: Obamacare…. |
Obamacare |
“Thanks to the hard work of President Obama and Democrats in Congress we took a critically important step towards the goal of universal health care by passing the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which has offered coverage to 20 million more Americans and ensured millions more will never be denied pre-existing condition.” |
“We condemn the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v Windsor, which wrongly removed the ability of Congress to define marriage policy in federal law. We also condemn the Supreme Court’s lawless ruling in Obergefell v Hodges …. In Obergefell, five unelected lawyers robbed 320 million Americans of their legitimate constitutional define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.” |
Marriage |
“Democrats applaud last year’s decision by the Supreme Court that recognized LGBT people—like every other American—have the right to marry the person they love. But there is still much work to be done.” |
“We call for expanded support for the stem cell research that now offers the greatest hope for many afflictions—through adult stem cells, umbilical cord blood, and cells reprogrammed into pluripotent stem cells—without the destruction of embryonic human life. We urge a ban on human cloning for research or reproduction, and a ban on the creation of, or mentation on, human embryos for research.” |
Medical Research |
“Democrats believe we must accelerate the pace of medical progress, ensuring that we invest more in our scientists and give them the resources they need to invigorate our fundamental studies in the life sciences in a growing, stable, and predictable way … funded National Institutes of Health to accelerate the pace of medical progress.” |
“We consider the Administration’s deal with Iran, to lift international sanctions and make hundreds of billions of dollars available to the Mullahs, a personal agreement between the President and his negotiating partners and non-binding on the next president …. Because of it, the defiant and emboldened regime in Tehran continues to sponsor terrorisms the region, develop a nuclear weapon, test-fire ballistic missiles inscribed with ‘Death to Israel,’ and abuse the basic human rights of its citizens.” |
Iran |
“We support the nuclear agreement with Iran because, if vigorously enforced and implemented, it verifiably cuts off all of Iran’s pathways to a bomb without resorting to war.” |
“The integrity of our country’s foreign assistance program has been compromised by the current Administration’s attempt to impose on foreign recipients, especially the peoples of Africa, its own radical social agenda while excluding faith-based groups—the sector with the best track record in promoting development—not conform to that agenda. We pledge to reverse this course …. ” |
ForeignAssistance |
“We will support sexual and reproductive health and rights around the globe. In addition to expanding the availability of affordable family planning information and contraceptive supplies, we believe that safe abortion must be part of compre-hensive maternal and women’s health care America’s global health programming.” |
HOW POLITICAL PARTIES ARE ORGANIZED
Political parties exist on both the national and local levels. Their organization is hierarchical. Grass-roots politics on the local level involves door-to-door campaigns to get signatures on petitions, campaigns run through precinct and ward organizations, county committees, and state committees headed by a state chairman. Local party bullies like William “Boss” Tweed or Democratic party machines like Tweed’s Tammany machine in nineteenth-century New York City or the Daley machine in twentieth-century Chicago have diminished in influence. The national political scene is dominated by the outcome of national conventions, which give direction to the national chairperson, the spokesperson of the party, and the person who heads the national committee. The party machine exists on the local level and uses patronage (rewarding loyal party members with jobs) as the means to keep party members in line.
The nominating process drives the organization of the national political party. This procedure has evolved and, even though the national nominating convention (more on this in the next chapter) still selects presidential candidates, the roles of the party caucus and party primary have grown in importance. The role of the national convention is one of publicizing the party’s position. It also adopts party rules and procedures. Sometimes this plays an important part in the restructuring of a political party. After the disastrous 1968 Democratic Convention, with antiwar rioting in the streets and calls for party reform, the McGovern–Frasier Commission brought significant representation changes to the party, making future conventions more democratic. Delegate-selection procedures aimed to include more minority representation. In 1982 another commission further reformed the representation of the Democratic Convention by establishing 15 percent of the delegates as “superdelegates” (technically uncommitted delegates chosen from party leaders and elected party officials). These delegates helped Walter Mondale achieve his nomination in 1984 and enabled Al Gore to defeat Bill Bradley easily in 2000. Superdelegates played a significant role in the 2008 Democratic primaries. Primary elections were completed in June, and neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton had a majority of the delegates. Ultimately, the superdelegates turned to Obama, giving him a majority and enabling him to clinch the nomination. In 2016, there was criticism that these delegates have reduced the intent of the democratic reforms of the McGovern Commission. After the 2016 presidential election, the Democratic National Committee voted to reduce the power of superdelegates. Even though elected party officials would still hold that position, they would not vote on the first ballot at the national convention; however, if no nominee received a majority of votes on the first ballot, the superdelegates would be able to vote on the second ballot and until a nominee was chosen. Ironically, with more than 15 candidates running for president in 2020 and every state having proportional voting results, there is a high probability that there will be a deadlocked convention.
The Republicans, on the other hand, were more concerned about regenerating party identification after the Watergate debacle. They were not interested in reform as much as making the Republican Party more efficient. Their conventions are well run and highly planned. There was, however, some negative publicity at their 1992 convention, which critics said was dominated by the conservative faction of the party. The lesson was learned. In 1996–2016, the Republican and Democratic conventions were highly scripted.
The National Committee
The governing body of a political party is the national committee, made up of state and national party leaders. This committee has limited power and responds to the direction of the national chairperson. The chairperson is selected by the presidential candidates nominated at the convention. In fact, the real party leader of the party in power is the president himself. The chairperson is recognized as the chief strategist and often takes the credit or blame for gains or losses in midterm elections. Some of the primary duties of the national chairperson are fundraising, fostering party unity, recruiting new voters and candidates, and preparing strategy for the next election.
Also, congressional campaign committees in both parties work with their respective national committees to win Senate and House seats that are considered up for grabs.
The future of political parties depends on how closely associated the voters remain with the party. The future is not bright for traditional party politics. There has been a sharp decline in party enrollment and an increase in the affiliation of voters calling themselves independents. More and more ticket splitting (where voters cast ballots, not on party lines, but based upon each individual candidate running for a particular office) has taken place. The impact of the media on the campaign has weakened the ability of the party to get its message out. Finally, the impact of special-interest groups and PACs has reduced the need for elected officials to use traditional party resources.
Suggestions have been made to strengthen voter identification with the party by presenting
■ clearly defined programs on how to govern the nation once their candidates are elected.
■ candidates who are committed to the ideology of the party and are willing to carry out the program once elected.
■ alternative views of the party out of power.
The winning party must take on the responsibility of governing the country if elected and accepting the consequences if it fails. This responsible party model would go a long way in redefining the importance of political parties in America. Even though there is a recognized decline in the importance of political parties, it is highly doubtful that our two-party system will change to a multiparty or ideological party system in the foreseeable future.
Interest Groups as a Linkage to Public Policy
CONTEMPORARY CONNECTION
The National Rifle Association (NRA) has successfully lobbied against legislation that would reinstate the federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 and laws that would establish stricter background checks when buying guns. The NRA is also actively fighting for gun rights on the state level.
Characteristics of Special-Interest Groups
For the purposes of establishing a common understanding, the definition of an interest group is a linkage group that is a public or private organization, affiliation, or committee that has as its goal the dissemination of its membership’s viewpoint. The result will be persuading public policy makers to respond to the group’s perspective. The interest groups’ goals are carried out by lobbyists and political action committees. They can take on an affiliation based on specialized memberships such as unions, associations, leagues, and committee and single-issue groups such as the National Rifle Association.
In trying to persuade elected officials to their position, these groups provide a great deal of specialized information to legislators. Group advocates also claim they provide an additional check and balance to the legislative system. Critics of the growth of specialized groups claim they are partly responsible for gridlock in government. In addition, critics point to how groups gain access to elected officials as a tradeoff for political contributions.
Once a specialized group is formed, it also has internal functions such as attracting and keeping a viable membership. Groups accomplish this by making promises to their membership that they will be able to succeed in their political goals, which in the end will benefit the political, economic, or social needs of the members. For example, if people want stricter laws against drunk driving and join Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), they feel a political and social sense of accomplishment when federal law dictates a national minimum drinking age along with federal aid to states for highway construction. For these groups to succeed, they also must have an adequate financial base to establish effective lobbying efforts or create separate political action committees. Dues may be charged or fundraisers might be held. The internal organization will certainly have elected officers responsible to their membership.
Group Theory
The nature of special-interest group membership is not representative of the population as a whole; consequently, the importance of group theory will help explain the context in which these groups develop. It is interesting to note that many have as their members people with higher than average income and education levels and many who are white-collar workers. However, this is balanced by the number of groups that have proliferated and represent the interests of union members and blue-collar workers. A problem interest groups face is the “free rider,” where members of a special interest group join without contributing to it with money or time.
Optional Reading
The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (1965), by Mancur Olson
From the publisher:
“This book develops an original theory of group and organizational behavior that cuts across disciplinary lines and illustrates the theory with empirical and historical studies of particular organizations. Applying economic analysis to the subjects of the political scientist, sociologist, and economist, Mancur Olson examines the extent to which the individuals that share a common interest find it in their individual interest to bear the costs of the organizational effort. The theory shows that most organizations produce what the economist calls “public goods”—goods or services that are available to every member, whether or not he has borne any of the costs of providing them. Economists have long understood that defense, law and order were public goods that could not be marketed to individuals, and that taxation was necessary. They have not, however, taken account of the fact that private as well as governmental organizations produce public goods. The services the labor union provides for the worker it represents, or the benefits a lobby obtains for the group it represents, are public goods: they automatically go to every individual in the group, whether or not he helped bear the costs. It follows that, just as governments require compulsory taxation, many large private organizations require special (and sometimes coercive) devices to obtain the resources they need.”
How Special-Interest Groups Got Legitimacy
Once the Constitution was ratified and the Bill of Rights was added, the First Amendment seemed to give legitimacy to the formation of special-interest groups. Their right of free assembly, free speech, and free press and the right to petition justified group formation. Groups could associate with each other, free from government interference, disseminate the issues they believe in to their membership and to government officials, and attempt to influence the course of public policy.
Mode of Operation of Special-Interest Groups
As interest groups have grown in number and size, they have also become specialized, representing narrow concerns. The following represents a cross section of the different kinds of interest groups that have organizations:
■ Economic and occupational including business and labor groups, trade associations, agricultural groups, and professional associations
—National Association of Manufacturers
—Airline Pilots Association
—AFL-CIO
—American Farm Bureau
—United States Chamber of Commerce
■ Energy and environmental
—American Petroleum Institute
—Sierra Club
■ Religious, racial, gender, and ethnic
—National Organization for Women
—National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
—National Urban League
■ Political, professional, and ideological
—Common Cause
—American Medical Association
—Veterans of Foreign Wars
—National Rifle Association
The majority of these groups have headquarters in Washington, D.C., and all have operating budgets and staffs. Most have hired lobbyists who make contacts with senators and representatives as well as the executive branch. Many have separate political-action committees with well-financed budgets. They place their views on the political agenda by
■ testifying at congressional hearings,
■ contacting government officials directly,
■ providing officials with research information,
■ sending letters to their own membership,
■ trying to influence the press to present their point of view,
■ suggesting and supporting legislation,
■ hiring lobbyists,
■ giving senators and representatives feedback from their constituents,
■ making contributions through PACs to campaign committees,
■ taking congresspersons on trips or to dinner,
■ endorsing candidates, and
■ working on political campaigns.
All these groups and techniques have the potential of cooperating with the legislative process because they do help inform office holders. They also provide elected officials with a viable strategy and a base of support. These groups also have the expertise to give elected officials an additional slant to a problem. Unlike constituents who have hidden agendas, special-interest groups place their goals on the table, up front.
Lobbyists
Lobbyists are the primary instruments for boosting a special-interest group’s goals with policy makers. The term lobbyist describes people who literally wait in the lobbies of legislative bodies to meet senators and representatives as they go to and from the halls of Congress. Manuals have been published for lobbyists outlining the best ways for them to be successful. Some of the techniques include
■ knowing as much as you can about the political situation and the people involved,
■ understanding the goals of the group and determining who you want to see,
■ being truthful in the way you deal with people,
■ working closely with the interest group that hired you,
■ keeping the people you are trying to convince in your corner by telling them of the support they will receive if they agree to the position of the group, and
■ following up on all meetings, making sure the results you want do not change.
Recently, the image of lobbyists has taken a blow because they often have attracted negative publicity. Former government officials who become lobbyists have been criticized because they can take unfair advantage of contacts they developed when they were in office. An additional accusation has been made against government appointees who were former lobbyists but still maintain a relationship with the special-interest group they worked for before getting the position. In 2006, lobbyist Jack Abramoff was convicted of illegal lobbying practices. As a result, Congress became embroiled in a scandal that revealed what many called a “culture of corruption.”
On the other hand, lobbyists also play a positive role as specialists. When tax reform was being considered in the 1990s, lobbyists provided expertise to the congressional committees considering the bills. Sometimes lobbyist coalitions are formed when extremely important and far-reaching legislation, such as health-care reform, is under consideration. Lobbyists may also take legal action on behalf of an interest group.
Lobbyists may also provide ratings of officials. Groups such as Americans for Democratic Action and the American Conservative Union give annual ratings based on their political ideologies. Lobbyists and special-interest groups also use the media to push their viewpoint. During the 1970s energy crisis, lobbyists for Mobil Oil Corporation ran ads that resembled editorial opinion columns, explaining the company’s point of view.
Political Action Committees (PACs)
When an interest group gets involved directly in the political process, it forms separate political action committees. PACs raise money from the special-interest group’s constituents and make contributions to political campaigns on behalf of the special interest. The amount of money contributed over the last few elections has been staggering. PACs such as the National Rifle Association, labor’s “Vote Cope,” the American Bankers Association (BANKPAC), the PAC of the National Automobile Dealers Association, Black Political Action Committees (BlackPAC), and Council for a Strong National Defense have made major contributions to political campaigns and have had a tremendous impact on local and national elections.
The amount of PAC contributions to congressional campaigns skyrocketed from 1981 to 2016. From 1981 to 1982, $83.7 million was contributed to candidates for the House and Senate, as compared with over $285 million contributed to congressional candidates in 2011–2016.
Top 10 PAC Contributors to Candidates, 2015–2016 |
||||||
Rank |
Organization |
Total Contributions |
To Democrats & Liberals |
To Republicans & Conservatives |
Percent to Democrats & Liberals |
Percent to Republicans & Conservatives |
1 |
Fahr LLC |
$66,860,491 |
$66,610,491 |
$0 |
100% |
0% |
2 |
Renaissance Technologies |
$50,368,646 |
$26,150,646 |
$22,972,000 |
53% |
47% |
3 |
Paloma Partners |
$38,693,300 |
$38,620,000 |
$3,300 |
100% |
0% |
4 |
Newsweb Corp |
$34,303,441 |
$34,298,041 |
$0 |
100% |
0% |
5 |
Las Vegas Sands |
$26,323,571 |
$43,341 |
$25,799,530 |
0% |
100% |
6 |
Elliott Management |
$24,580,672 |
$37,700 |
$24,541,972 |
0% |
100% |
7 |
Carpenters & Joiners Union |
$23,720,563 |
$23,278,997 |
$436,816 |
98% |
2% |
8 |
National Education Assn |
$23,299,929 |
$21,185,259 |
$366,570 |
98% |
2% |
9 |
Soros Fund Management |
$23,251,198 |
$21,670,483 |
$1,037,215 |
95% |
5% |
10 |
Priorities USA/Priorities USA Action |
$23,233,239 |
$21,060,341 |
$0 |
100% |
0% |
Source: Open Secret
The Difference Between Lobbyists, PACs, Super PACs (Independent Expenditure Committees), 527 Super PACs, and Social Welfare Organizations: 501(c)4 Groups
There is confusion regarding the differences between lobbyists, political action committees (PACs), Super PACs (Independent Expenditure Committees), and Social Welfare organizations also known as 501(c)4 groups:
■ Lobbyists: As previously described, lobbyists represent special-interest groups. They provide information to legislators and advocate their group’s positions. Lobbyists do not contribute money to candidates or office holders. Congressional law dictates how much money a lobbyist can spend when meeting with a legislator.
■ Political Action Committees can be formed by special-interest groups, elected officials, and candidates running for office. PACs formed by special-interest groups can raise money, contribute money to candidates, and spend money advocating their positions. PACs formed by elected officials and candidates running for office can raise money and spend money on advancing their own campaigns, or they can contribute money to other candidates. An example of this type of PAC was “Ready for Hillary,” the political action committee that was formed to encourage Hillary Clinton to run for president in 2016.
■ Super PACs, also known as Independent Expenditure Committees, are regulated by the Federal Election Commission and are supposed to act independently from any candidate or campaign. Independent Expenditure Committees cannot contribute directly to any campaign. They raise money for the purpose of supporting a position on specific issues through political advertisements. The Club for Growth is an independent committee that supports candidates who pledge that they would not vote to raise taxes.
■ 527 Super PACs: Also, independent expenditure committees, these PACs can create independent expenditure accounts that can accept donations without limits from individuals, corporations, labor unions, and other political action committees (thanks to the decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Citizens United case); 527 groups have proliferated and play a significant role in congressional and presidential elections. Examples of 527 groups are Priorities USA (supporting Democratic candidates), American Crossroads, and Americans for Prosperity (supporting Republican candidates). By law, they cannot coordinate their spending with the candidates they support.
■ Social Welfare Organizations also known as 501(c)4 groups: These Super PACs are recognized by the Internal Revenue Service as “Tax Exempt Social Welfare Organizations” formed for the purpose of improving the social welfare of society. There are no limits on how much money they can raise. They can spend money on political advertising that supports their goals, as long as that political activity is not the sole purpose of the group. They differ from 527 groups because they do not have to disclose publicly the names of their contributors. Crossroads GPS is an example of a 501(c)4 group. Such groups have been criticized because of the anonymity of their donors. They have also played a major role in congressional and presidential elections.
The Success or Failure of Special-Interest Groups Depends on Public Support
In order for an interest group to succeed, not only must there be public awareness of the group’s position, but legislators must also accept the bill of goods presented to them. There is no doubt the National Rifle Association’s membership consists of a small percentage of the American public. Yet because of its image—for example, the “We are the NRA” commercials and its advocacy of the constitutional right to bear arms—the public is certainly aware of its stand, and polls indicate that many people support its position.
The National Rifle Association is a good example of how a special-interest group successfully influences public policy. From 1994 to 2012, the NRA’s political influence has been felt by both parties. In 1994, they successfully campaigned against Democrats who voted for the assault weapons ban, a key to the Republicans taking over Congress. After the tragic mass shooting of elementary school children and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary school in 2012, public opinion shifted in favor of gun-control legislation. Universal background checks, penalties for gun trafficking, regulation of the number of magazine clips, and a new assault weapons ban were part of the legislative agenda. The NRA opposed these measures, citing Second Amendment concerns. Ultimately, Congress failed to approve any new gun-control measures.
There is a symbiotic relationship among special-interest groups, Congress, and bureaucracies—earlier referred to as the iron triangle, and also called issued networks. The iron-triangle network is a pattern of relationships between an agency in the executive branch, Congress, and special-interest groups lobbying that agency.
Popular vs. Electoral votes
Once the candidate is nominated, the outcome of the election is generally determined by whoever receives the most electoral votes. The potential exists for a third-party candidate drawing enough votes to throw the election into the House of Representatives. When Ross Perot received almost 20 percent of the popular vote in 1992 and established his own political party, many political scientists predicted that in a future presidential election no candidate would receive a majority of the electoral votes. Two factors contribute to this prediction. First, in all but two states the rules of the Electoral College system dictate that the winner takes all the electoral votes of a state even if one candidate wins 51 percent of the vote and the losing candidate gets 49 percent. Second, the allocation of electoral votes does not always reflect true population and voter patterns.
On five occasions in American history, presidential candidates have lost the election even though they received the most popular votes. In 1824 Andrew Jackson received a plurality of popular votes and electoral votes, over 40 percent of the popular votes to 31 percent of the vote obtained by John Quincy Adams. Yet, Jackson did not receive a majority of the electoral votes; Adams received a majority of the votes from the House and was elected president. In 1876 Republican Rutherford B. Hayes lost the popular vote by a little more than 275,000 votes. Called the “stolen election” by historians, Hayes received an electoral majority after an electoral commission was set up by Congress to investigate electoral irregularities in Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Oregon. The commission voted on party lines, and Hayes was officially elected president. In 1888 Grover Cleveland won the popular vote but lost the electoral majority to Benjamin Harrison. In the 2000 election, Vice President Al Gore received more popular votes than George W. Bush. Bush, however, won the majority of the electoral votes and became our 43rd president. If third-party candidate Ralph Nader had not run, Gore would have won enough electoral votes to have won the election.
More Americans voted for Hillary Clinton than for any other losing presidential candidate in U.S. history. The Democrat received more votes than Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump—almost 2.9 million votes, with 65,844,954 (48.2 percent) to his 62,979,879 (46.1 percent), according to revised and certified final election results from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Clinton’s 2.1 percent margin ranks third among defeated candidates, according to statistics from the U.S. Elections Atlas. However, President Trump won the Electoral College vote 304–227, winning three key battleground states, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan by slim margins totaling fewer than 70,000 votes.
Even though this has occurred only five times, there have been extremely close elections, such as the 1960 election between Kennedy and Nixon and the 1976 election between Carter and Ford, where a small voting shift in one state could have changed the outcome of the election. There is also a potential constitutional problem if a designated presidential elector decides not to vote for the candidate he was committed to support—a faithless elector. This has happened on ten occasions without having an impact on the outcome. In 2016, there were seven faithless electors, two defecting from Trump and five defecting from Clinton, an all-time record. That is why the total number of electoral votes received by Trump and Clinton (531) does not add up to the maximum total of 538 electoral votes. The third anomaly of the system could take place if the House and Senate must determine the outcome of the election. The Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution outlines this procedure, and even though it has happened only once, strong third-party candidates make this a distinct possibility in the future.
Two proposed constitutional amendments have been offered to make the system fairer. The first would create a proportional system so that a candidate gets the proportional number of electoral votes based on the size of the popular vote received in the state. In 2011, individual states such as Pennsylvania considered passing legislation that would split their electoral votes proportionally in the 2012 election. A second plan offered would simply abolish the Electoral College and allow the election to be determined by the popular vote with perhaps a 40 percent minimum margin established: any multiparty race resulting in a victor who receives less than 40 percent would require a run-off. Another way to bypass the constitutional amendment route is for state legislatures to pass laws that mandate their electors to vote for the winner of the countrywide popular vote even if the elector’s state voted for a different candidate. The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It has been enacted into law in the District of Columbia and 15 states, with a total of 196 electoral votes. For this bill to succeed, enough states to carry the total another 74 electoral votes have to join the effort. Every state that has signed on is a “blue” state, and since there are not enough Democratic states to get over the 270 electoral votes threshold, some of the “red” states would also need to sign on.
The Invisible Primary
The time it takes between a candidate’s announcement that he or she is running and the actual start of the party’s convention, it could easily be two years from beginning to end. Add to that the campaign for president, and an additional three to four months are tacked on.
The “invisible primary,” the period between a candidate’s announcement that he or she is running for president and the day the first primary votes are cast, will heavily influence the outcome of the primary season. After the candidate declares, he or she starts building an organization, actively seeking funds—the current start-up fee for presidential races has been estimated at $100 million—and developing an overall strategy to win the nomination. Before the first primary or caucus, the candidate vies for endorsements from party leaders and attempts to raise the public’s interest by visiting key states with early primaries, such as Iowa and New Hampshire. Debates are held among the candidates, and political ads are shown in the early primary states. Since 1976, when little-known Georgia governor Jimmy Carter threw his hat in the ring, the invisible primary has created a perceived front-runner. Front-runner status during the invisible primary has been defined as the candidate who raised the most money. This pattern was broken in 2004, when Vermont governor Howard Dean raised more money than any other Democrat, establishing a record for the amount. Dean’s candidacy also pioneered using the Internet to raise funds. However, after Dean lost the Iowa caucus, his candidacy imploded. In the election of 2008, Hillary Clinton narrowly led Barack Obama in fundraising prior to the Iowa caucus. Republican Rudy Giuliani led the Republican field, with the eventual nominee John McCain lagging behind in fourth place. The Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary changed the dynamics of the race. Both Obama and McCain captured their party’s nomination, increasing their fundraising as the campaign progressed. The Republican field in 2012 held a series of candidate debates prior to the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary. Even though former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney had a fund-raising advantage and was perceived as the best candidate to defeat President Obama, he suffered a series of setbacks as one candidate after another gained front-runner status. Romney ultimately surged ahead during the primaries.
The 2016 invisible primary broke past rules. Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton was expected to coast to the nomination with only minimal opposition. However, Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, enrolled as a Democrat and waged a campaign that lasted until June 2016. He became the populist alternative to the establishment candidacy of Secretary Clinton and raised close to $230 million.
The Republican contest was also unique. Seventeen candidates entered the race to compete against of the outsider Donald Trump. After a series of Republican debates prior to the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, Trump emerged as the front-runner. After narrowly losing in Iowa and winning decisively in New Hampshire, Trump remained the front-runner throughout the Republican primaries.
Primaries and Caucuses
The second stage of the campaign is the primary season. By the time the first caucus in Iowa and the first primary in New Hampshire are held in January, the campaign for the party’s nomination is well under way—some 10 months before election day. By the time these early primary votes are completed, many candidates have dropped out of the race. Prior to 2004, there was a break between the Iowa and New Hampshire votes and other primaries. But in 2004, the Democrats created a primary calendar characterized as “front-loading,” because primaries are held each week. This is the third phase of the campaign. And in February and March several key primaries are held on what has been called “Super Tuesday.” After Super Tuesday, one candidate usually has enough pledged delegates that he or she becomes the presumptive nominee. This did not happen in 2008, as the Democratic candidates fought until the last primary was completed. In 2012, Governor Romney was able to defeat the rest of the Republican field during the primary season and wrapped up the nomination shortly after Super Tuesday. But his image was damaged during the primary campaign as he was attacked not only by his Republican opponents but also by the incumbent, President Obama.
In 2016, Trump became the presumptive nominee in May, after the Indiana primary, first by eliminating most of his opponents after Super Tuesday, capturing a majority of the delegates needed to give him a clear path to the nomination.
Hillary Clinton did not clinch the nomination until the last primary in June 2016. Even though she won a majority of the popular votes in the primary states, because the Democratic primary delegates were awarded proportionally, her opponent remained in the race until the end of the process. Sanders conceded when he saw that the combination of primary delegates and superdelegates would guarantee Secretary Clinton the nomination. In 2020, the Democratic National Committee agreed to allow Iowa to make changes in its caucus to increase voter participation.
Primaries
Without a doubt, the presidential primary has become the decisive way a candidate gains delegate support. It has taken on such importance that key primary states such as New York and California have moved their primary dates to be earlier so that their primaries take on much greater importance. Today, 30 states have presidential primaries. The others use caucuses or party conventions. Presidential primaries can be binding or nonbinding. They can ask the voter to express a preference for a presidential candidate or for delegates who are pledged to support a candidate at the convention. Primaries are used in many ways:
■ Closed primary—only registered party voters can vote. Florida has a closed primary.
■ Open primary—registered voters from either party can cross over and vote in the other party’s primary. New Hampshire has an open primary.
■ Proportional primary representation, where delegates are apportioned based on the percentage of the vote the candidate received in the primary election.
■ Winner-takes-all primary, where, as in the general election, the candidate receiving a plurality receives all the delegates. The Republicans use this method in California. Democratic rules have banned the use of this system since 1976.
■ Non-preferential primary, where voters choose delegates who are not bound to vote for the winner of the primary.
■ A primary in which all the voters, including cross-over voters from other political parties, can express a preference but do not actually select delegates to the convention.
■ A dual primary, where presidential candidates are selected, and a separate slate of delegates is also voted on. New Hampshire uses this type of primary.
Pre-Convention Strategy
The third stage of the campaign takes place between the time both parties have a presumptive candidate and the national conventions, where the candidates are officially nominated. In 2004, Massachusetts senator John Kerry won the majority of the Democratic primaries and had enough delegates pledged to him that by March he became the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee. Incumbent Republican president George W. Bush also began his campaign in earnest in March 2004, with a television blitz costing more than $60 million. In 2008, Republican senator John McCain wrapped up his party’s nomination months before Democratic senator Barack Obama. This gave McCain an opportunity to unify the Republican Party, define his candidacy, and continue to raise funds for the general campaign. Obama seemingly was at a disadvantage, because he did not become the presumptive nominee until June and had a much more difficult time unifying the Democratic Party. In 2012, Governor Romney spent almost all of his resources during the primaries and was unable to draw on his general campaign funds until after he was officially nominated. This put him at a disadvantage because President Obama was able to use all his resources to campaign against the presumptive Republican nominee. In 2016, Donald Trump had an early advantage because he became the Republican presumptive nominee before Hillary Clinton could clinch the Democratic nomination, which did not happen until after the last primary.
The Party Nominating Convention
The fourth stage of the campaign is when each party holds its nominating convention. Traditionally, the party out of power holds its convention first. The conventions are highly scripted and like a pep rally for the party’s base. The key components of the convention are the adoption of the party platform, the keynote speech, the nominating speeches, and the acceptance speeches of the vice-presidential and presidential candidates. After the conventions, each presidential candidate is expected to get a “convention bounce,” a sometimes-temporary increase in positive polling results. In 2008, both parties delayed their conventions because they did not want to have a conflict with the Summer Olympics. The conventions were held in successive weeks. The Democrats convened first, in Denver, and Barack Obama’s acceptance speech was given at Invesco Field before the largest audience ever to watch an acceptance speech. The Democrat received a modest poll bounce, which was quickly erased, prior to the opening of the Republican convention, when John McCain announced his choice for vice president, Alaska governor Sarah Palin. In 2012 because the Republican and Democratic conventions were held back-to-back neither candidate received a bounce in the polls.
National conventions date back to the 1830s, when the first “open” party convention was held by Jacksonian Democrats. Historically, conventions have provided excitement, hoopla, and ultimately the nomination of the party’s candidates for president and vice president. The 1924 Democratic convention required 103 ballots to determine the winner. Backroom deals were cut, and strange political bedfellows emerged, creating a truly national ticket. Since 1952, both parties have selected their standard bearers on the first ballot. Even though this has been the case, media coverage of the conventions guarantees a national audience. Key convention proceedings such as rules and credentials debates, keynote speeches, platform debates, nomination of the presidential candidates, selection of a running mate, and acceptance speeches pique the interest of the electorate. Even the location of the convention can play a role in affecting the party’s choice and creating a positive or negative public impression. In 1952, Governor Adlai Stevenson, Illinois’s “favorite son” (the candidate backed by the state holding the convention), gave the welcoming address, and many political observers believed it contributed to his nomination that year. In 1968 the riots in Chicago played to a national audience, who came away with the feeling that the Democratic Party was not unified. The close results of the 1968 general election, according to some, would have been different if there had not been riots.
The McGovern-Fraser Commission
The McGovern-Fraser Commission was formed after the disastrous 1968 Democratic Convention. The commission’s purpose was to revise the rules of delegate representation to be adopted for the 1972 Democratic Convention. The report recommended uniformity to the delegate-selection process with an emphasis on minority, women, and youth representation. The commission’s recommendations were approved and, as a result, there was a dramatic increase in minority and women delegates. Because these changes were made, the days of smoke-filled rooms where party leaders picked the presidential candidate came to an end as states moved to holding primaries as the means of delegate selection. The commission also created a category known as superdelegates (elected party officials, who automatically were able to vote at the convention). In 2008, Obama was able to win the nomination because he convinced the superdelegates he could win in the general election. The Republican Party does not have the same rules, and the makeup of the delegates to their convention is not as diverse. In 2016, Hillary Clinton easily received the support of the Democratic superdelegates, which gave her an insurmountable lead against insurgent Senator Bernie Sanders. The impact that the superdelegates will have on the 2020 Democratic National Convention remains to be seen because they can’t cast a vote until the second ballot.
Selecting the Vice President
Wheeling and dealing often comes about in the selection of the vice-presidential running mate. Since 1940, the political precedent of having the presidential nominees choose their running mates has been established. The philosophy of the presidential nominees in picking a vice presidential candidate has ranged from attempts at “balancing the ticket” geographically to paying off a political debt. The classic choices of Lyndon Johnson as John Kennedy’s running mate in 1960, Walter Mondale as Jimmy Carter’s selection in 1976, and Lloyd Bentsen’s addition to the Dukakis ticket in 1988 illustrate this balancing principle. When George McGovern selected Senator Thomas Eagleton in 1972 in a rushed decision, he soon regretted the choice. The media uncovered Eagleton’s history of bouts of depression, and he was forced to leave the ticket. There sometimes is a sense of history in the elevation of a person to the ticket. Mondale’s choice of Geraldine Ferraro of New York was historic, signaling the willingness of the Democratic Party to recognize that a woman had the capability to become president.
That the vice president must be qualified to be president in the event of a president dying or being incapacitated in office has been a source of controversy when presidential candidates select running mates. George H. W. Bush’s selection of Dan Quayle and the questions regarding Quayle’s qualifications hurt Bush’s campaign. On the other hand, when a politician breaks the rules, it sometimes helps the image of his candidacy. Clinton’s choice of fellow southerner Al Gore violated every previous rule. But the strategy worked, as this baby-boomer ticket caught the fancy of the American public. Vice President Gore, in turn, surprised the pundits by choosing Connecticut senator Joseph Lieberman, the first Jewish candidate for vice president. George W. Bush selected the elder Bush’s secretary of defense, Dick Cheney, as his running mate. In 2008, Barack Obama selected one of his rivals for the presidency, Delaware senator Joseph Biden. Biden, who chaired both the Senate Judiciary and Foreign Relations committees, brought experience to the ticket. John McCain surprised the country, choosing Palin, who was relatively unknown. It was the first time the Republicans chose a woman for vice president. Palin helped unify the Republican Party, but ultimately hurt the ticket because of her inexperience. In 2012, Mitt Romney selected the chairman of the Budget Committee, Paul Ryan, to appeal to the conservative base of the Republican Party. In 2016, Secretary Clinton chose Virginia senator Tim Kaine, and Trump chose Indiana governor Mike Pence.
The General Campaign
The election campaign seems like a hundred-yard dash compared to the nominating process. Even though there are similarities to the nomination campaign in terms of organization and strategy, once the candidate has the official party designation, the fall campaign turns into a fight to the finish. In 1960 Richard Nixon decided to be the first candidate to campaign actively in all 50 states, and some analysts believe it cost him the election. In the 2000 campaign, Al Gore campaigned for a continuation of the Clinton accomplishments while trying to separate himself from the scandals that President Clinton faced—most notably his impeachment. He selected a Clinton critic, Connecticut senator Joseph Lieberman. Governor George W. Bush of Texas campaigned as a Washington outsider, but selected Cheney, a Washington insider, for vice president. In 2004, Bush ran as an incumbent, while Democratic senator John Kerry challenged the sitting president’s Iraq policies. The 2008 campaign was characterized by a number of firsts. It was the first time there was no incumbent running for president from the previous administration since 1928; the first time an African American was nominated; and the first time the Republican Party nominated a woman for vice president. In the 2012 campaign, President Obama faced a difficult reelection landscape. The economy still had not recovered from the 2008 recession, and unemployment hovered around 8 percent. The Obama campaign developed a strategy of defining Mitt Romney early as “out of touch.” Romney reinforced that image when he was caught on tape at a fundraiser criticizing the 47 percent of Americans who did not pay income taxes. A good showing in the first debate energized the challenger but ultimately Obama’s ground game of volunteers getting out the vote provided the margin for victory.
The general campaign begins after the nominating conventions. Labor Day has become the unofficial kickoff of the general campaign. Both candidates must develop an electoral strategy that will ultimately result in winning 270 electoral votes. Since 1990, states have been described as “blue or red” states, blue for Democrats and red for Republicans. Candidates have a base of electoral support and must win the so-called swing states, also known as “battleground states” that will determine the outcome of the election. In 2000, Florida became the ultimate swing state as its electoral votes were contested until the Supreme Court ruled that a recount could not take place in the case Bush v Gore. In 2012, Obama targeted nine swing states and won all but North Carolina giving him a majority of electoral votes.
In 2016, Hillary Clinton was consistently ahead of Donald Trump in the polls. She “won” the televised debates, but was under constant attack by Trump for using a private email server to conduct government business while she was secretary of state. During the last two weeks of the campaign, more allegations emerged, and the FBI reopened the Clinton email investigation. Even though the Department of Justice and the FBI ultimately cleared her, many political observers believe that these events were a decisive factor in her presidential loss.
Campaign Strategy
Campaign strategists develop the day-to-day messaging for each campaign. They make decisions about where the money should be spent for political ads, where the candidates should go, the strategy for the presidential debates, and the get-out-the-vote operations. With the rise of social media, presidential candidates utilize email, create apps, and have Facebook pages and Twitter accounts. There is a 24-hour news cycle, and there are often gaffes the candidates make that dominate the news.
The presidential and vice-presidential debates draw the largest audiences. They are run by the Presidential Debate Commission, a nonpartisan organization that organizes the dates, location, and format of the debates. Typically, there are three presidential debates: one dealing with domestic issues, one with foreign policy, and one in a town-hall format where questions are asked by undecided voters. These debates can impact the campaigns and give the challenger an advantage.
In 1960 the first-ever televised campaign debates gave an advantage to Kennedy, who came over better on the screen than did Nixon.
It was a turning point in the campaign. Incumbents such as Nixon often have had difficulty in their first debate. In 2012, President Obama’s lackluster performance resulted in a tightening of the race.
One of the most important factors in the general campaign is money. The candidate who is able to raise the most money has a clear advantage. Presidential campaigns from 1976 to 2008 were characterized by presidential candidates using matching funds provided by law to limit the amount of money spent in a presidential campaign. In 2008, Barack Obama decided to raise more than the limit (refusing the matching funds) and had a significant spending advantage over his opponent. In 2012, both candidates raised more than a billion dollars. The total cost of the 2016 presidential campaign was over $2.6 billion, setting a record. Adding the cost of the congressional campaigns, the total expenditure was over $6 billion. As a result of the Citizens United Supreme Court case, independent groups were able to raise unlimited funds for the election.
Issues do make a difference in the campaign. An unpopular war or economic crisis will contribute to the chances of the challenger. In 1968, Lyndon Johnson withdrew from the race because of the unpopularity of the Vietnam War. In 2004, George W. Bush was reelected because the country did not want a change while the United States was fighting in the Middle East and Central Asia. It was a close election because those wars were becoming unpopular. In 2008, the voters punished the Republican Party and its candidate because of the economic problems the country was facing. In 2012, President Obama was able to convince the electorate that the country was making economic progress. In 2016, Donald Trump became the “change” candidate and pledged to “make America great again.” That message resonated with a new constituency that came out to vote in larger numbers than anyone expected.
Factors such as ethnic, religious, gender, and minority support are crucial for success in a campaign. Traditionally, the Democratic Party’s base includes organized labor, African Americans, women, Jews, and Hispanics. The Republican Party’s base includes white men, evangelicals, people who earn more than $100,000 a year, senior citizens, and those living in rural areas. Once the base is solidified, the last piece of the puzzle is getting out the vote. A major change that has occurred in the get-out-the-vote efforts is early voting. Thirty-four states allow early voting, and a candidate who establishes a lead can win that state. More than 40 percent of the voters in those states do so either by mail or in person prior to Election Day. More than 22 million people took advantage of early voting in the 2016 presidential election. A significant number of this voting took place before the last presidential debate. Candidates should certainly adjust their campaign strategies to account for early voting.
Optional Reading
The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns, by Sasha Isenberg (2016)
From the publisher:
“The Victory Lab follows the academics and maverick operatives rocking the war room and re-engineering a high-stakes industry previously run on little more than gut instinct and outdated assumptions. Armed with research from behavioral psychology and randomized experiments that treat voters as unwitting guinea pigs, the smartest campaigns now believe they know who you will vote for even before you do. Issenberg tracks these fascinating techniques—which include cutting edge persuasion experiments, innovative ways to mobilize voters, heavily researched electioneering methods—and shows how our most important figures, such as Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, are putting them to use with surprising skill and alacrity.”
Reelection and Incumbency
The history of Congress reflects long-standing traditions. The first meetings in both houses established the committee system, which still exists today. The reelection rate of the Congress in its early days was low. In the first ten years, over one-third of the senators resigned before the end of their terms. In the House a large number of representatives served only one or two terms.
As political parties began to develop, the congressional reelection rate began to increase. By the time of the Civil War, many election victories resulted from party affiliation and incumbency. After the Seventeenth Amendment, the entire political structure of the Congress changed. By the era of the modern-day presidents (Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush, Obama, and Trump), it was evident that influential senators and representatives could use their office as an entrée to the presidency.
Other factors that changed the nature of congressional elections were the make-up of congressional districts, the primary system for nominating candidates, the importance of party politics, and the resulting reelection of most incumbents.
Election of Incumbents
Primaries and party politics have resulted in the election of incumbents through the 2000s. However, a trend that began in 2010 resulted in some Republican incumbents being defeated in primaries when the Tea Party supported more conservative candidates. Many of these Tea Party candidates were defeated by Democrats in the general campaign. Even though the success of Senate incumbents lags behind the House, it is obvious that once elected a sitting congressperson has a distinct advantage. The exception to the rule is if there is a scandal involving a representative or if a sitting president is unpopular by the midterms, a smaller percentage of that party’s incumbents are reelected. When it became known in 1992 that House members were abusing their checking and post office privileges, many incumbents either decided not to seek reelection or were defeated. Midterm elections in 1994 reflected the public’s disapproval of President Clinton’s job performance. For the first time in 40 years, the Republicans captured control of both the House and the Senate. In fact, not a single Republican incumbent was defeated in what has been described as an electoral revolution. The Republicans maintained control of Congress after the 1996 presidential election. The 1998 midterm election maintained Republican control, although the margins of victory were cut in both the House and the Senate. After the 2006 midterm elections, the Democrats retook control of Congress, gaining 29 seats in the House. After the 2008 election, Democrats increased their majorities in the House and Senate, achieving a filibuster-proof Senate. This 60-seat majority did not last long as the Republicans gained back a seat after they won a victory in Massachusetts in a special election held after the death of the “lion of the Senate,” Ted Kennedy. In the 2010 midterm election, Republicans gained 6 seats in the Senate, reducing the Democratic majority to 53 seats. The Republicans kept control of the House. In 2012, the Democrats gained seats in both houses, but the Republicans kept control in the House. In 2014, the Democrats lost 13 seats in the House and 9 seats in the Senate, giving the Republicans control of Congress. After the 2016 election, the Republicans lost six seats in the House and two seats in the Senate and retained control of Congress. As in other wave elections, the reelection rates of incumbents declined in 2018. More than 40 Republican representatives retired, including the Speaker of the House, before the midterms.
From 2000 to 2016 House reelection rates ranged from a high of 99 percent in 2000 and 2004 to a low of 85 percent in 2010. In 2016, reelection rates for House incumbents fell to 90 percent. Senate reelection rates are lower for the same time period. In 2016, 91 percent of Senate incumbents were reelected. Why do incumbents have this advantage?
Incumbents are highly visible. The cable network C-SPAN routinely broadcasts proceedings of the House and Senate. Representatives have free franking (sending of mail) privileges; they do case work for their constituents, and most pride themselves in establishing close constituent relationships. They also make sure to co-sponsor legislation. Representatives are quick to take credit for obtaining funds through legislation that favors their home districts, called earmarks. This practice is usually pork barrel legislation and has been criticized by such political watchdog groups as Common Cause. As a result of campaign fundraising and contributions made by political action committees, incumbents also have a built-in money advantage over their challengers. This advantage usually results in weak opponents being nominated. They are considered expendable and frequently lose by more than 60 percent of the vote.
The 115th Congress was the most diverse in the nation’s history, containing more women and minorities than any previous Congress. Between both chambers, a total of 102 minority members and 104 women served in Congress. The 116th Congress, however, has even more women and nonwhite representatives. Almost half of the newly elected Congress members are not white men. In the 2018 midterms, Muslim women and Native American women were elected for the first time in history. There are also more openly LGBT members. The first openly bisexual person was elected to the Senate. These changes took place almost entirely in the Democratic Party.
The Money Game
A California politician once said, “money is the milk of all politics.” This has become increasingly evident in light of the amount of money raised and spent by congressional and presidential candidates and the impact of Supreme Court decisions on campaign finance laws. To put this in perspective, look at the following chart from the Open Secrets website. Even though there are federal matching funds for presidential candidates, since 2012 candidates from both major parties rejected those funds so they could raise as much as possible. It is interesting to note that spending for presidential elections has skyrocketed from a little over $5 million in 1952 to over $2 billion in 2012.
Cycle |
Total Cost of Election |
Congressional Races |
Presidential Race |
2016* |
$6,917,636,161 |
$4,266,514,050 |
$2,651,122,110 |
2014 |
$3,845,393,700 |
$3,845,393,700 |
N/A |
2012 |
$6,285,557,223 |
$3,664,141,430 |
$2,621,415,792 |
2010 |
$3,631,712,836 |
$3,631,712,836 |
N/A |
2008 |
$5,285,680,883 |
$2,485,952,737 |
$2,799,728,146 |
2006 |
$2,852,658,140 |
$2,852,658,140 |
N/A |
2004 |
$4,147,304,003 |
$2,237,073,141 |
$1,910,230,862 |
2002 |
$2,181,682,066 |
$2,181,682,066 |
N/A |
2000 |
$3,082,340,937 |
$1,669,224,553 |
$1,413,116,384 |
1998 |
$1,618,936,265 |
$1,618,936,265 |
N/A |
*Presidential election cycle money
Three major pieces of legislation were passed to regulate federal campaign spending:
■ The 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) set up restrictions on the amount of advertising, created disclosure of contributions over $100 (later changed to $250), and limited the amount of personal contributions candidates and their relatives could make on their own behalf.
■ The 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act, passed in response to the Watergate scandal abuses, established a six-person Federal Election Commission responsible for enforcing election law; the act also established matching federal funds for presidential candidates. In order to receive those funds, a candidate had to raise at least $5,000 in at least 20 states. The candidate would then be eligible for the funds as long as the candidate agreed to disclose campaign contributions and not exceed the limit of the funds.
■ The McCain–Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2000—This act banned what was called “soft money”—donations to candidates, political parties, and political action committees that went beyond campaign donations, which had limits, called “hard money.” The law also increased hard-money limits and established a ban on special-interest political ads paid for by soft money—ads that would be shown prior to a primary and general election. In 2002, the Supreme Court initially upheld this law, and candidates increased the amount of hard money raised. Special-interest groups got around the ban on soft money donations by forming what was called “527” independent groups that were able to give additional funds based on the tax code. These groups also ran ads that represented the interests of those groups.
Contribution Limits for 2017–2018 Federal Elections
|
RECIPIENTS |
||||
DONORS |
Candidate Committee |
PAC1 (SSF and Nonconnected) |
State/District/Local Party Committee |
National Party Committee |
Additional National Party Committee Accounts |
Individual |
$2,700* per election |
$5,000* per year |
$10,000* per year (combined) |
$33,900* per year |
$101,700* per account per year |
Candidate Committee |
$2,000 per election |
$5,000 per year |
Unlimited Transfers |
Unlimited Transfers |
|
PAC: Multicandidate |
$5,000 per election |
$5,000 per year |
$5,000 per year (combined) |
$15,000 per year |
$45,700 per account per year |
PAC: Non-multicandidate |
$2,700* per election |
$5,000* per year |
$10,000* per year (combined) |
$33,900* per year |
$101,700* per account per year |
State, District, & Local Party Committee |
$5,000 per election (combined) |
$5,000 per year (combined) |
Unlimited Transfers |
|
|
National Party Committee |
$5,000 per election |
$5,000 per year |
|
|
|
*Indexed for inflation in odd-numbered years.
1“PAC” here refers to a committee that makes contributions to other federal political committees. Independent-expenditure-only political committees (sometimes called “super PACs”) may accept unlimited contributions, including from corporations and labor organizations.
Supreme Court Decisions
Buckley v Valeo (1976)
The court ruled that campaign contribution is a form of free speech protected under the First Amendment. The court also ruled that hard-money contributions by individuals could be limited, and that soft-money contributions to political parties could not be limited.
Federal Election Commission (FEC) v Wisconsin Right to Life (2007)
The court ruled that a law regulating certain issue ads that targeted candidates could be made as long as the ad was clear that it was made by the special-interest group.
American Tradition Partnership v Bullock (2012)
The court upheld Citizens United and struck down a ban on corporate political spending. The effect of this case was that the court’s ruling made it clear that any future efforts to regulate outside money at the state level would be rejected.
McCutcheon v FEC (2014)
Next to Citizens United, this case allowed candidates and political parties to collect substantially larger sums from individual donors, thus weakening the hard-money limits established in 1974. By striking down so-called aggregate contribution limits, the amount a single individual could give in federal elections to all candidates, political parties, and PACs combined, the court ruled that the federal contribution limits were unconstitutional.
The overall significance of these rulings was to water down existing law that campaign donations were dominated by outside groups, and, because aggregate limits no longer existed, even individuals could give millions of dollars to candidates, national parties, local parties, and PACs in an election cycle.
The public funding of presidential campaigns has had a significant impact on the election process since it was instituted in 1971. Money has been given to candidates during the primary campaign, to the parties to help fund national conventions, and to candidates in the general election campaign. In 1988 candidates received more than $65 million in federal matching funds. The two parties got over $9 million for their 1988 national conventions, and George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis received over $46 million in public funds. In 2004, candidates received $75 million in federal matching funds. In 2008, McCain received $84 million in matching funds.
CONTEMPORARY CONNECTION
The term “fake news” was coined by President Trump in his campaign speeches and repeated often after he fired FBI director James Comey in 2017 and a special prosecutor was appointed. Much of the reporting by the mainstream media regarding possible Trump campaign collusion with Russia and charges of obstruction of justice during the 2016 campaign were described as fake news by Trump on Twitter and in speeches he gave.
Old Media vs. New Media
As the media continues to try to quench Americans’ thirst for information, various media conglomerates form, and new kinds of technologies are made available. This has led to the growth of the information superhighway. This “expressway” of information has many different exits. Media conglomerates and the Internet are two of the major characteristics of the information superhighway. The media concentration that exists gives the public access to the highway. The structure can be viewed as three-tiered—an inner, middle, and outer tier. The inner tier consists of the three major networks, cable news channels, the national news magazines, and the four national newspapers (The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and USA Today), as well as the national wire service, the Associated Press. The middle tier embraces other national newspapers, including Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, the Christian Science Monitor, and other news services as well as magazines with a strong political slant (New Republic and National Review). The outer tier consists of local newspapers and local television and radio stations. Crossing these tiers is a concentration of power among major media conglomerates such as Gannett and Time Warner, Disney, and 21st Century Fox. The impact of so-called right-wing radio and television commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, and Fox News cannot be underestimated.
Starting in 1996, every major political candidate had a website on the Internet. Candidates also used the Internet for fundraising. In the 2000 election Senator John McCain raised over $1 million using his website. In 2003, presidential candidate Howard Dean set an Internet fund-raising record. Sites such as moveon.org and meetup.org have changed the political landscape. Political “blogs” and video sites such as youtube.com have had a major impact on voting behavior. As the public has more and more access to information, the media has the potential to influence the way the public thinks. For instance, having the capability to react immediately to an issue raised by using email and social media enables instant polling to take place. Barack Obama notified his supporters of his choice of Senator Joseph Biden as his vice-presidential running mate by text message and email. The Obama campaign utilized the email and cell phone base throughout the 2008 campaign. In 2012, the Obama campaign used social media more effectively than the Romney campaign as a tool to get out their vote. This became a contributing factor in Obama’s victory over Governor Romney. If the elections from 2000–2012 represented the movement by presidential candidates to using social media, the 2016 Trump campaign became the master of social media. Trump had a major presence on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, gaining a record number of followers, and he used those sites to advocate policy positions, criticize his opponents and media, and level personal attacks.
The media, by selecting what individuals and events are covered, also influences what the public perceives as being important. This capability also applies to political leaders. Knowing that they are being broadcast live on C-SPAN certainly encourages House and Senate members to play to a sophisticated TV audience. The White House Office of Communications monitors the media on a daily basis.
The media has also been blamed for the decline of party identification and party politics. Why should an individual get involved with a political party when the interactive media makes it easy not only to access information but also to influence office holders? Candidates and office holders also use the media to get their message out in their high-tech campaigns. They use selective leaks, known as trial balloons, to test the political waters. They become “talking heads,” with the media focusing on the face of politicians during speeches, and talk shows often ending up as sound bites. The Internet, thus, certainly is growing in importance, but it may be a double-edged sword. The faster it grows; the less direct control policy makers may have on the thoughts and emotions of the average citizen.
Media Coverage of Campaigns Has Been Criticized by Candidates
Virtually all candidates and every president believe the media is unfair in how they cover a campaign or administration. Many politicians attempt to control and manipulate the media, creating their own media events and photo opportunities. Presidents such as Ronald Reagan have even developed successful strategies to control media access by planning the event, staying on the offensive, controlling the flow of information, limiting access by the media, talking only about the issues the administration wants to talk about, speaking in one voice as an administration, and constantly repeating the same message. This worked for Reagan, but when Clinton attempted to move the White House press out of their briefing room, there was a hostile reaction, forcing the president to back down. Press briefings virtually came to a halt during the first two years of the Trump presidency. Trump labeled the mainstream press “the enemy of the people” and had a more contentious relationship with the media than any other president.
The irony of Clinton’s lack of success with the media is that, during the campaign, many believed he was their fair-haired boy. However, statistical studies indicated that on balance, the media covered both Bush and Clinton, praising and criticizing them whenever events dictated. The 2008 presidential campaign raised questions about media coverage of major candidates during the primary and general election. Charges of media bias by the Hillary Clinton campaign during the primaries were echoed by John McCain’s campaign during the general election. A study, “Winning the Media Campaign: How the Press Reported the 2008 General Election,” was conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. Their key findings were that even though Obama’s coverage started negatively after his nomination, the media’s coverage was much more positive as Obama’s poll numbers increased. McCain’s coverage became increasingly negative after he suspended his campaign at the start of the economic crisis. Another finding reflected the nature of media coverage being driven by the so-called horse race, that is, which candidate was up, and which candidate was down. Overall, the study found that the “press treatment of Obama had been somewhat more positive than negative, but not markedly so.” However, media coverage of McCain was described in the study as “heavily unfavorable.” In the 2012 presidential election, the mainstream media covered Governor Romney and President Obama in a fairer manner than did social media.
The 2016 campaign was characterized by criticism of the media for how they covered Donald Trump. They were accused of giving him so much free coverage that he did not have to spend his own money to advertise. The media was also criticized for reducing the campaign to that horse race rather than covering a candidate talking about policies.
Optional Readings
Understanding the Participatory News, Consumer Pew Trust Report (March 1, 2010)
Key Quote:
“To a great extent, people’s experience of news, especially on the internet, is becoming a shared social experience as people swap links in emails, post news stories on their social networking site feeds, highlight news stories in their Tweets, and haggle over the meaning of events in discussion threads.”
Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted, by Malcolm Gladwell October 4, 2010 New Yorker Magazine
Key Quote:
“But there is something else at work here, in the outsized enthusiasm for social media. Fifty years after one of the most extraordinary episodes of social upheaval in American history, we seem to have forgotten what activism is.”
Media Bias
The key questions raised regarding coverage are: Is it fair and balanced? And, if there is an editorial stand, does it make a difference? The question of media bias is answered by the media when they point to what they call the canons of good journalism—objectivity and responsible reporting. There has never been any correlation between newspaper endorsements of a political candidate and the candidate winning the election directly because of such endorsements. In addition, legal restraints such as slander and libel laws as well as legislative direction from the FCC force the media to abide by strict standards. During campaigns, the FCC sets down equal-time provisions, which guarantee equal time to all candidates who seek the same office. The Fairness Doctrine, scrapped in 1987, provided that the media air opposing opinions of the same issue. The FCC decided that this provision violated the First Amendment and that, with the proliferation of cable television and the number of talk radio programs, a diversity of opinions are being aired. As a result of the mistakes the media made in reporting the results of the 2000 election, the networks and Congress pledged to review alternatives to exit polls. Suggestions such as a standard time to close the polls nationwide have been discussed.
Investigative and Adversarial Reporting
The rise of investigative reporting and adversarial reporting gave rise to complaints that the media was selectively going after politicians and government officials. Television news magazines such as 60 Minutes added fuel to the fire.
The turning point for investigative journalism came during the Watergate scandal of the 1970s when Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post “followed the money,” a trail of evidence that led to the president’s reelection committee and ultimately to President Nixon himself. During the 1980s the press pursued the Iran–Contra dealings of Oliver North and took up Gary Hart’s challenge when Hart stated that there was no monkey business in his personal life. The press shot pictures of Hart and Donna Rice on a boat called Monkey Business, and his presidential aspirations ended.
During the 1988 campaign President George H. W. Bush told Nightline correspondent Ted Koppel that he overstepped his bounds as an impartial moderator. The press also went after the personal indiscretions of cabinet nominee John Tower in 1989 and Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas in 1991. In 1993, in a post–Super Bowl 60 Minutes broadcast, Bill Clinton was able to defuse the Gennifer Flowers allegation of an affair. And, in 1996, the financial scandals of President Clinton’s campaign were deflected by the Democrats.
Government has had to reveal its records to the public as a result of such laws as the 1974 Freedom of Information Act and a number of other “sunshine laws.” These acts opened up meetings and made records of the government available to the public and media. In the end, a balance must be reached between the needs of the candidate or the government and the legitimate interests of the media in providing accurate, relevant information to the public.
The Internet has also played a key investigative role. In 1998, before any other traditional media outlet reported the news, Internet gossip columnist Matt Drudge broke the story on his website of Bill Clinton’s affair with a White House intern. In twenty years’ time, the Internet and the 24/7 news cycle have resulted in one continuous media watch during political campaigns. Blogs have broken news stories, and campaigns have had to react to videos uploaded to YouTube. In 2006, Senator George Allen’s campaign was never the same after he referred to somebody filming his speech as “Macaca,” a racial slur. The clip was viewed on YouTube millions of times, and Allen lost the election in a very close contest. In 2012, an anonymous person videotaped presidential candidate Mitt Romney at a private fundraising event closed to the press. Mother Jones magazine, a liberal publication, found the video on YouTube and got permission to release it. The video exposed Romney saying how 47 percent of Americans did not pay federal income taxes, how they were looking for government handouts, and that this group would never vote for him. These revelations were very harmful to Romney’s campaign.
The 2016 campaign had more investigative and adversarial reporting than any previous campaign. Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server was scrutinized by the media throughout the campaign. Donald Trump’s statements disparaging immigrants, the release of a tape of him making lewd remarks about women, and subsequently women coming forward to accuse him of affairs and sexual assault became fodder for the media. Trump was able to counter these attacks by using his campaign rallies to incite his supporters to come to his defense. The emergence of fake news sites and the release of the personal emails of Secretary Clinton’s campaign chief by Wikileaks resulted in media coverage that could not always be proven to be accurate. The Mueller Report, released in 2019, established a direct link between Russia and its efforts to influence Americans to elect Donald Trump as president.
The President’s Relationship with the Media
From the time John Kennedy instituted televised press conferences, to the challenge by Gary Hart to find some personal indiscretion in his private life, to the limited number of press conferences Ronald Reagan wanted, the role of the press has been a double-edged sword for the president. However, suffice it to say that modern presidents rely on the media to tell the story of the president’s agenda. The president uses his press secretary and the office of communications to deal directly with the press corps. Using the “bully pulpit,” the president is sometimes able to dominate the news cycle.
The press believes it must establish an adversarial relationship with the White House in order to maintain its independence and integrity. Ever since the Woodward–Bernstein investigative reporting that helped bring down the Nixon presidency, presidents have tried to control the media.
There has been the often-described “inside the beltway” coverage of presidential politics versus what the rest of the country views on the evening news. Presidential appearances are designed to maximize the White House’s message. A public-relations strategy by the White House of blaming the media for the nation’s problems has been countered by the press, who claim that they are merely the messengers. Yet the president needs the media to get his message to the American people. The press secretary holds daily press briefings, and reporters are given special invitations for exclusive interviews with the president.
The relationship between the press and the White House has always raised questions about how the press covers the president. Since 1960, when John Kennedy initiated televised press conferences, the White House press corps has had a love–hate relationship with the sitting president. Public polls reflect the sentiment that at times the press is biased against the president, while other polls indicate that the press does not ask tough questions. Most political scientists find there is a balance. When the story calls for investigation, the press usually leads the way. The growth of the “blogosphere” has added to the 24/7 coverage of the presidency. Ever since Watergate, the name gate has been attached to presidential coverage: Iran–Contragate, Travelgate, and Nannygate are just a few scandals. The press was relentless in covering the scandal leading to Bill Clinton’s impeachment. This type of coverage has been described as a “media frenzy.”
Public opinion played an important part in the impeachment of the president. Throughout the entire investigation, Clinton’s job-approval ratings were over 60 percent, the highest of any second-term president. His personal approval ratings, however, were well under 40 percent. The public was suggesting that the president’s private life should be separated from his public duties. One of the consequences resulting from the public’s perception of the impeachment inquiry was that the Democrats gained seats in the November midterm election. This was very unusual since, historically, the party in power usually loses seats. As a result of the election, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich resigned, forcing the Republican majority to select a new speaker.
As much as the press tries to gain access, the president can in the end control the nature of the coverage to a certain extent. For instance, when the marines landed in Somalia for a humanitarian purpose, the Bush administration gave full disclosure, and there was live coverage of the event. On the other hand, during the Gulf War, the media complained that the administration was preventing the press from reporting on it.
REVIEW MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS
Question Type: Qualitative Analysis with a Primary or Secondary Document
Hispanic Population
“Data from the 2010 Census provide insights to our ethnically diverse nation. According to the 2010 Census, 308.7 million people resided in the United States on April 1, 2010, of which 50.5 million (or 16 percent) were of Hispanic or Latino origin. The Hispanic population increased from 35.3 million in 2000 when this group made up 13 percent of the total population. The majority of the 27.3 million growth in the total population between 2000 and 2010 came from increases in those who reported their ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino.
More than half of the growth in the total population of the United States between 2000 and 2010 was due to the increase in the Hispanic population. The Hispanic population increased by 15.2 million between 2000 and 2010, accounting for over half of the 27.3 million increase in the total population of the United States. Between 2000 and 2010, the Hispanic population grew by 43 percent, which was four times the growth in the total population at 10 percent.”
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
1. Which of the following reflects the major finding of the report?
(A) Total population growth in the United States decreased from 2000 to 2010.
(B) The Hispanic population increase between 2000 and 2010 represented the largest growth segment of the U.S. population.
(C) The Hispanic population increase between 2000 and 2010 represented a quarter of the population growth in the United States.
(D) There was a greater percentage growth of the white population compared to the Hispanic population after the 2010 census.
2. Which of the following concepts represent how Hispanics develop their political ideology?
(A) Demographics
(B) Ethnic diversity
(C) Political socialization
(D) Political efficacy
3. Based on the statistics in the passage, which is a likely outcome?
(A) Congress will pass an immigration law restricting the number of Hispanics who can come to the United States.
(B) There will be an increase in the unemployment rate as a result of the increased number of Hispanic immigrants.
(C) Future presidential elections will be determined by how the increased number of Hispanics vote.
(D) States will pass voter ID laws aimed at making it more difficult for Hispanics to vote.
Question Type: Visual Analysis with an Informational Graphic
Source: Democratic National Committee (DNC)
4. Based on the information in this graphic, what conclusion can be reached regarding voter ID laws?
(A) There will be a greater effort to provide people without government issued IDs a valid form of identification.
(B) People without government issued IDs do not want to vote in state and federal elections.
(C) Minorities who do not have a government issued ID do not register to vote.
(D) The Democratic National Committee believes that the people without a government ID will not be able to vote because of voter ID laws.
5. Based on the information in this graphic, what criteria would a court consider in determining the legality of a voter ID law?
(A) The law would result in an increase in voter turnout.
(B) The law would create ID centers where a valid ID would be available.
(C) Whether the law violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(D) States passing voter ID laws do not have gerrymandered voting districts.
Question Type: Visual Analysis Using a Graph
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
6. Which of the following trends is reflected in this graph?
(A) There is a higher turnout in midterm elections than presidential elections.
(B) Presidential elections held after 2000 have the same turnout as midterm election rates before 2000.
(C) Presidential elections have higher turnout rates than congressional elections held after the second year of a president’s first or second term.
(D) Presidential election turnout rates from 1980 to 2012 have increased every four years.
7. Which of the following is an accurate statement that reflects the voting turnout trend in midterm elections?
(A) Local media does not cover congressional races extensively.
(B) The reelection rates for incumbents is very high.
(C) Candidate debates are not scheduled.
(D) Gerrymandered districts create competitive districts.
Question Type: Comparison Question That Asks for a Similarity or Difference
8. Which is an accurate difference between the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 and the Supreme Court case, Citizens United v FEC (2010)?
|
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act |
Citizens United v FEC |
(A) |
Raises hard money limits on individuals |
Limits hard money limits |
(B) |
Unlimited soft money donations illegal donations |
Allows unlimited soft money |
(C) |
Bans direct or indirect contributions from foreign nationals |
Allows direct contributions from foreign nationals |
(D) |
Allows party to make coordinated expenditures for a candidate |
Prohibits corporations from making independent expenditures |
Question Types: Qualitative Analysis and Knowledge That Have a Concept, Process, Policy, or Scenario
9. Which of the following results after a critical election occurs?
(A) Redistricting
(B) Party realignment
(C) Party dealignment
(D) Divided government
10. Which of the following happens in a presidential election if no candidate receives an Electoral College majority?
(A) The winner of the popular vote becomes president.
(B) A run-off election is held with a new slate of electors.
(C) The election is determined by the House of Representatives.
(D) The Supreme Court determines the winner.
Answers
1. (B) Choice (B) is the correct answer because from 2000 to 2010 the Hispanic population increased by 15.2 million between 2000 and 2010, accounting for over half of the 27.3 million increase in the total population of the United States. Choice (A) is incorrect because the population of the United States increased between 2000–2010. Choices (C) and (D) are incorrect because the increase of the Hispanic population represented more than half of the increase. Choice (D) also is incorrect because the majority of the growth in the total population came from increases in those who reported their ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino.
2. (C) Choice (C) is the correct answer because political socialization is defined as the factors that determine a person’s ideology, a person’s ethnic background being one of those factors. Choices (A) and (B) are incorrect because demographics is defined as the study of population trends, and ethnic diversity means that the country has many different racial components. Choice (D) is incorrect because political efficacy is defined as how people act based on their trust and faith in government.
3. (C) Choice (C) is the correct answer because one of the consequences of the demographic shift caused by the increase of Hispanic growth is that swing states will have a larger number of Hispanics who could determine the outcome of the presidential election. Choices (A) and (B) are incorrect because the immigration laws being considered by Congress are not aimed at reducing the number of Hispanic immigrants. The unemployment rate does not increase because there is an increase in the Hispanic population. Choice (D) is incorrect because voter ID laws are not passed by states to make it more difficult for Hispanics to vote. That may be a consequence of stricter voter ID laws but not the intent.
4. (D) Choice (D) is the correct answer because the Democratic National Committee, the parent organization of the Democratic Party, is against state voter ID laws. They believe these laws discriminate against minority groups, making it more difficult to vote. Choices (A), (B), and (C) are incorrect because states passing voter ID laws have not made it easier to get a valid form of identification. People without government issued IDs are turned away when they try to vote. People can register to vote without a government-issued ID.
5. (C) Choice (C) is the correct answer because state and federal courts have invalidated voter ID laws based on the fact that these laws discriminate against minority groups who do not have a valid ID and therefore end up suppressing the vote. This is a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Choices (A) and (B) are incorrect because these laws do not increase voter turnout. The laws do not create ID centers but specify what types of government issued IDs are valid. Choice (D) is incorrect because states who have passed these laws do have gerrymandered districts.
6. (C) Choice (C) is correct because the definition of a midterm election is the election following the second year of the president’s first or second term of office. Therefore, the chart shows that turnout rates are higher in presidential elections compared to midterm elections. Choices (A) and (B) are incorrect because there is a lower turnout in midterm elections than presidential elections. Choice (D) is incorrect because presidential election turnout rates dropped in 1988 and 1996.
7. (B) Choice (B) is correct, incumbency reelection rates are over 95 percent. This creates around 45 competitive races out of the 435 seats that are voted on every two years. Choice (A) is incorrect because even though local media does cover these races, the turnout rate is still much lower than presidential races. Choice (C) is incorrect because in most cases congressional candidates do have debates. Choice (D) is incorrect because gerrymandered districts are a primary reason why many races are not competitive.
8. (B) Choice (B) is the correct answer because the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act bans unlimited soft money donations while the Supreme Court said that was unconstitutional because of the free speech provision of the First Amendment. Choice (A) is incorrect because the Citizens United decision did not change the limits of hard money limits. Choice (C) is incorrect because the Citizens United case did not allow direct contributions from foreign nationals. Choice (D) is incorrect because the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibited political parties from making coordinated expenditures for a candidate while the Citizens United case allowed all corporations to make independent expenditures.
9. (B) Choice (B) is correct because part of the results of a critical election is that there is a party realignment. Choice (A) is incorrect because redistricting takes place after the census. Party dealignment can occur after any election (choice (C)), and divided government has no relationship with a critical election (choice (D)).
10. (C) Choice (C) is correct because the Constitution establishes that if a candidate does not receive a majority of the Electoral College votes (270), the House of Representatives must vote with each state having one vote. Choice (A) is incorrect because a candidate can win the popular vote and still lose the Electoral College majority (for example, the 2000 and 2016 elections). Choice (B) is incorrect because there is no provision for a run-off election. The Supreme Court hears election cases based on violation of election laws (for example, Florida 2000).
Argument Question
One of the core values of the U.S. political system is participation. The primary manner in which a citizen participates is voting. Retrospective voting and party-line voting are two models that voters adopt.
Develop an argument that explains which of the two models of voting—retrospective voting or party-line voting—best achieves the core value of political participation.
In your essay, you must do the following:
A. Make a valid argument or thesis that addresses the question and makes a sound basis of reasoning.
B. Support your argument with at least TWO examples of accurate and relevant information showing how these examples impact political participation. At least one piece of evidence must be from the following:
■ constitutional amendments that deal with voting rights
■ the influence of political socialization
■ congressional legislation
The second piece of evidence must be from a different source or from your study of elections, voting behavior, or political participation.
Use logical arguments to explain why your proof supports your argument/thesis.
C. Respond to an opposing point of view or alternative argument by refuting, conceding, or rebutting that point of view.
Free Response Question 4: Argumentation 6 pts. (40 minutes)
Part A asks you to develop an argument or thesis that explains which of the voting behavior models—retrospective voting or party-line voting—best advances the core value of political participation.
Part B asks for accurate and relevant information from at least one required document and one from any document that relates to the question.
There are two positions that you can take to answer this question. The first one argues that the retrospective model best achieves the core value of political participation. There should be a definition of this model that reflects the decisions that voters make based on how political parties perform, how elected officials perform, and the extent to which an elected administration achieves its goals. Retrospective voters are more concerned with policy outcomes than the tactics used to achieve policy. Retrospective voting has a direct impact on political participation if a voter relies on the decision to make a choice among candidates. The Fifteenth Amendment (giving freed slaves the right to vote), the Seventeenth Amendment (giving people the right to vote for senators), the Nineteenth Amendment (giving women the right to vote), the Twenty-fourth Amendment (making poll tax unconstitutional), and the Twenty-sixth Amendment (giving 18-year-olds the right to vote) all increased political participation and enabled more voters to vote retrospectively. Congressional legislation, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965, protects voters from racial discrimination, which increases political participation. Political socialization encourages retrospective voting if the voter’s decisions factor family, education, and religion, which influence voting and participation.
Party-line voting, which is defined as voting for the same party for every office on the ballot, also advances political participation. Voters who have a strong party identification are most likely to vote along party lines. The same constitutional amendments and political socialization influences, and the Voting Rights Act, can be used to support the position that party-line voting increases political participation.
A thesis can be developed for either of these models by stating that it best achieves the core value of political participation.
Part C asks you to respond to the opposing arguments. Therefore, if you argued that retrospective voting best achieves the core value of political participation, you have to explain how party-line voting weakens political participation. If you chose the argument that the party-line voting increases political participation, you have to compare this model with the weaknesses of retrospective voting.
Scoring Rubric
This question is worth 6 points.
Part A |
||
Scoring Criteria |
Applicable Units |
Scoring Guidelines and Examples of Correct Answers |
Develop an argument by choosing a position or a thesis. |
Foundations of American Democracy (constitutional amendments), Interactions among the Branches of Government (congressional legislation), American Political Ideology and Beliefs (voting behavior, political socialization), Political Participation (voting) |
Describes a voting model that best advances the core value of political participation. Defines the model and shows how effective it is in achieving the core value of political participation. (2 pts.) |
Part B |
||
Scoring Criteria |
Applicable Units |
Scoring Guidelines and Examples of Correct Answers |
Support your position with at least two pieces of accurate and relevant information. |
Foundations of American Democracy (constitutional amendments), Interactions among the Branches of Government (congressional legislation), American Political Ideology and Beliefs (voting behavior, political socialization), Political Participation (voting) |
The Fifteenth, Seventeenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-fourth, and Twenty-sixth Amendments, and congressional legislation (such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965) all increase political participation and enable more people to vote. The influence of political socialization encourages retrospective voting and party-line voting. Family, education, and religion are among factors that influence voting and participation. (2 pts.) |
Part C |
||
Scoring Criteria |
Applicable Units |
Scoring Guidelines and Examples of Correct Answers |
Summarize your argument by offering reasons why your proof supports your position. Respond to the opposing point of view by refuting, conceding, or rebutting that point of view. |
Foundations of American Democracy (constitutional amendments), Interactions among the Branches of Government (congressional legislation), American Political Ideology and Beliefs (voting behavior, political socialization), Political Participation (voting) |
Uses the arguments made by the other voting behavior to conclude that your position is the stronger one. An argumentfor retrospective voting explains how party-line voting weakens political participation. An argument for party-line voting compares the weaknesses of retrospective voting. (2 pts.) |