chapter 13

Unconventional political participation

Activism that attempts to influence the political process through unusual or extreme measures, such as protests, boycotts, and picketing.

Front-loading

the tendency of states to choose an early date on the nomination calendar

Incumbency

Already holding an office

Which of the two proportional representation systems presented in the table provides voters with the most choice?

Single Transferable Vote PR System (? Ask Norris)

Elector

Member of the Electoral College

Retrospective judgement

A voter's evaluation of a candidate based on past performance on a particular issue

Electorate

The citizens eligible to vote

Electoral College

Representatives of each state who cast the final ballots that actually elect a president

Turnout

The proportion of the voting-age public that casts a ballot.

Mandate

A command, indicated by an electorate's votes, for the elected officials to carry out a party platform or policy agenda.

How do states regulate voter eligibility?

- prohibit all ex-felons from voting (9 states) - allow incarcerated felons to vote from prison (2 states) - require all voters to show some form of ID to vote (18 states) - require or request that all voters show a photo ID to vote (8 states) - require no voter registration (1 state) - allow Election Day registration (9 states and DC) - require voters to register to vote at least 30 days prior to an election (16 states) - allow no-excuse absentee balloting (20 states) - allow early voting (35 states)

Note which amendments have impacted the right to vote.

19th amendment (1920) women gained the right to vote in the US. While early polling numbers are not reliable enough to shed light on the voting rate among women in the years immediately following rafitication of the 19th amendment, it is generally accepted that women voted at a lower rate than men. Recent polls suggest that women today vote at a slightly higher rate than their male counterparts. Since women comprise slightly more than 50 percent of the US population, they now account for a majority of the american electorate. A strong correlation exists between age and voter turnout. The 26th amendment to the consitution, ratifies in 1971, lowered the voting age to 18. While this amendment obviously increased the number of eligible voters, it did so by enfranchising the group that is least likely to vote. A much higher percentage of citizens age 30 and older vote than do citizens younger than 30, although voter turnout decreases over teh age of 70, primarily due to difficulties some older voters have getting to their polling locations. Regrettably, only 70 percent of eligible 18-29 year olds are even registered to vote. The most plausible reason for this is that younger people are more Mobil; they have not put down roots in a community. Because voter registration is not automatic, people who relocate have to make an effort to register. As young people marry, have children, and settle down in a community, their likelihood of voting increases. The 15th amendment gave African american men the right to vote in 1870. But many weren't able to exercise this right. Some states used literacy tests and other barriers to make it harder to vote. The 24th amendment, ratified in 1964, eliminated poll taxes. The tax had been used in some states to keep African americans from voting in federal elections.

We need to be familiar with general tendencies of voting behavior regarding: party identification; ideology; income and education; race and ethnicity; gender; and religion

A number of factors affect citizens' choices about which candidate to support. Party affiliation and ideology are at the forefront of these predictors. Other important factors are income and education, race and ethnicity, gender, religion, and political issues. Party identification - party identification remains the most powerful predictor of vote choice. Stated simply, self-described Democrats tend to vote for Democratic candidates and self-described republicans tend to vote for republican candidates. This trend is particularly obvious in less-visible elections, where voters may not know anything about the candidates and need a cue to help them case their ballot. However, even in presidential elections, there is a high correlation between vote choice and party affiliation. In 2008, for example, 89 percent of self-identified democrats voted for senator Barack Obama, and 90 percent of self-identified republicans voted for senator john mccain. In recent years, observers have noted higher levels of ticket-splitting, voting for candidates of different parties for various offices in the same election. Scholars have posited several potential explanations for ticket-splitting. One explanation is that voters split their tickets, consciously or not, because they trust neither party to govern, under this interpretation, ticket-splitters are aware of the differences between the two parties and split their tickets to augment the checks and balances already present in the US constitution. Alternatively, voters split their tickers possibly because partisanship has become less relevant as a voting cue. A final explanation for this phenomenon is that the growth of issue- and candidate-centered politics has made party less important as a voting cue. Ideology - ideology represents one of the most significant divisions in contemporary american politics. Liberals, generally speaking, favor government involvement in social programs and are committed to the ideals of tolerance and social justice. Conservatives, on the other hand, are dedicated to the ideals of individualism and market-based competition, and they tend to view government as a necessary evil rather than an agent of social improvement. Moderates lie somewhere between liberals and conservatives on the ideological spectrum; they favor conservative positions on some issues and liberal positions on others. Not surprisingly, ideology is very closely related to vote choice. Liberals tend to vote for democrats, and conservatives tend to vote fore republicans. In 200, 89 percent of self-described liberals voted for Barack obama, whereas only 10 percent voted for john McCain. Conservatives, on the other hand, voted for McCain over obama at a rate of 79 to 20 percent. Income and education - over the years, income has been a remarkably stable correlate of vote choice. The poor vote more democratic; the well-to-do vote heavily republican. The 2008 election was, to some extent, consistent with these trends. Sizeable majorities of those making less than 50k annually supported obama, with 70 percent of those making less than 15k annually leading the way. All other income classes were a virtual toss-up, with obama and McCain each carrying between 46 and 52 percent of the electorate. It can be said, however, that McCain, as the republican candidate, performed better with voters in middle-class and high-income brackets than he did with poorer voters. Since income and education are highly correlated—more educated people tend to make more money—it should be no surprise that education follows a somewhat similar pattern. The most educated and the least educated citizens tend to vote democratic, and those in the middle—for example, with a bachelor's degree—tend to vote republican. Race and ethnicity - racial and ethnic groups tend to vote in district patterns. While whites have shown an increasing tendency to vote Republican, African american voters remain overwhelmingly democratic in their voting decisions. Despite the best efforts of the Republican Party to garner African american support, this pattern shows no signs of waning. In 2008, Barack Obama's candidacy accelerated this trend, and 95 percent of African americans voted for him. John McCain received a mere 4 percent of the African american vote. Hispanics also tend to identify with and vote for democrats, although not as monolithically as do African americans. In 2008, for example, obama received 67 percent of the votes cast by hispanics; McCain received only 31 percent. Asian and Pacific island americans are more variable in their voting than either the Hispanic or African american communities. It is worth noting the considerable political diversity within this group: Chinese americans tend to prefer democratic candidates, but vietnamenes Americans, with strong anti-communist leanings, tend to support republicans. A typical voting split for the Asian and pacific island american community runs about 60 percent democratic and 40 percent republican, though it an reach the extreme of a 50-50 split, depending on the election. in the 2008 election, 62 percent of Asian american voters supported obama and 35 percent of the Asian american voters supported McCain. Gender - since 1980, the gender gap, the difference between the voting choices of men and women, has become a stable of american politics. In general, women are more likely to support democratic candidates and men are more likely to support republicans. The size of the gender gap varies considerably from election to election, though normally the gender gap is between 5 and 7 percentage points. That is, women support the average democrat 5 to 7 percent more than men. In 2008, Barack obama won 56 percent of the female vote, but only 49 percent of the male vote. A gender gap in vote choice is not confined only to contests between democrats and republicans byt is frequently apparent in intra-party contests as well. In the 2008 democratic primaries and caucuses, democratic women were more likely than democratic men to support senator Hilary Clinton. In the California primary, for example, 59 percent of women and only 45 percent of men voted fro senator Clinton. There was a similar pattern in other competitive states such as ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania. The strong, consistent support of democratic women for senator Clinton, in particular among blue-collar women and women over 50, likely resulted from a long-standing identification with her and her commitment to women's issues. There is no evidence to suggest women and men generally vote for a candidate of their own gender in races that have both women and men running. Religion - religious groups also have tended to vote in distinct patterns, but some of these traditional differences have declined considerably in recent years. The most cohesive of religious groups has been jewish voters, a majority of whom have voted for every democratic presidential candidate since the new deal realignment. In 2008, 78 percent of jewish voters supported senator Barack obama. In contrast, Protestants are increasingly republican in their vote choice. This increase in support owes largely to the rise of social conservatives, as well as the republican emphasis on personal responsibility. In 2008, 54 per cent of Protestants supported senator john McCain. Republican support is even stronger among evangelical Protestants. Among those voters who self-identified as "born again," 74 percent supported McCain. Catholic voters are a much more divided group. Historically, catholic voters tended to identify with the Democratic Party and its support of social justice issues and anti-poverty programs. But, since the 1970s and the rise of the abortion issue, catholic voters have supported republican candidates in larger numbers. In the last several presidential elections, the catholic vote has altered party support. in 2004, 52 percent of catholic voters supported republican president George w bush. In 2008, 54 percent of catholic voters supported democratic candidate obama.

Closed primary

A primary election in which only a party's registered voters are eligible to cast a ballot.

Open primary

A primary election in which party members, independents, and sometimes members of the other party are allowed to participate.

Runoff primary

A second primary election between the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes in the first primary.

prospective judgement

A voter's evaluation of a candidate based on what he or she pledges to do about an issue if elected.

Conventional political participation

Activism that attempts to influence the political process through commonly accepted forms of persuasion such as voting or letter writing

What did the voter turnout percentage for the previous elections in this century look like?

Although about 60 percent of eligible voters turned out in 2008, average voter turnout in the US is much lower than in other industrialized democracies: about 40 percent. An additional 25 percent are occasional voters, and 35 percent rarely or never vote. Some of the factors known to influence voter turnout include income and education, race and ethnicity, gender, age, civic engagement, and interest in politics. Inspiring citizens to turn out to vote is particularly important in the US because of the winner-take-all electoral system. In theory, in such a system, any one vote could decide the outcome of the election. Although the importance of individual votes has been showcased in close elections such as the 2008 Minnesota race for the US Senate, which was decided by only 312 votes, voter turnout in the US remains quite low. In midterm elections, only 40-45 percent of the eligible electoral turns out to voter that amount rises to 50 or 60 percent in presidential elections.

Recall

An election in which voters can remove an incumbent from office prior to the next scheduled election.

Initiative

An election that allows citizens to propose legislation or state constitutional amendments by submitting them to the electorate for popular vote.

Referendum

An election whereby the state legislature submits proposed legislation or state constitutional amendments to the voters for approval.

Does voter turnout go up or down in midterm elections? What are some of the reasons the book cites for low voter turnout? Are there any good ideas on modernizing the ballot?

Down. There are many reasons why people may choose not to participate in elections. Non-participation may be rooted in something as complicated as an individual's political philosophy, or something as simple as the weather—voter turnout tends to be lower on rainy election days. Here, we discuss some of the most common reasons for non-voting: other commitments, difficulty of registration, difficulty of absentee balloting, the number of elections, voter attitudes, and the weakened influence of political parties. Other commitments - according to the us census bureau, 17.5 percent of registered non voters reported in 2008 that they did not vote because they were too busy or had conflicting work or school schedules. Another 14.9 percent said they did not vote because they were ill, disabled, or had a family emergency. While these reasons account for a large portion of the people surveyed, they also reflect the respondents' desire to not seem uneducated about the candidates and issues or apathetic about the political process. Although some would-be voters are undoubtedly busy, infirm, or otherwise unable to make it to the polls, it is likely that many of these non voters are offering an easy excuse and have another reason for failing to vote. Difficultly of registration - a major reason for lack of participation in the US remains the relatively low percentage of the adult population that is registered to vote. Requiring citizens to take the initiative to register to vote is an American invention; nearly every other democratic country places the burden of registration on the government rather than the individual. Thus, the cost (in terms of time and effort) of registering to vote is higher in the US than it is in other industrialized democracies. The National voter REgistration act of 1993, commonly known as the motor voter act, was significant national attempt to ease the bureaucratic hurdles associated with registering to vote. The law requires states to provide opportunity to register through driver's license agencies, public assistance agencies, and the mail. Researchers estimate that this Aw has increased voter registration by 5 to 9 percent, and some scholars hypothesize that the law is at least partially responsible for the increases in voter participation experienced in recent elections. Difficulty of absentee voting - stringent absentee ballot laws are another factor affecting voter turnout in the US. May states, for instance, require citizens to apply in person for absentee ballots, a burdensome requirement given that a person's inability to be present in his or her home state is often the reason for absentee balloting in the first place. Recent literature in political science links liberalized absentee voting rules and higher turnout. One study concluded that generous absentee voting guidelines reduced the "costs of voting" and increased turnout when the parties mobilized their followers to take advantage of such absentee voting rules.. number of elections - another explanation for low voter turnout in the US is the sheer number and frequency of elections. According to a study by the international institute for democracy and electoral assistance,t he US typically holds twice as many national elections aAs other western democracies, a consequence of the relatively short 2 year term of office for members of the House of Representatives. American federalism, with its separate elections at the local, state, and national levels, and its use of primary elections for the selection of candidates, also contributes to the number of elections in which Americans are called on to participate. With so many elections, even the most active political participants may skip part of the electoral process from time to time. Voter attitudes - voter attitudes also affect the low rates of voter turnout in the US. Some voters are alienated, and others are just plain apathetic, possibly because o f a lack or pressing issues in a particular year, satisfaction with the status quo, sor uncompetitive elections. Furthermore, many citizens may be turned off by the quality of campaigns in a time when petty issues are personal mudslinging are more prevalent than ever. In 2008, 13.4 percent of registered non voters reported that they were not interested in the election. Another 12.9 percent said they did not like the issues or candidates. Weakened influence of political parties - political parties today are not as effective as they once were in mobilizing voters, ensuring that they are registered, and getting them to polls. As we discussed in chapter 12, the parties once were grassroots organizations that forged strong party-group links with their supporters. Today, candidate and issue centered campaigns and the growth of expansive party bureaucracies have resulted in somewhat more distant parties with which fewer people identify very strongly. While efforts have been made in recent elections to bolster the influence of parties, in particular though sophisticated get-out-the-vote efforts, the parties' modern grassroots activities still pale in comparison to their earlier efforts. Ways to improve voter turnout Reformers have proposed many ideas to increase voter turnout in the US. Always on the list is raising the political awareness of young citizens, a reform that inevitably must involve our nation's schools. The rise in formal education levels amount americans has had a significant effect on voter turnout. No less important, and perhaps simpler to achieve, are institutional reforms such as making Election Day a holiday, easing constraints on voter registration, allowing mail and online voting, modernizing the ballot, and strengthening political parties. Make Election Day a holiday - since elections traditionally are held on tuesdays, the busy workday is an obstacle for many would-be votes. Some reformers have, therefore, proposed that Election Day should be a national holiday. This strategy might backfire, however, if people used the day off to extend vacations or long weekends. The tradition of tuesday elections, however, should reduce this risk. Enable early voting - in an attempt to make voting more convenient for citizens who may have other commitments on Election Day, 34 states (largely in the west, Midwest, and south) currently allow voters to engage in a practice known as early voting. Early voting allows citizens to cast their ballot up to a month before the election—the time fram varies by state—either by mail or at a designated polling location. many citizens have found early voting to be a preferable way to cast their ballot; during the 2008 election, 50 percent of eligible voters took adv at age of early voting in some jurisdictions. Critics of early voting, however, charge that the method decreases the importance of the campaign. They also fear that voters who cast early ballots may later come to regret their choices. It is possible, for example, that a voter could change his or her mind after hearing new information about a candidate just prior to Election Day, or that a voter could cast a ballot for a candidate who subsequently withdraws from the race. Permit mail and online voting - reformers have also proposed several voting methods citizens could do from their own homes. For example, Oregon, wahsington, and some California counties vote almost entirely by mail-in ballots. These systems have been credited with increasing voter turnout rates in those states. But, voting by mail has its downside. There are concerns about decreased ballot security and increased potential for fraud with mail-in elections. Another problem with such an approach is that it may delay election results as the board of elections waits to receive all ballots. Internet voting may be a more instantaneous way to tally votes. Some states, including arizona and michigan, have already experimented with using this method to cast ballots in primary elections. In addition, military members and their families from 33 states used internet voting to cast absentee ballots in the 2010 elections. However, internet voting booths have been slow to catch on with the general public because many voters are suspicious of the security of this method and worry about online hackers and an inability to prevent voter fraud. Other observers fear that an all-online system could unintentionally disenfranchise poor voters, who may be less likely to have access to an internet connection. Make registration easier - registration laws vary by state, but in most states, people must register prior to Election Day. In the 9 sates that permit Election Day registration, however, v turnout has averaged about 11 percentage points higher in recent elections than in other states, supporting the long-held claim by reformers that voter turnout could be increased if registering to vote were made simpler for citizens. Better yet, all US citizens could be registered automatically at the age of 18. Critics, however, argue that such automatic registration could Breed even greater voter apathy and complacency. Modernize the ballot - following the 2000 election, when the outcome of othe presidential election in florida, and by extension the nation, hinged on "hanging chads" —punch-card ballots that had not been fully separated—legislators and other observers called for reforms to modernize the ballot. The deferral government even enacted teh Help America Vote Act (HAVA) to aid states in upgrading footing equipment. Reformers hoped that thee changes would make the process of voting easier, more approachable, and more reliable. States and localities have made significant changes in the types of ballots they use as a result of the HAVA. more traditional voting methods such as paper and punch-card ballots (similar to the ballots used in MLB All-Star balloting) are used in less than 10 percent of jurisdictions today. most voters use optical-scan sheets (similar to the Santrons or "bubble sheets" used in many college classes) or electronic voting machines. the latter of these methods was initially thought to be the wave of the future in voting technology. Between 2000 and 2006, use of electronic voting machines nearly tripled. However, concerns about voter fraud and issues with voting machines in the 2006 and 2008 elections led some states to revert to other methods of voting. In 2008, 32.6 percent of voters used electronic voting machines, down from almost 40 percent in 2006. Supporters of electronic voting believe that emphasis must be placed on training poll workers, administrators, and voters on how to effectively use the new equipment. Critics believe that the lack of a paper trail leaves electronic machines vulnerable to fraud and worry that the machines could crash during an election. Still other critics cite the expense of the machines. all, however, agree that updating election equipment and ensuring fair elections across the country should be a legislative priority. as Charles m vest, the president of the MIT, noted, "a nation that can send a man to the moon, that can put a reliable atm machine on every corner, has no excuse not to deploy a reliable, affordable, easy-to-use voting system." Strengthen parties - reformers have long argued that strengthening the political parties woudl increase voter turnout, because parties have historically been the organizations in the US most successful at mobilizing citizens to vote. during the late 1800s and early 1900s, the country's "Golden Age" of powerful political parties, one of their primary activities was getting out the vote on Election Day. even today, the parties' Election Day get-out-the-vote drives increase voter turnout by several million people in national contests. The challenge is how to go about enacting reformist hat strengthen parties. One way,f or example, would be to allow political parties to raise and spend greater sums of money during the campaign process. Such a reform, however, raises ethical questions about the role and influence of money in politics. Another potential change would be to enact broader systemic reforms that allow for a multiparty system and facilitate greater party competition. But, these reforms would be very difficult to pass into law. Ultimately, the solution to ensuring greater levels of voter turnout may lie in encouraging th e parties to enhance their get-out-the-vote efforts. Additional voter education programs, too, may show voters what is at stake in elections, and inspire higher levels of turnout in future elections.

General election

Election in which voters decide which candidates will actually fill elective public offices.

Primary election

Election in which voters decide which of the candidates within a party will represent the party in the general election.

The following are key points of emphasis regarding the electoral college: A) the history B) total number of electors C) how is that number of electors determined for each state D) what is the total number of electoral votes needed to win the Presidency; what happened if that number is not met? E) what 3 reasons did the framers have in compromising on the electoral college F) understand how the 12th and 23rd amendments changed the electoral college G) be ready to discuss the possibilities of reforming the college and why winning the popular vote is not necessary to be elected President H) KNOW the congressional district plan

Given the enormous amount of energy, money, and time expended to nominate two major-party presidential contenders, it is difficult to believe that the general election could be more arduous than the nominating contests, but it usually is. The actual general election campaign for presidency (and other offices) is described in chapter 14, but the object of the exercise is clear: winning a majority of the Electoral College. This uniquely American institution consists of representatives of each state who cast the final ballots that actually elect a president. The total number of electors—the members of the Electoral College—for each state is equivalent to the number of senators and representatives that state has in the US Congress. The District of Columbia is accorded three electoral votes making 538 the total number of votes cast in the Electoral College. Thus, the magic number for wining the presidency is 270 votes. Keep in mind that through reapportionment, representation in the House of Representatives and consequently the Electoral College is altered every 10 years to reflect population shifts. Reapportionment is simply the reallocation of the number of seats in the House of Representatives that takes place after each decennial census. Projections for the 2010 Census show a sizable population shift from the Midwest and the Democratic-dominated Northeast to the South and West, where Republicans are much stronger. If these projections hold, Texas will gain 4 congressional districts, and therefore four additional seats in the House of Representatives and 4 additional votes in the Electoral College. Arizona and Florida will gain 2 seats and 2 votes, while 4 other states will gain 1. New York and ohio stand to lose 2 seats and 2 votes, while 8 states stand to lose a single seat and electoral vote. If Barack Obama runs for reelection and wins the same states in 2012 that he won in 2008, he will win 5 fewer votes. Historical Challenges - The Electoral College was the result of a compromise between those Framers who argued for selection of the president by the Congress and those who favored selection by direct popular election. There are 3 essentials to understanding the Framers' design of the Electoral College. The system was constructed to: (1) work without political parties; (2) cover both the nominating and electing phases of presidential selection; and, (3) produce a nonpartisan president. Most of the challenges faced by the Electoral College are the result of changes in the practice of elections that have occurred over time. For example, because the Framers expected partisanship to have little influence, the Electoral College originally was designed to elect the president and Vice President from the same pool of candidates; the one who received the most votes would become president and the runner-up would be come Vice President. To accommodate this system, each elector was given 2 votes. Following the development of the first party system, the republic's fourth presidential election soon revealed a flaw in this plan. In 1800, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr were respectively, the presidential and vice presidential candidates advanced by the Democratic-Republican Party, whose supporters controlled a majority of the Electoral College. Accordingly, each Democratic-Republican elector cast one of his two votes fro Jefferson and the other one for Burr. Since there was no way under the constitutional arrangements for electors to earmark their votes separately for president and Vice President, the presidential election resulted in a tie between Jefferson and Burr. Even though most understood Jefferson to be the actual choice for president, the Constitution mandated that a tie be decided by the House of Representatives, which was controlled by the Federalists. The controversy was settled in Jefferson's favor, but only after much energy was expended to persuade Federalists not to give Burr the presidency. The 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804 and still the constitutional foundation for presidential elections today, was an attempt to remedy the confusion between the selection of Vice Presidents and presidents that beset the election of 1800. The amendment provided for separate elections for each office. In the event of a tie or when no candidate received a majority of the total number of electors, the election still went to the House of Representatives; now, however, each state delegation would have one vote to cast for one of the three candidates who had received the greatest number of electoral votes. The Electoral College modified by the 12th Amendment has fared better than the College as originally designed, but it has not been problem free. On 3 occasions during the 19th century, the electoral process resulted in the selection of a president who received fewer votes than his opponent. In 1824, neither John Quincy Adams nor Andrew Jackson secured a majority of electoral votes, throwing the election into the House. Although Jackson had more electoral and popular votes than Adams, the House selected the latter as president. In the 1876 contest between Republican Rutherford B. Hayes and Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, no candidate received a majority of electoral votes; the House decided in Hayes's favor even though he had 250K fewer popular votes than Tilden. In the election on 1888, President Grover Cleveland secured about 100k more popular votes than did Benjamin Harrison, yet Harrison won a majority of the Electoral College vote, and with it the presidency. Should the electoral college be reformed? — following the 2000 election, many political observers suggested that the system of electing a president was in need of reform. Two major proposals were put forward and are discussed in this section. To date, however, no changes have been made, and it will likely take another major electoral crisis to reopen the debate. First, and perhaps most simply, some observers have suggested using the national popular vote to choose the president. While this is the most democratic reform, it is by farm the least likely to be enacted, given that the US Constitution would have to be amended to abolish the Electoral College. Even assuming that the House of Representatives could muster the 2/3 majority necessary to pass an amendment, the proposal would almost certainly never pass the Senate. Small states have the same representation in the Senate as populous ones, and the Senate thus serves as a bastion of equal representation for all states, regardless of population—a principle generally reinforced by the existing configuration of the Electoral College, which ensures disproportionate electoral influence for the smallest states. Another proposed reform is known as the congressional district plan. this plan would retain the electoral college but give each candidate one electoral vote for each congressional district that he or she wins in a state, and the winner of the overall popular vote in each state would receive 2 bonus votes (one for each senator) for that state. The congressional district plan is currently used in 2 states: Maine and Nebraska. In the 2008 elections Nebraska, which has 3 representatives and 2 senators for a total of 5 electoral votes, split its votes between Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. McCain won a majority of the state's votes and had majorities in 2 of the congressional districts, so he received 4 electoral votes. Obama received 1 electoral vote for his victory in Nebraska's 2nd congressional district, which includes Omaha and the surrounding areas. One advantage of the congressional district plan is that it can be adopted without constitutional amendment. Any state that wants to split its Electoral College votes need only pass a law to this effect. It may also promote more diffuse political campaigns; instead of campaigning only in states that are "in play" in the Electoral College, candidates might also have to campaign in competitive districts in otherwise safe states. But, the congressional district plan also has some unintended consequences. First, the winner of the popular vote might still lose the presidency under this plan. Under a congressional district plan, Richard M. Nixon would have won the 1960 election instead of John F. Kennedy. Second, his reform would further politicize the congressional redistricting process. If electoral votes were at stake, parties would seek to maximize the number of safe electoral districts for their presidential nominee while minimizing the number of competitive districts. Finally, although candidates would not ignore entire states, they would quickly learn to focus their campaigning on competitive districts while ignoring secure districts, thereby eliminating some of the democratizing effect of such a change.

Explain the difference between retrospective judgement and prospective judgement; Which did President Trump face in 2020 when he ran for reelection?

In addition to the underlying influences on vote choice discussed above, individual issues can have important effects in any given election year. One of the most important driving forces is the state of the economy. Voters tend to reward the party in governmetn, usually the president's party, during good economic times and punish the party in over meant during periods of economic downturn. When this occurs, the electorate is exercising retrospective judgement; that is, voters are rendering judgement on the party in power based on past performance on particular issues, in this case the economy. At other times, voters might use prospective judgment; that is, they vote based on what a candidate pledges to do about an issue if elected. The 2008 election provides an example of how both retrospective and prospective judgements helped voters reach their ballot decisions. Following the September collapse of the stock and housing markets, voters were concerned primarily with one issue: the economy. On a consistent basis, democrat Barack obama argued that the poor economy resulted from the failed politics of the republican bush administration. Many voters offered a negative retrospective judgement on the republicans' handling of the economic crisis by voting for obama; among those who though their financial situation was worsening, 71 percent voted fro obama. Other citizens cast ballots for more forward-looking prospective reasons. Among citizens who were very concerned about rising health care costs, a policy area obama vowed to reform, 66 percent cast ballots for the democratic candidate. Retrospective

Describe the unique system the state of Louisiana uses to conduct its primary elections.

Louisiana has a novel twist on the primary system. There, all candidates for office appear on the ballot on the day of the national general election. If one candidate receives over 50 percent of the vote, the candidate wins and no further action is necessary. If no candidate wins a majority of the vote, the top two candidates, even if they belong to the same party, face each other in a runoff election. Such a system blurs the lines between primary and general elections.

Crossover voting

Participation in the primary election of a party with which the voter is not affiliated.

Which system is more democratic: a plurality system or a proportional representation system? Why?

Plurality - it's based soley on number of votes by the people

There are several purposes that elections serve; please identify them.

Popular election confers on a government legitimacy that it can achieve no other way. Elections confirm the very concept of popular sovereignty, the idea that legitimate political power is derived from the consent of the governed, and they serve as the bedrock for democratic governance. At fixed intervals, the electorate—citizens eligible to vote—is called on to judge those in power. Even though the majority of office holders in the US win reelection, some office holders inevitable lose power, and all candidates are accountable to the voters. The threat of elections keeps policy makers concerned with public opinion and promotes ethical behavior. Elections also are the primary means to fill public offices and organize and staff the government. Because candidates advocate certain politics, elections also provide a choice of direction on a wide range of issues, from abortion to civil rights to national defense to the environment. If current office holders are reelected, they many continue their policies with renewed resolve. Should office holders be defeated and their challengers elected, a change in policies will likely result. Either way, the winners will claim a mandate (literally, a command) from the people to carry out a party platform or policy agenda.

Would a proportional representation system work in the US? What kind of impact might it have on the Democratic and Republican Parties?

Possibility for leaders from both parties to both be elected together more often bc you would think the second most popular would then be the top candidate from the other party, it is possible for it to work, still satisfy members of both parties

What is the "scare-off effect"? Give an example of how this could affect a person's decision to run against an incumbent. Make sure you know what incumbency means and why it matters.

Research also identifies an indirect advantage of incumbency: the ability of the office holder to fend off challenges from strong opposition candidates, something scholars refer to as the "scare-off" effect. Incumbents have the ability to scare off high-quality challengers because of the institutional advantage of office, such as high name recognition, large war chests, free constituent mailings, staffs attached to legislative offices, and overall experience in running a successful campaign. Potential strong challengers facing this initial uphill battle will often wait until the incumbent retires rather than challenge him or her. The current system enhances the advantages of incumbency, or already holding an office. Those people i n office tend to remain in office. In a "bad" year such as the Republican wave of 2019, "only" 87 percent of House incumbents own reelection. Senatorial reelection rates can be much more mercurial. In 2006, on 79 percent of senators seeking reelection were victorious. In 2010, 90 percent of incumbents were re-elected. To the political novice, these reelection rates might seem surprising, as public trust in government and satisfaction with Congress has remained remarkably low during the very period that reelection rates have been on the rise. To understand the nature of the incumbency advantage it is necessary to explore its primary causes: staff support, visibility, and the "scare-off" effect. Staff support - members of the US House of Representatives are permitted to hire eighteen permanent and four non permanent aides to work in their Washington and district offices. Senators typically enjoy far larger staffs, with the actual size determined by the number of peopel in the state they represent. Both House and Senate members also enjoy additional benefits provided by the scores of unpaid interns who assist with office duties. Many of the activities of staff members directly or indirectly promote the legislator through constituency services, the wide array of assistance provided by a member of Congress to voters in need. Constituent service may include tracking a lost Social Security check, helping a veteran receive disputed benefits, or finding a summer internship for a college student. Having a responsive constituent service program contributes strongly to incumbency. Research has shown that if a House incumbent's staff helped to solved a problem for a constituent, that constituent rated the incumbent more favorably than constituents who were not assisted by the incumbent, therefore providing the incumbent a great advantage over any challenger. Visibility - most incumbents are highly visible in their districts. They have easy access to local media, cut ribbons galore, attend important local funerals, and speak frequently at meetings and community events. Moreover, convenient schedules and generous travel allowances increase the local availability of incumbents, nearly a fourth of the people in an average congressional district claim to have met their representative, and about half recognize their legislator's name without prompting. This visibility has an electoral payoff, as research shows district attentiveness is at least partly responsibly for incumbent's electoral safety.

Reapportionment

The reallocation of the number of seats in the House of Representatives after each decennial census.

What are the consequences for states, the party, the candidate, and the calendar in front-loading?

The role of primaries and caucuses in the presidential election has been altered by front-loading, the tendency of states to choose an early date on the nomination calendar. Seventy percent of all the delegates to both party conventions are now chosen before the end of February. This trend is hardly surprising, given the added press emphasis on the first contests and the voters' desire to cast their ballots before the competition is decided. Front loading has important effects on the nomination process. First, a front-loaded schedule generally benefits the front-runner, since opponents have little time to turn the contest around once they fall behind. Second, front-loading gives and advantage to the candidate who wins the "invisible primary," that is, the one who can raise the bulk of the money before the nomination season begins. Once primaries and caucuses begin, there is less opportunity to raise money to finance campaign efforts simultaneously in many states. However, Internet fund-raising has emerged as a means to soften the advantage of a large campaign fund going into a primary battle, since it allows candidates to raise large sums from many small donors nations wide virtually overnight. In 2008, long-shot Republican president candidate Ron Paul raised a record $6 million in one day, shattering his own record of $4.2 million in the previous month. All of the major 2008 presidential candidates relied on online donations to finance their campaigns, but the highly compressed schedule still forced even the best-funded candidates to make difficult decisions on how to allocate their financial resources.

Understand the different methods to vote for candidates within a party (the primary and caucus); also note the difference between the winner-take-all and proportional procedure for allocating delegates at the conventions.

The state party organizations use several types of methods to elect national convention delegates and ultimately select the candidates who will run against each other in the general election: 1. Winner-take-all primary. Under this system the candidate who wins the most votes in a state secures all of that state's delegates. While Democrats no longer permit its use because it is views as less representative than a proportional system, Republicans generally prefer this process as it enables a candidate to amass a majority of delegates quickly and shortens the divisive primary season. 2. Proportional representation primary. Under this system, candidates who secure a threshold percentage of votes are awarded delegates in proportion to the number of popular votes won. Democrats now strongly favor this system and use it in many state primaries, where they award delegates to anyone who wins more than 15 percent in any congressional district. Although proportional representation is probably the fairest way of allocating delegates to candidates, its downfall is that it renders majorities of delegates more difficult to accumulate and thus can lengthen the presidential nomination contest. 3. Caucus. The caucus is the oldest, most party-oriented method of choosing delegates to the national conventions. Traditionally, the caucus was a closed meeting of party activists in each state who selected the party's choice for presidential candidate. Today, caucuses (in Iowa, for example) are more open and attract a wider range of the party's membership. Indeed, new participatory caucuses more closely resemble primary elections than they do the old, exclusive party caucuses.

Understand the difference between a primary election and the general election. Then compare and contrast the differences between open, closed, and runoff primaries.

There are two stages of the electoral process: primary and general elections. In most jurisdictions, candidates for state and national office must compete in both of these races. Some states (but not the national government) also use the electoral process to make public policy and remove office holders. These processes are known as the initiative, referendum, and recall. Primary elections - In primary elections, voters decide which of the candidates within a party will represent the party in the general elections. Primary elections come in a number of different forms, depending on who is allowed to participate. Close primaries allow only a party's registered voters to cast a ballot. In open primaries, however, independents and sometimes members of the other party are allowed to participate. Closed primaries are considered healthier for the party system because they prevent members of one party from influencing the primaries of the opposition party. Studies of open primaries indicate that crossover voting—participation in the primary of a party with which the voter is not affiliated—occurs frequently. Nevertheless, the research suggests that these crossover votes are usually individual decisions; there is little evidence of organized attempts by voters of one party to influence the primary results of the other party. In ten states, when none of the candidates in the initial primary secures a majority of the votes, there is a runoff primary, a contest between the two candidates with the greatest number of votes. General elections - once the parties have selected their candidates for various offices, each state holds its general election. In the general election, voters decide which candidates will actually fill elective public offices. These elections are held at many levels, including municipal, county, state, and national. Whereas primaries are contests between the candidates within each party, general elections are contests between the candidates of opposing parties.

Ticket-splitting

Voting for candidates of different parties for various offices in the same election

Note a few reasons why incumbency would not be an advantage in an election. What tendencies are noticed by political scientists during midterm elections?

While most incumbents win reelection, in every election cycle some members of Congress loser their positions to challengers. There are four major reasons these members lose their reelection bids: redistributing, scandals, presidential coattails, and midterm elections. Redistricting - At least every 10 years, state legislators redraw congressional district lines to reflect population shifts, both in the state and in the nation at large. This very political process may be used to secure incumbency advantage by creating "safe" seats for members of the majority party in the state legislature. But, it can also be used to punish incumbents in the out-of-power party. Some incumbents can be put in the same districts as other incumbents, or other representatives' base of political support can be weakened by adding territory favorable to the opposition party. The number of incumbents who actually lose their reelection bids because of redistricting is lessened by the strategic behavior or redistricted members—who often choose to retire rather than wage an expensive reelection battle. Scandals - Scandals come in many varieties in this age of investigative journalism. The old standby of financial impropriety has been supplemented by other forms of career-ending incidents, such as sexual improprieties. Incumbents implicated in scandals typically do not lose reelections—because they simply choose to retire rather than face defeat. Representative Erica Massa (D—NY), for example, resigned from office in 2010 after accusations of sexual harassment and impropriety with staff members. His seat remained vacant until the November elections, when it was filled by Tom Reed (R—NY). Presidential Coattails - The defeat of a congressional incumbent can also occur as a result of presidential coattails. Successful presidential candidates usually carry into office congressional candidates of the same party in the year of their election. The strength of the coattail effect has, however, declined in modern times, as party identification has weakened and the powers and perks of incumbency have grown. Whereas Harry S Truman's party gained 76 House seats and 9 additional Senate seats in 1948, Barack Obama's party gained only 21 House members and 8 senators back in 2008. The gains can be minimal even in presidential landslides reelection years, such as 1972 (Nixon) and 1984 (Reagan). Midterm elections - Elections in the middle of presidential terms, called midterm elections, present a threat to incumbents of the president's party. Just as the presidential party usually gains seats in presidential election years, it usually loses seats in off years. The problems and tribulations of governing normally cost a president some popularity, alienate key groups, or cause the public to want to send the president a message of one sort or another. An economic downturn or presidential scandal can underscore an expand this circumstance, as the Watergate scandal of 1974 and the recession of 1982 demonstrated. In 2010, the economy once again led to the defeat of incumbents in a midterm election. Democratic incumbents, in particular, lost in record numbers while most Republicans were reelected. All in all, Democrats lost more seats than either party has in an election since 1938. Most apparent is the tendency of voters to punish the president's party much more severely in the 6th year of an 8-year presidency, a phenomenon associated with retrospective voting. After only 2 years, voters may still be willing to "give the guy a chance," but after 6 years, voters are often restless for change. In what many saw as a referendum on President George W. Bush's policy in Iraq, for example, the Republican Party lost control of both chambers of Congress in the 2006 election. This midterm election was typical of the sixth-year itch, with voters looking for a change and punishing the incumbent president's party in Congress. Senate elections are less inclined to follow these off-year patterns than are House elections. This idiosyncratic nature of Senate contests is due to their intermittent scheduling (only one-third of the seats come up for election every two years) and the existence of well-funded, well-known candidates who can sometimes swim against whatever political tide is rising.. in the 2010 midterm elections, Democrats were able to retain control of the Senate despite huge losses in the House. The impact of the tea party movement was far less powerful in statewide elections, and some Senate Democrats in close elections were able to win reelection; among them were Senators Patty Murray (D—WA), and Michael Bennet (D—CO).

Midterm election

an election that takes place in the middle of a presidential term