Political Participation - DOC

Shared by: 2O1y0WE

Tags

Stats

views:: 14
posted:: 11/18/2011
language:: English
pages:: 21

Public Domain

Document Sample

Political Participation
Wilson Chapter 6
Popular Participation and Elections
• Americans elect more public officeholders than do citizens in Europe.
• In Europe, voters generally can vote to fill only one or two offices per election.
• There are an estimated 520,000 elective offices in the United States.
Source of Differences: U.S. and Europe
American distrust of governmental power
American culture values participation
• In spite of this, only 49% of adult Americans voted in the 1996 Presidential election and only 38%
turned out for the 1994 Congressional elections.
Federalism – there are more opportunities
Types of Participation

• There are two types of participation: Conventional and Unconventional.

• Conventional: voting, trying to persuade others, ringing doorbells for petitions, running for office.

• Unconventional – protesting, civil disobedience, and violence.

Civil Disobedience
What is Civil Disobedience?
 A nonviolent, deliberate, and conspicuous violation of law or social norm, or a violation of the orders of
civil authorities in order to generate publicity and public awareness of an issue.
 Protesters directly confront the rule and confront the authorities who would enforce it and demand a
change in the rule.
 Civil Disobedience
 Communicates the protesters unity and strength of interest in an issue

 Provides evidence of commitment and willingness to sacrifice for the cause

 Presents a threat of more overt action should the group in power fail to act on the issue

Civil Disobedience
 Civil Disobedience
 Is a form of political participation available to citizens without the money, media, support, lobbying
resources, voting strength, political skills, or political access necessary to influence decision-makers
through more traditional means.
 Was used by
• American revolutionaries in boycotting British taxes and tea
• Alice Paul and women’s suffragists in the early 1900’s to secure the right to vote in the 19th
amendment
• Mahatma Gandhi in the 1940’s to secure the end of British colonial rule in India
• Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights leaders in the 1960’s to end legal racial segregation
and secure voting rights for African Americans
• Non-voting age college students during the 1960’s to protest the war in Vietnam
 Brings people into the political system who were outside the system and is one of the few tactics
available to empower concerned citizens who lack any other means to press their demands for
change
Civil Disobedience: Three Forms
 Civil disobedience usually takes one of three forms:
 Deliberate and purposeful violation of a specific targeted statute or social norm in order to focus
popular and media attention on the rule.
• Examples: 1960’s civil rights sit-ins and demands for service at segregated lunch counters, anti-
war protesters refusing to submit to selective service calls, and feminists publicly burning bras
• This tactic is effective only in non-authoritarian and non- totalitarian regimes with a free press to
publicize the violation of the law and basic civil rights to prevent civil authorities and social
majorities from over-reacting to the violation

 Second, civil disobedience may take the form of passive resistance in which protesters refuse to
respond to the orders of authorities but are otherwise in full compliance with the law.
• Examples have included civil rights protesters and anti-war activists who ignore police orders to
disperse and force police to physically carry them from a public protest site.
• The organization Civilian Based Defense promoted passive resistance as a national defense
strategy and suggested that the threat of withholding cooperation and engaging in active non-
cooperation with the enemy may be as effective a deterrent to an invader's aggression as the
use of military force.
• Third, civil disobedience may take the form of non-violent illegal activity in which protesters disrupt
activities they oppose and seek to be arrested, punished, and even martyred to gain publicity and to
influence public opinion.
 Examples have included anti-war protesters who trespass on military installations and illegally
seize military property by chaining themselves to it,
 radical environmentalists who "spike" trees with nails to disrupt logging activities,
 and animal rights activists who throw blood on persons wearing animal fur coats.

Civil Disobedience
 Civil disobedience is distinctly different from nonconformity, social pathology, eccentricity, or social
disorganization.
 Nonconformity is willful violation of a rule because the values established in the rule are contrary to the
social, cultural, or moral values and norms of a subgroup of the civil society--but the violation is not
intended to encourage a change in the rule.
 For example, a fundamentalist Mormon practices polygamy because he believes religious
proscriptions require him to do so, not because he seeks to change or protest the marriage laws of
the state.
 Social pathology is the failure to conform to civil law because failures in the individual's socialization and
education processes leave the individual –norm-less and, therefore, free to pursue his personal self-
interest and selfish desires without concern for law.
 Eccentricity is socially encouraged nonconformance in which a cultural hero, genius, intellectual, or artist
is granted cultural license to violate the law based on the person's unique status or contributions to
society.
 Finally, social disorganization is the failure of the political or social system to enforce its rules because
authority has become ineffective or has been destroyed in war or revolution, leaving individuals in a state
of anarchy and licensed to make their own rules.

 Civil disobedience as a political tactic and social process increases in popularity and use as society
decreases its reliance on violence and force to achieve political goals or to gain the advantage in social
conflict or competition.
 It also increases in popularity when political outsiders seek to assert themselves in the political process
and find all other avenues of political participation beyond their abilities and resources or find all other
avenues prohibited to them by political insiders or by civil authorities.

Methods of Nonviolent Action
 There are many forms of nonviolent action.
 http://www.peacemagazine.org/198.htm
Thoreau.
 Henry David Thoreau - Transcendentalist
 Transcendentalism – a celebration of individualism and reform
 Thoreau owed poll tax fees – refused to pay indicating his objection to slavery and the war with Mexico,
1846. Was arrested and bailed out of jail by friends.
 ―When the power is in the hands of the people, a majority, and for a long period they continue to rule, it is
not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but
because they are physically the strongest. ―
 ―A government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice…‖
 ―Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them and obey
once we have succeeded?‖
 ―Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. ―

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
• ―How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others? The answer is found in the fact there
are two types of laws: There are just laws and there are unjust laws. One has a moral responsibility to
obey just laws. Conversely one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.‖

• ―An just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a
human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just.
Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.‖

Women’s Suffrage Efforts:
1913 Women’s Suffrage Parade
• On March 13, 1913, the day of Woodrow Wilson's presidential inauguration, 8,000 suffragettes
descended upon Washington to march for their cause.
• At the head of the suffrage parade was a strikingly beautiful young woman on a white horse.
• Here, she was depicted with the white horse she rode at the head of the suffrage parade, March 3, 1913.

• Behind her stretched a long procession, including nine bands, four mounted brigades, three heralds,
more than 20 floats and more than 5,000 marchers.
• Women from countries that had enfranchised women held the place of honor in the first section of the
procession.
• Then came the "pioneers" who had struggled for so many decades to secure women's right to vote.
• The next sections celebrated working women, who were grouped by occupation and wore appropriate
garb -- nurses in uniform, woman farmers, homemakers, woman doctors and pharmacists, actresses,
librarians -- Harriet Hifton of the Library of Congress's Copyright Division led the librarians' contingent --
and college women in academic gowns.
• Next came the state delegations and, finally, the separate section for male supporters of woman
suffrage.
• According to the official program of the suffrage procession, all had come from around the country "to
march in a spirit of protest against the present political organization of society, from which women are
excluded."

Inez Milholland Boissevain
• Her last public words were, "Mr. President, how long must women wait for liberty?"
• Her lasting public image was that of a beauty on a white horse leading the march for women's voting
rights.
• Athlete, attorney, W.W. I news correspondent, Inez Milholland Boissevain's brief but spectacular life
would impact the women's movement long after her death.

• Inez Milholland Boissevain was a popular speaker for the cause of suffrage, and she refused to cut back
her schedule to accommodate her pernicious anemia.
• She collapsed during a speech in Los Angeles on October 22, 1916. At the hospital, blood transfusions
over the next days could not save her, and she died November 25, 1916. Many suffragists considered
her a martyr to the cause of woman suffrage.
• MOB HURTS 300 SUFFRAGISTS
AT CAPITAL PARADE
New York Evening Journal, March 4, 1913
• "There would be nothing like this happen
if you would stay at home."
Suffrage Parade Senate Hearing, March 6-17, 1913

Unconventional Participation:
Alice Paul and the ―Iron Jaw Angels‖
Alice Paul’s Fight for Suffrage
• Throughout the winter of 1917, Alice Paul and her followers in the National Women's Party picketed the
White House. They stood silently at the gates, holding signs that said "Mr. president, how long must
women wait for liberty?" They wanted President Woodrow Wilson to support a Constitutional amendment
giving all American women suffrage, or the right to vote.
• At first, the suffragists were politely ignored. But on April 6, 1917, the United States entered World War I.
The suffragists' signs became more pointed. They taunted Wilson, accusing him of being a hypocrite.
How could he send American men to die in a war for democracy when he denied voting rights to women
at home? The suffragists became an embarrassment to President Wilson. It was decided the picketing in
front of the White House must stop.

• Spectators assaulted the picketers, both verbally and physically while the police did nothing. Soon, the
police began arresting the suffragists on charges of obstructing traffic. At first, the charges were dropped.
Next, the women were sentenced to jail terms of just a few days. But the suffragists kept picketing, and
their prison sentences grew. Finally, in an effort to break the spirit of the picketers, the police arrested
Alice Paul. She was tried and sentenced to 7 months in prison.

• Paul was placed in solitary confinement. For two weeks, she had nothing to eat except bread and water.
Weak and unable to walk, she was taken to the prison hospital. There she began a hunger strike--one
which others would join. "It was," Paul said later, "the strongest weapon left with which to continue... our
battle . . ."

In Washington’s Jail…
• The conditions in which the suffragists were held at the Occoquan Workhouse were appalling. Blankets
were washed once a year. There were open toilets, which could only be flushed from outside the cell by
the guard, who might or might not come when called. Women who were on a hunger strike were force-
fed.
• Doris Stevens, one of the prisoners, wrote in the Suffragist of August 11, 1917:No woman there will ever
forget the shock and the hot resentment that rushed over her when she was told to undress before the
entire company. . .We silenced our impulse to resist this indignity, which grew more poignant as each
woman nakedly walked across the great vacant space to the doorless shower . . .
• In a complaint filed by Lucy Burns concerning conditions at the Workhouse, Ms. Burns stated: The water
they [the suffragists] drink is kept in an open pail, from which it is ladled into a drinking cup. The
prisoners frequently dip the drinking cup directly into the pail. The same piece of soap is used for every
prisoner. As the prisoners in Occoquan are sometimes afflicted with disease, this practice is appallingly
negligent
Torture at Occoquan
• Virginia Bovee, who had been an officer at the Workhouse, stated in an affidavit given after her
discharge: The beans, hominy, rice, corn meal . . . and cereal have all had worms in them. Sometimes
the worms float on top of the soup. Often they are found in the corn bread.
• November 15, 1917, was the Night of Terror at Occoquan:
– Under orders from W. H. Whittaker, superintendent of the Occoquan Workhouse, as many as forty
guards with clubs went on a rampage, brutalizing thirty-three jailed suffragists. They beat Lucy Burns,
chained her hands to the cell bars above her head, and left her there for the night. They hurled Dora
Lewis into a dark cell, smashed her head against an iron bed, and knocked her out cold. Her
cellmate Alice Cosu, who believed Mrs. Lewis to be dead, suffered a heart attack. According to
affidavits, other women were grabbed, dragged, beaten, choked, slammed, pinched, twisted, and
kicked.
Arrests Ruled Unconstitutional
• In all, Miss Paul served three prison terms in the US. During her imprisonment in the District of Columbia
Jail in October 1917, weakened by her hunger strike, she was taken by stretcher to the prison hospital.
• There she was held incommunicado: no attorney, no member of her family, no friend was allowed to see
her.
• Prison officials threatened her with transfer to the jail's psychopathic ward and St. Elizabeth's Hospital,
the Government's institution for the insane, if she did not break her hunger strike.
• When she refused, she was taken by stretcher to a cell in the prison's psychopathic ward and treated like
a mental patient.
• At night, she could not sleep for more than a few minutes at a time because an electric light was aimed
at her face once every hour all through the night.
• She lived in dread of being transferred to St. Elizabeth's. After a week in the ward, through the
intercession of a supporter, Dudley Field Malone, the well-known lawyer and liberal, she was returned to
the jail's hospital. A week later she was released.
• Paul, Burns, and all of the other women are eventually pardoned by the President and the Supreme
Court ruled that their arrests were, in fact, unconstitutional.

The Ratification Process

What Became of Alice Paul and Lucy Burns?
• Although Lucy Burns's fiery oratory gave the impression of limitless energy, the struggle exhausted her.
After the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment on August 26, 1920, Burns retreated from political
activism. Returning to Brooklyn to live with two unmarried sisters, she went on to rear a newborn niece
left motherless in 1923 by the death of Burns's youngest sister in childbirth. Burns never returned to the
fray. Taking solace in her commitment to Roman Catholicism, Burns died in Brooklyn, New York, on
December 22, 1966, after a long decline.

• In 1923, Alice Paul took the second step she had always planned and drafted the Equal Rights
Amendment (ERA) to the Constitution, and it was introduced in Congress. The ERA prohibited
discrimination based on sex by the federal and state governments. Its purpose was to give women
explicit constitutional protection not afforded by the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
What Became of Alice Paul?
• Miss Paul expanded NWP's activities into the international arena when she organized the International
Advisory Committee of NWP in the late 1920s, which led her to found the World Woman's Party (WWP)
in 1938.
• During its most active period, from 1938 to 1953, WWP worked in the international political arena, and, in
particular, with the League of Nations, to promote equality for women around the world. Among other
achievements, it was responsible for the establishment of the United Nations Commission on the Status
of Women in 1946.
• During the first two years of World War II, Miss Paul assisted Europeans, Jews, and their families, who
had been forced to leave their own countries because of the Nazi terror. WWP and Miss Paul not only
offered temporary shelter to these refugees but assisted them in finding American sponsors, securing
passports, and getting safe passage to the United States.
What Became of Alice Paul?
• In the late 1950s, when Congress was considering passage of a civil rights bill, Alice Paul was
unsuccessful in arguing for the inclusion of a prohibition against sex discrimination.
• But she was successful in the '60s. Although Miss Paul was seventy-nine at the time, she ran the
lobbying campaign to include the category of sex discrimination in the Civil Rights Act of 1964l.
• NWP later played a critical role when the bill was under consideration in the Senate. It was the only
woman's organization that fought for the inclusion of a prohibition against sex discrimination in Title VII.
• Alice Paul had never married; she devoted her life to women's rights. But when we spoke, she expressed
feelings of guilt. She was concerned that she was "useless" now because at the age of ninety-one she
wasn't "doing anything" for women.
• She died on July 9, 1977
Non-Conventional Participation
The Civil Rights Movement
• Martin Luther King, Jr.'s address to the March on Washington, at the Lincoln Memorial, August 28, 1963.
It was here that he said, "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and life out the true meaning
of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.' I have a dream that
one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be
able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood...I have a dream that my four little children will one
day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their
character."
―If we can crack Mississippi,‖ the students said, ―we can crack segregation anywhere.‖
• During the summer of 1964, thousands of civil rights activists, many of them white college students from
the North, descended on Mississippi and other Southern states to try to end the long-time political
disenfranchisement of African Americans in the region.
• Although black men had won the right to vote in 1870, thanks to the Fifteenth Amendment, for the next
100 years many were unable to exercise that right. White local and state officials systematically kept
blacks from voting through formal methods, such as poll taxes and literacy tests, and through cruder
methods of fear and intimidation, which included beatings and lynchings.
• The inability to vote was only one of many problems blacks encountered in the racist society around
them, but the civil-rights officials who decided to zero in on voter registration understood its crucial
significance as well the white supremacists did. An African American voting bloc would be able to effect
social and political change.
• Freedom Summer marked the climax of intensive voter-registration activities in the South that had
started in 1961.

• Organizers chose to focus their efforts on Mississippi because of the state's particularly dismal voting-
rights record: in 1962 only 6.7 percent of African Americans in the state were registered to vote, the
lowest percentage in the country
• The Freedom Summer campaign was organized by a coalition called the Mississippi Council of
Federated Organizations, which was led by the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), and included the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and the Student Nonviolent
Coordinating Committee (SNCC).
• By mobilizing volunteer white college students from the North to join them, the coalition scored a major
public relations coup as hundreds of reporters came to Mississippi from around the country to cover the
voter-registration campaign.

• Freedom Summer activists faced threats and harassment throughout the campaign, not only from white
supremacist groups, but from local residents and police.
• Freedom School buildings and the volunteers' homes were frequent targets; 37 black churches and 30
black homes and businesses were firebombed or burned during that summer, and the cases often went
unsolved.
• More than 1000 black and white volunteers were arrested, and at least 80 were beaten by white mobs or
racist police officers. But the summer's most infamous act of violence was the murder of three young civil
rights workers, a black volunteer, James Chaney, and his white coworkers, Andrew Goodman and
Michael Schwerner. On June 21, Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner set out to investigate a church
bombing near Philadelphia, Mississippi, but were arrested that afternoon and held for several hours on
alleged traffic violations. Their release from jail was the last time they were seen alive before their badly
decomposed bodies were discovered under a nearby dam six weeks later. Goodman and Schwerner had
died from single gunshot wounds to the chest, and Chaney from a savage beating

• http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/clarion/kc_summer.html
• http://www.splcenter.org/
• http://www.splcenter.org/center/crmc/civil.jsp
Verba and Nie Study
Verba and Nie Study, 1978
• Only about 11% of the American population could be classified as complete activists, with voting being
the most commonly reported type of participation.
• The most common form of political participation, with about 72% of the interviewees reporting voting
regularly in presidential elections.
• Curiously, the actual percentage of eligible voters who actually vote is considerably lower, seldom
climbing much above 50% in any given presidential election.

VOTER TURNOUT IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, 1960-1996
Voter Participation Hits New Lows

 With more people eligible to vote and voter registration rates on the rise, you’d think that the percentage
of Americans showing up at the polls would be higher than ever. NOT THE CASE.
 In November 1996, less than ½ of the eligible (registered) voters showed up to vote. It was the lowest
turnout rate on record for a presidential contest.
 Implications of low turnout:
 Relatively small proportion of the American electorate now has the power to determine who is
president. Just 26% of the voting age population elected George Bush in 1988, and Bill Clinton was
elected in 1996 by 23% of the voting age population.
 Leaves the door open to the election of a president who does not represent the will or priorities of the
American public.

 Voter turnout is greater in other countries:
 Argentina – 81%
 Australia – 96%
 Canada – 73%
 Italy – 77%
 Ghana – 78%
Some countries make voting compulsory – (have to vote; i.e. Australia)

Why Do So Few People Vote?
 Young people and minorities have the lowest rates
 Decreasing effectiveness of parties to get the electorate on board
 Barriers to registration
 Barriers to voting – time and place, language barriers
 Low political efficacy
 What does low turn out mean?
 Low political efficacy
 Americans vote less but participate more in other ways
 Americans elect more officials than Europeans do and have more elections
 U.S. turnout rates heavily skewed to higher status; those with higher status vote more often; meaning
of this is unclear.

Voter Turnout in other Countries
 Voter turnout is greater in other countries: Argentina – 81%
Australia – 96%
Canada – 73%
Italy – 77%
Ghana – 78%
 Some countries make voting compulsory – (have to vote; i.e. Australia)
Whether to Vote: A Citizens First Choice
• The Expansion of Suffrage
 At the founding of the country only white property-owning males over 21 could vote
 During the Jacksonian era suffrage was expanded to include non-property owning white males over
21.
 15th Amendment – (1870) prevented the exclusion of African American males, at least in principle.
States especially in the south developed methods to circumvent the decision.

How the 15th Amendment Was Nullified by the States
• Oklahoma and other southern states used the Grandfather clause. (declared unconstitutional in 1915 in
Guinn vs. U.S.)
• Poll taxes – taxes levied on the right to vote and paid on an annual basis. Prohibited in federal elections
by the 24th amendment ratified in 1964. Two years later the Supreme Court declared them
unconstitutional in state elections in Harper vs. Virginia State Board of Elections

 White Primaries – used in heavily Democratic South to exclude African Americans from voting in the
primary elections, thus depriving them of the vote in critical contests and letting them vote in those that
did not have the same impact. Declared unconstitutional by Supreme Court in Smith vs. Allbright.
 Voter Registration (literacy) tests – required literacy and an understanding of the Constitution and
political process. Registrars would give the test and refuse to allow African Americans and poor tenant
farmers to register even if the passed the test. Abolished with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The Second Feminist Political Movement
 The second feminist wave occurred in the 1960’s.
 Prior to that time, public policy toward women continued to be dominated not by the principle of equality,
but by protectionism.
 Laws protected working women from the burdens of overtime work, long hours, and heaving lifting but
these same laws protected men as well.
 State laws tended to reflect and reinforce traditional family roles. These laws concentrated on limiting
women’s work opportunities outside the home so they could concentrate on their duties within it.
The Second Movement
 Only a minority of feminists challenged these assumptions.
 Alice Paul, who authored the Equal Rights Amendment was one activist who claimed that the real result
of protectionist law was to perpetuate sexual inequality.

The Equal Rights Amendment

Voter Registration
• By contrast, the South still has the most difficult hurdles to clear when it comes to registering to vote.
• Alabama Voter Registration
• This changed somewhat when the Motor Voter Act went into effect in 1996. This act requires states to
permit people to register when they apply for drivers licenses. This made voter registration easier and
may result in greater turnouts. The 1996 election did not reflect any change though.
The Registration System
• A century ago politicians used to say ― vote early and often‖. Cases such as West Virginia’s 159,000
votes being cast by 147,000 eligible voters in 1888 were not that unusual.
• Largely due to corruption associated with stuffing the ballot boxes, states adopted voter registration .
• By requiring voters to register prior to election day, elections were made much more ethical.
• Registration procedures differ greatly from state to state. States in the upper Plains and the Northwest
make it easiest to register. In North Dakota, there is no registration at all, and in Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Wyoming, Idaho, and Maine voters can register on election day.
State Variations on Voter Registration
 One area of concern is that even with voting becoming easier, voter turnout has declined in the US
steadily since 1960.
 Part of the reason is that it is easier to register. When it was more difficult, those motivated to register
were also motivated to vote.
 Another reason is that there has been a decline in Americans’ social and political connectedness. A
younger, single, and less church going electorate has resulted in voters being less socially tied to their
communities.
 Furthermore, political withdrawal has resulted from declines in partianship (political party identification),
political interest, and the belief that government is responsive.

Political Participation
• Typically, less than one person in four attempts to influence how another person votes in an election.
• An even smaller number actually work for a candidate or party.
• Only one in 20 people make a contribution to a candidate, and only one in four designate one dollar of
their taxes to the fund that pays for presidential general elections.

How States Decide Who Can Vote
Voter Participation and Knowledge of the Political Process
• Vote in presidential elections, 49%
• Vote in congressional elections, 34%
• Know name of U.S. representative, 28%
• Sign a petition, 48%
• Write U.S. representative or state representative, 30
• Vote in local elections, 10–30%
• Try to persuade vote of others, 19%
• Display campaign button, sticker, or sign, 7%
• Attend dinner, meeting, or rally for candidate, 5%
• Contribute to candidate, 4%
• Contribute to party, 4%

SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1998
(Government Printing Office, 1998), p. 297; 1998 American National Election Study, Center for
Political Studies, University of Michigan.
Voter Turnout
Why do so few vote?
• Young people and minorities have the lowest rates
• Decreasing effectiveness of parties to get the electorate on board
• Barriers to registration
• Barriers to voting – time and place, language barriers
• Low political efficacy
What does low turn out mean?
• Low political efficacy
• Americans vote less but participate more in other ways
• Americans elect more officials than Europeans do and have more elections
U.S. turnout rates are heavily skewed to higher status; those with higher status vote more often; meaning of
this is unclear.
Does One Voter Really Matter?
• Voter participation often suffers because of the generally accepted belief that ―one vote really can’t make
a difference.‖ Ask the students to consider:
• 1645, ONE VOTE gave control of England to Oliver Cromwell
• 1649, ONE VOTE approved the beheading of Kings Charles I
• 1800, ONE VOTE prevented Aaron Burr from becoming the U.S. President
• 1845, ONE VOTE brought Texas into the United States
• 1850, ONE VOTE admitted California and Oregon into the United States
• 1868, ONE VOTE saved President Andrew Johnson from Impeachment
• 1875, ONE VOTE ended the monarchy in France for a voting democracy
• 1876, ONE VOTE made Rutherford B. Hayes a United States President
• 1876, ONE VOTE elected the Indiana Electoral College member who voted for Hayes
• 1923, ONE VOTE placed Adolph Hitler as the leader of the Nazi Party
• 1941, ONE VOTE kept the military draft operational just weeks before Pearl Harbor
• 1992, ONE VOTE selected a member of the Town Council of Trinity, AL
• 1992, ONE VOTE decided the final member of the Selma, AL City Council

• Consider further how decisions that change history are determined by just a few:
• 1788, THREE VOTES, ratified the U.S. Constitution in New York
• 1790, TWO VOTES, gave Rhode Island’s ratification of the U.S. Constitution, making it approved in all
13 states.
• 1960, ONE VOTE changed in each precinct would have defeated John Kennedy
• 1976, ONE VOTE changed in each Ohio precinct would have elected Gerald Ford and not Jimmy Carter
Voter Turnout
• Statistics on voter turnout presented here show that the much-lamented decline in voter participation is
an artifact of the way in which it is measured.
• The most typical way to calculate the turnout rate is to divide the number of votes by what is called the
"voting-age population" which consists of everyone age 18 and older residing in the United States.
• This includes persons ineligible to vote, mainly non-citizens and ineligible felons, and excludes overseas
eligible voters.
• When turnout rates are calculated for those eligible to vote, a new picture of turnout emerges, which
exhibits no decline since 1972. (See graph of voter turnout.)

What Determines Our Voting Choice?
• Party identification remains an important element in the voting choice of most Americans.
• It represents a long-term attachment and is a "lens" through which voters view candidates and issues as
they make their voting choices.
• Candidate appeal, including character and record, are another key factor in voter choice.
• Voters decide less frequently to vote on the basis of issues.
MOTOR VOTER BILL
• The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, called the "Motor-Voter" bill, allows people to register to
vote while applying for or renewing a driver's license.
• The act seems to have led to the registration of at least a million more voters.
• When it was debated in Congress, the bill was favored by the Democratic majority and opposed by
Republicans.
• Since there are more Democratic identifiers in the population, the Republicans thought that higher
registration would favor Democrats.
• However, neither party seems to have benefited, as most of the new registrants registered as
Independents.

Why People Don’t Vote
• Not registered to vote, 35%
• Didn’t have time to go, 6%
• No campaign or organization contacted them, 6%
• Was not convenient, 24%
• Not interested in the candidates, 22%
• Election just didn’t seem important, 10%
• Too young at the time, 1%
• Other, 2%
• Not sure, 8%

• SOURCE: Roper Center at University of Connecticut, February 1997, Public Opinion Online, Question ID
(Ushare.97govn, rf03b). Note: Results add up to more than 100 percent due to multiple responses.

Election 2004
Who Were the Candidates?
• http://www.politics1.com/p2004.htm
Participation 2004
The Youth Vote Story
• The turnout rate of 18-24 year old voters rose by 5.8 percentage points, as 1.8 million more people in this
age group voted than in 2000.
• 10.5 million under-25 voters went to the polls, compared to 8.7 million four years ago, raising the turnout
rate to 42.3% from 36.5%
• They were part of the 21 million under-30 Americans who voted in 2004, an increase of 4.6 million over
2000.
• The turnout rate among 18-29 year olds rose from about 42.3% to 51.6%, a sharp rise of 9.3 percentage
points.

The Youth Vote
• New Voters – About 8 million of the under-30 voters, or 42%, voted for the first time. They represent
64% of the 13 million first-time voters.
• Presidential Choice – Young voters favored the Democratic ticket by a significant margin, with 18-24
year olds favoring Senator Kerry over President Bush by 56-43%, and voters under 30 favoring Kerry 54-
45%.
• Issues – Young voters generally had the same concerns as older voters.
– Of the under-30 voters, for example, 22% said ―moral values‖ were the most important issue, the
same percentage as all voters. But on some prominent issues, they differed dramatically.
– Notably, 41% favor gay marriage, compared to 25% of all voters.
– They were 12 percentage points more likely than older voters to identify as liberal, and seven
percentage points less likely to call themselves conservative.
– Voters under 30 were also 10 percentage points more likely to believe that ―government should do
more to solve problems.‖
Youth Vote Opinion Polling
 Voters between the ages of 18 and 24 were the most likely to express either anger or dissatisfaction with
the administration of George W. Bush.
 When asked, ―Which comes closest to your feelings about the Bush Administration,‖ about 57% of this
group expressed anger or dissatisfaction, 8 percentage points more than all voters and 6 percentage
points more than 25-29 year olds.
 They were the age group most likely to hold an unfavorable opinion of Bush with 56% having an
unfavorable opinion of Bush compared to 46% of all voters.
 The under-25s were the least likely of all voters, at only 29%, to think that the Bush administration’s tax
cuts were good for the economy.
 Young voters were John Kerry’s strongest supporters; 56% of 18-24 year olds held a favorable opinion
of him and the same percentage reported voting for him.
 In contrast, 51% of all voters said they held an unfavorable opinion of John Kerry.
 The under-30s were also the only age group that preferred Democratic candidates for the US House of
Representatives (52% Democrat vs. 42% Republican).
 For the population as a whole, the split was 47% Democrat vs. 48% Republican.
The Rest of the Population
• Approximately 120.3 million people cast a ballot for president, which, in absolute numbers, are the most
to have participated in any American election.
• The turnout rate of 59.0% among those eligible to vote was also higher by 4.8 percentage points than the
2000 election.
• Although the turnout rate was slightly below the 60.3% of eligible voters who voted in the 1992 election, it
is still solidly above the post-1972 (the election in which 18- to 21-year-olds could first vote) average of
55.8%.
The Rest of the Population
• Participation was not uniform across the United States. Behind the national numbers are interesting
tidbits of state data that reveal the deficiencies of the Electoral College and show where Bush received
much of his popular vote victory.
• Participation in the battleground states (including Wisconsin) soared.
– The turnout rate for the 16 battleground states was 65.3%; not only higher than the national turnout
rate by 6.3 percentage points, but also 7.7 percentage points higher than 2000 in those same states.
• What is truly remarkable about participation in the battleground states is that they are generally the same
battleground as 2000.
– Voters in these states had previously been inundated with commercials and mobilization efforts by
the campaigns in 2000.
– Yet in this election, voters were even more motivated to vote.
– The large-scale mobilization efforts by the campaigns and the perceptions among voters that this
was an important and close election fueled the rise in participation among voters in the battleground
states
The Rest of the Population
• If turnout was much higher in the battleground states, then turnout must have not been as high, or
increased as much, in the other states.
– The narrowing of the election by the Electoral College explains why so many people in these states
did not feel that their vote mattered.
– Doing away with this arcane and unwieldy structure would do much to increase participation in
presidential elections.
• That said, there are interesting patterns of turnout among the so-called red and blue states that help
explain President Bush’s popular vote victory.
– Turnout in the red states was 5.7 percentage points higher than 2000, while in the blue states, it was
only 1.3 percentage points higher.
– If turnout in the red states had increased by the same amount as the blue states, Bush would have
received 1.9 million fewer votes.
– Kerry also would have received fewer votes, since not everyone in these states voted for Bush, so
Bush’s 3.3 million-vote victory cannot be entirely explained by this observation.
• Still, the differential turnout rates among the red and blue states account for about a third of Bush’s
margin of victory.
The Rest of the Population
• Moral issues, the new buzzword of the post-2004 election analysis, played a role in the increased red
state turnout.
– The eight red states with a gay marriage amendment to the state constitution on the ballot
experienced a 6.5 point increase in their turnout rate over 2000. The issue gave people in states
without a hotly contested presidential election a reason to vote.
– However, the issue does not appear to have been decisive in swinging the election in the three
battleground states where it appeared on the ballot. People there already were motivated to vote for
president, and there was little difference in turnout among the battleground states with and without
the issue on the ballot.
• It remains to be seen if the increase in participation in the 2004 election is part of a new trend of
increased participation or merely an aberration.

• Following the high participation in the 1992 election, the turnout rate plunged by 8.5 percentage points in
the 1996 election.
• By July 1996, it was largely believed that then President Clinton would coast to victory. The perception
that the election is important and close among voters is a primary determinant of overall participation,
and there is no guarantee circumstances will repeat in 2008.
• However, the 2004 election may be a watershed. The parties have figured out that the best way to get
supporters to the polls, or to vote early, is through old-political-machine-era face-to-face contact between
campaign workers and prospective voters.
• The apparent success of these retro-mobilization efforts to increase turnout means we will likely see
more of them in the coming years.
• The Electoral College will continue to limit the focus of these operations, but it is possible that the
campaigns and, more importantly, state and local parties, will emulate the door-to-door activities
elsewhere in an effort to build their parties and expand their battlefield.

So, What Was the Effect of the Turnout in 2004?
• Political experts at the Brookings Institution analyzed the election results and their implications for politics
and policymaking over the next few years. They said the nation still remained closely divided,
notwithstanding the solid Republican victory.
• "This was clearly a victory for the Republican party, but it was also an election with an enormous amount
of stability," said Brookings Senior Fellow Thomas Mann.
– He cited as evidence the switch of only three states to the Republican column and called the four
million votes Bush gained since 2000 "not insignificant, but not huge."
– He applied the same analysis to the Republicans' net gain of four Senate seats, arguing that most
Democrats lost because they were fighting for seats in Republican strongholds. (These were in
states with Republican legislatures that gerrymandered their districts in favor of Republican
candidates.)
– Following the high participation in the 1992 election, the turnout rate plunged by 8.5 percentage
points in the 1996 election.
• By July 1996, it was largely believed that then President Clinton would coast to victory. The perception
that the election is important and close among voters is a primary determinant of overall participation,
and there is no guarantee circumstances will repeat in 2008.

So, What Was the Effect of the Turnout in 2004?
• Only seven incumbents lost their seats in Congress
• One of the highlights of the election was the near-historic number of voters who arrived at the polls,
motivated by the belief that this election would decide the direction of the United States and energized by
massive get-out-the-vote efforts.
– "Turnout and mobilization efforts reached a whole new level during this election," Brookings Visiting
Fellow Anthony Corrado said. "Both sides conducted the most sophisticated operations we've ever
seen, and knew more about each voter than we've ever known before. Tammany Hall had nothing on
the Republicans and Democrats during this election."
• The prevailing wisdom has always been that higher turnout favors Democrats for two reasons.
– First, the percentage of registered voters in Democratic-leaning groups—African-Americans,
Hispanics, low-income voters, and single people—is lower than among Republican constituencies.
– Second, Democrats have a better record of getting their voters to the polls on Election Day.
• Tuesday's election essentially turned that theory on its head, as record numbers of voters proved that
when democracy works, it sometimes works against Democrats.
So, What Was the Effect of the Turnout in 2004?
• Democrats exceeded their turnout goals despite Kerry's defeat.
• In Florida, Kerry received 600,000 more votes than Democrats assumed was necessary to carry the
State, and still lost.
• In Ohio, where Kerry was also defeated, he received 500,000 more votes than the targeted number.
• The problem, according to Corrado, was that Republican turnout efforts were a staggering successful
development that few anticipated.
– "We probably underestimated the motivation in this core Republican constituency," said Mann, who
had predicted a Kerry win in this election.
– "We figured that most of the anger was on the Democratic side, and we really didn't appreciate the
extent to which other Americans felt that the whole nature of their belief systems—their faith, their
lifestyles—were being threatened, and this was an opportunity to act on that. I think Karl Rove
understood that."
So, What Was the Effect of the Turnout in 2004?
• "Gay marriage was clearly pulling people to the polls," McDonald said, citing evidence that battleground
states with a gay marriage saw a 6.6 percent increase in voter turnout.
• Voter turnout in non-battleground states with a similar initiative saw the voter turnout increase by 4.5. (By
way of comparison, turnout in the battleground states generally increased by 6.9 percent, while it rose
only 1.6 percent in non-battleground states without a gay marriage initiative.)
What About Charges of Election Problems in 2004?

• We had the spectacle of a Republican secretary of state in Ohio telling local officials to enforce a state
law requiring registration applications to be made on 80-pound paper stock (he later relented).
• We had had allegations and lawsuits over the validity of tens of thousands of new registrations in Florida,
Michigan, Ohio and other battleground states.
• We had GOP challenges to the eligibility of students registered where they attend college, battles over
the fate of provisional ballots, arguments over the purging of voter rolls.
What About Charges of Election Problems in 2004?
• Democrats see a specific strategy in the Republican focus on fraud in urban areas. Dan Trevas, the
communications director for the Ohio Democratic Party, said the idea is "to slow up the system so people
are back in line, looking at their watches and saying, 'Do I have time?'"
• One would like to hope that a president whose central foreign policy claim is that he wants to spread
democracy around the world would think twice before winning reelection through complicity with such
tactics.
• Republicans insist that fraud suppression, not voter suppression, is their intention. Shrewd conservatives
are already preparing the intellectual groundwork for such arguments.
What About Charges of Election Problems in 2004?
• With party feelings running so high, we can't afford the sort of mistrust that's created when one party or
another is seen as being in control of the electoral machinery in a given state or locality.
• It was the scandal in 2000 that Florida's top election official was a partisan Republican — chosen by a
GOP governor whose brother was one of the candidates — and that she made all the critical decisions in
her party's favor that inspired much of the current distrust.
• This did nothing to inspire confidence among non-Republicans. The same critique would apply to a
Democratic official in a comparable situation.
What About Charges of Election Problems in 2004?
• Take the case of "provisional" ballots. The Help America Vote Act of 2002 created these ballots to
prevent legitimate voters from being turned away because of an administrative glitch.
– If a voter proved later to be eligible, the provisional ballot would be counted. If not, it would be
discarded. But eligible exactly where?
– Some states have said they would throw out all provisional ballots not cast in the proper precinct. Is
that fair to a voter who was eligible, but whose specific polling place was a few blocks away, perhaps
because it was moved between elections?
– Can you imagine the brawl we'd have if this election were decided by provisional ballots counted
differently in different states?
– And what if legitimate voters, because of partisan challenges, find themselves forced to cast
provisional ballots that might be litigated after the election? Democrats especially are worried that
Republicans will try to create huge piles of provisional ballots in inner-city precincts, taking them out
of the broader count in order to fan doubts about their legitimacy.
• Surely the rules on provisional ballots cry out for clear national standards. And surely the GOP should
want to fight, not foster, the suspicion that it is unduly interested in challenging votes in African American
districts
What About Charges of Election Problems in 2004?
• Another matter of national concern is the requirement that first-time voters who registered by mail show
identification at the polls.
• This, too, is a product of the Help America Vote Act, and it would seem a simple barrier against fraud
affecting relatively few voters.
• But as Alec Applebaum reported recently in the New Republic, some election officials are interpreting the
provision to mean that all voters must present ID. (Alabama Law)
• An estimated 5 percent of Americans have no photo ID, and they tend to be "poorer, less educated and
more urban," Applebaum writes. In the absence of explicit national rules, a well-intended but loosely
written law might become, in some places, the Help Some Americans Not to Vote Act.

• For foreseeable future, it is impossible to ignore the specter of Bush v. Gore.
– It has vastly increased Democratic fears that Republicans are all too willing to have the election end
up in the Supreme Court, on the theory that Bush will get the same majority as last time. You may
call this paranoia. Others might see it as realism. Hopefully the Supreme Court will not get the
opportunity to decide the election again soon.
What About Charges of Election Problems in 2004?
• Massive challenges of voter eligibility will also endanger the legitimacy of this election and call our
democracy into question around the world.
• After the fiasco of 2000, another disputed election hampers the winner's ability to govern at home and
lead abroad.
• Real fraud, of course, should be publicized and prevented. But concern about fraud can never be an
excuse for disenfranchising lawfully registered voters or for encouraging them to walk away from the
process.
So What Do We Do?
• For the long haul, we must enact uniform federal standards.
– The system is only as strong as its weakest link. A few states with particularly flawed systems can
hold the rest of the country hostage.
– We need these standards not only for provisional ballots and identification rules, but also for
registration, absentee voting (including overseas and military ballots), voting machines and purging
voter rolls.
So What Do We Do?
• The proliferation of electronic voting systems without verifiable paper trails undermines the public's
confidence.
– Voting equipment, in poor as well as wealthy areas, should minimize the chance for error.
• As for purges, uniform rules ought to be welcomed by both Republicans, who worry about rolls that carry
the names of the ineligible and the dead, and Democrats, who worry that legitimate voters, especially
African Americans, are too easily removed from the books.
• We also need voting hours that match our lifestyles and work habits.
– Most of us aren't farmers now, and many farmers hold two jobs. It's silly that most states open the
polls primarily during the work day. We either need weekend voting, a practice in some European
countries, or we need to keep the polls open for 24 hours.
An Argument to Disband the Electoral College
• Get rid of the electoral college and elect the president by popular vote. Every vote would count equally,
whether it's cast in Republican Utah or Democratic Rhode Island. Candidates would have an incentive to
campaign outside so-called battleground states. Voters everywhere would have an incentive to cast a
ballot. States would have an incentive to increase participation in order to increase their clout.
• Yes, if the popular vote got really close, we could face calls to recount the entire country. But how often
would that happen? Only one election in the last century — 1960 — ended with a popular vote margin of
less than 500,000. (Even in 2000, Al Gore tallied 540,000 more votes than George Bush.) If the French
can manage to elect their president by popular vote, surely we can figure out how to do it.
• No, this won't happen anytime soon. But getting our electoral system right is imperative. We ask our men
and women in uniform to die to bring free and fair elections to other countries.
The Youth Vote 2004
• There has been significant misreporting or misinterpreting of the youth vote.
– The youth ―turnout rate‖ (or the percentage of young eligible voters who turned out) has been
confused with the youth share of the electorate (or the percentage of all voters who were young).
Because more people of all ages voted this year, turnout increased for everyone, including young
people.
– However, the youth share of voters remained about the same as in 2000.
The Religious Vote
The Youth Vote
• Young voters were the only age group to prefer the Democratic ticket over the Republican, albeit by a
fairly narrow margin of 54%-45% for those under 30.
• If age groups are broken down further, support for the Democratic ticket was strongest among 18-24
year olds at 56%, followed by voters over the age of 75 at 54%.
• However, in party identification, 18-29 year old voters closely resembled the overall voting population
(37% Democrat, 35% Republican, and 29% Independent--just one point more Democratic and two points
less Republican than the electorate as a whole).

Who Votes and Who Stays Home?
• When just over half of the population votes, the necessity of studying nonvoters takes on added
importance. It is vital to the continuation of the American democracy that citizens participate by
voting. The classic study of nonvoting by Americans was don by Raymond Wolfinger and Steven
Rosenstone. Several conclusions are apparent from their research:

– Voting is a class-biased activity - People with higher than average educational and income
levels have a higher rate of voting than people with lower levels of income and education.
Among all factors affecting turnout, this one is the most important.
– Young people have the lowest turnout rate – As people age, their likelihood of voting
increases, until the infirmities of old age make it difficult for them to get to the polls
– Whites vote with greater frequency than members of minority groups – African Americans,
Puerto Ricans, and Hispanics are all underrepresented among voters relative to their share of
the population, but this is generally explained by their lower levels of education and income.
African- Americans with higher levels of education and income have higher turnout rates than
whites with comparable socioeconomic status
– Southerners are less likely to vote than northerners – Historically, the South has lower rates
of participation even with the passage of the Voter Rights Act of 1965. (This may also reflect
lower income and education levels in some states)
– Government employees are heavy participators in th electoral process – having something at
stake impels workers to high levels of participation
– Voting is only weakly related to gender – In an earlier period many women were discouraged
from voting, but today women actually participate in elections at a slightly higher rate than
men.
These differences in turnout rates are cumulative. That is, possessing several of these traits
(say, being well educated, middle-aged, and a government worker ) increases significantly to
one•fs likelihood of voting.

THE BEST PREDICTOR OF WHETHER A PERSON WILL VOTE IS WHETHER THAT PERSON IS
REGISTERED.
How Serious Is Nonvoting?
• Some political scientists argue that nonvoting is not a critical problem as long as it is voluntary.
• Those who believe it is a problem cite class bias of those who do vote. The social makeup and attitudes
of nonvoters are significantly different from those of voters.
• Nonvoting can be seen as a withdrawal from the political process (negative) or as a sign of approval with
things as they are.
Why Do People Vote As They Do?

• Three main elements have been identified:

– Party Identification

– Candidate Appeal

– Voting on the Basis of Issues
Voting By Party Identification
• Party identification has much to do with our evaluation of the candidate
• Partisanship is acquired in childhood and adolescence as a result of socialization.
• It is a psychological sense of attachment to one party or another.
• There has been a dramatic increase in the number of independents beginning in the 1970•fs.
• There are more Independents today than there are Republicans.
• Two thirds of all Independents are in fact partisan in their voting behavior and Independent Republicans
vote heavily Republican.
• Pure Independents numbered only 8% in 1996.
• Fluctuations in party identification appear to come in response to economic conditions and political
performance, especially of the president.
• The more information voters have about their choices the more likely they are to defect from their party
and vote for the candidate of another party.
Voting on the Basis of Candidates
• If long term party identification was the only factor in voting Democrats would have won every election
since the last realignment in 1932.
• However, since 1952 Republicans have been more successful at winning the White House than
Democrats.
• Explanation has to do with candidate appeal.
• The elections of the 1980•fs marked a critical threshold in the emergence of the candidate-centered era
in American electoral politics.
• Clinton•fs elections in 1992 and 1996 reinforced the importance of candidates. He was especially
popular among younger Democrats – those who defected to the Republicans in the 1980•fs – to return
to their party.

Voting on the Basis of Candidates
• Candidate appeal or lack of it is often more important than party or issues. Especially in terms of
leadership, experience, good judgment, integrity, competence, strength, and energy.
• Candidates with great candidate appeal:
• Eisenhower – legendary five-star hero of WWII; Unmilitary manner, moderation and personal charm
won him voters
• Ronald Reagan generated positive candidate appeal across a wide range of the political spectrum;
asserted mainstream values, exhibited strength and leadership
What Are the Components of Candidate Appeal?

• Assessment of the candidate•fs character
– Is the candidate honest?
– Is the candidate consistent?
– Is the candidate dedicated to •gfamily values•h
– Does the candidate have religious or spiritual commitments?
• The American press in recent elections has sometimes played the role of •gcharacter cop•h
 Asked questions of candidates about private lives and lifestyles
example: Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, George Bush
Negative Campaign Tactics Affect Candidate Appeal
• Increasingly campaigns today focus on the negative elements of candidates.
• Opponents and the media are quick to point out the limitations or problems of any given candidate.
– 1988 election campaign focused on negatives.
• Bush-Quayle ticket called attention to alleged errors of
Gov. Michael Dukakis and they did not reciprocate thereby permitting George Bush both to define
Dukakis in negative terms and himself in positive ones.
Negative Campaign Tactics Affect Candidate Appeal
– 1992 election somewhat more positive. Bush did his best to attack Clinton•fs unwillingness to serve
in the Vietnam War and Ross Perot and Clinton both attacked Bush•fs economic record. Both
Clinton and Bush were gentle towards Perot as they hoped to woo his voters.
– 1996 primary campaigns in the Republican party were often negative in tone with candidates
claiming Bob Dole had been in Washington too long and was too old.
Negative Campaign Tactics Affect Candidate Appeal
– 1996 Presidential campaign, Bob Dole and Bill Clinton displayed very different style. Clinton•fs skill
in thinking on his feet, establishing rapport with his audience, and articulating his position were all
part of his candidate appeal. Dole emphasized his voting record and war record as well as strength
of character.
– What did Americans make of candidate character the 1996 election? They found Dole to have
higher personal and moral standards, and to be more trustworthy. On other elements like has new
ideas, or understands the problems of people like me, Clinton had a higher favorability rating.
– The most important factors seemed to be issues like the economy and jobs where Clinton held
higher favorability ratings.
Voting on the Basis of Issues
• Most scholars agree that issues are not as central to the decision process as partisanship and candidate
appeal.
• Part of the reason is that candidates deliberately obscure their positions on issues as part of campaign
strategy.
• Voting on the basis of issues presumes a level of interest in issues that only a few voters have.
• For issue voting to occur, the issue must be important to voters, opposing candidates must take
opposing stands on the issues, and voters must know these positions and vote accordingly.
• Rarely do candidates focus on only one issue.
• Voters will often agree with a candidate on one issue and with the opponent on another. In this case,
issue voting was not the central factor in the voting choice.

Public Opinion

• http://congress.indiana.edu/learn_about/pub_op-jump.htm#
What Are Americans Concerned About in 2005?
• In the wake of the contentious presidential campaign, the public expects an even greater level of
partisanship in Washington in the year ahead.
• Roughly six-in-ten (59%) think Democrats and Republicans will oppose each other more than usual,
while just 30% believe the two parties will work together.
• As a point of reference, somewhat more Americans (41%) predicted partisan cooperation at the start of
Bush's first term.

American Ideology
• Ideology – a patterned set of beliefs about how government and other important institutions ought to
operate and what policies they should pursue.
• Political scientists measure the extent to which people have a political ideology in two ways:
 how often people use broad categories like conservative, liberal, and radical to describe their own
views or justify their preferences for one candidate over another.
 Measuring how accurately one can predict a person’s view based on his or her view on a different
issue.
What is A Liberal?
• Liberalism refers to the belief in the positive uses of government to bring about justice and equality of
opportunity.
• Modern liberals wish to preserve the rights of individuals and the right to own private property, yet they
are willing to have the government intervene in the economy to remedy the defects of capitalism.
Liberals
• Contemporary liberalism’s roots in FDR’s New Deal programs.
– Seek protection against inadequate or deficient health care, housing or education.
– Believe in affirmative action, regulations to protect health and safety in the workplace, and the right of
unions to strike.
– Believe in the possibility of progress: the future will be better, obstacles can be overcome.
– Believe the side effects of modern technology and industrialization require government protection of
the individual’s rights and to guard against the loss of liberties suffered by the weak and less
prepared for the changes occurring.
– Stress the need for compassionate and affirmative government.
– Examples of liberal view: Hillary Clinton (It Takes a Village )
– Liberals contend that conservatives are motivated by the belief, ―Let the government take care of the
rich, and the rich will take care of the poor.‖
– Believe the government should take care of the weak.
– All people are equal and equality of opportunity is essential.

Types of Liberals
• Come in many varieties:
– Some stress civil rights or women’s rights
– Some stress high quality education for everyone
– Some urge the government to adopt a more progressive tax system and to do more to help the poor,
homeless, handicapped and society’s ―have-nots.‖
– Yet others are preoccupied with environmental or consumer issues
Neoliberalism
• Emerged in the 1970’s in effort to pull liberals back to the political center
– Believe government is responsible for the nation’s social and economic welfare but are less likely to
support new government programs and expanded government regulation
– Way to solve social and economic problems is to combine direct government with incentives for the
private sector – tax policies and government subsidies
– Cooperation of state and local government with national government better than national
encroachment on state and local affairs
Left Wing Radicals
• 1930’s to 1960’s supported socialist or Marxist economics (public ownership of means of production and
the redistribution of wealth to foster economic equality
• In current increasingly conservative American politics the Left Wing has splintered into a number of
movements each with its own criticism of American society
• Traditional feminism, radical environmentalism, radical multiculturalism

Conservatism
• Want to reduce the role of government in the nation’s societal and economic affairs
• Role of government limited to protection from foreign aggressors, maintaining law and order
• Want government funding spent on defense not social programs
• Believe economy functions best with less government regulation and management
• Have worked to deregulate and privatize many government functions
• Split on economic policy
– Supply siders advocate across the board tax cuts or flat taxes
– Fiscal conservatives more concerned about the growing budgets deficits and the national debt
therefore are reluctant to cut government revenues; would rather downsize current programs
Conservatives
• Most now support anti-discrimination laws and regulations but are reluctant to embrace broader efforts to
expand civil rights
• Are afraid that special rights for minorities interfere with the rights of businesses and other individuals
• Believe individual liberties should be balanced against the need to maintain law and order, defend core
American values, or Judeo-Christian values
• Support foreign policy that strongly advances American interests abroad and protects American status
and prestige even unilateral action, if necessary
• Worry that multilateral organizations like the United Nations may undermine U.S. sovereignty
• Are reluctant to intervene abroad solely to subdue fighting or civil wars in other countries
Neoconservatives
• Like neoliberalism is an effort to find middle ground between traditional liberals and traditional
conservatives
• Less dedicated to the free market and more supportive of government activism
• Oppose many welfare programs; believe they undermine initiative and foster dependence on government
• Western culture most important; freedom, capitalism, and democracy; strong defense of these in defense
and foreign policy
Religious Conservatism
(Christian Conservatism or the Religious Right)
• Economically not very different from other conservatives
• Promote morality and defend Judeo-Christian values against a perceived assault by secular or
nonreligious society
• Believe America was founded on these values and argue the family has been attacked by the liberal
worldview and the media
• Key issues: abortion, school prayer, the Ten Commandments in the courts
The Right Wing
• Number of group united by fear of the modern industrial society and the increasing scope of government
authority
• Society and government undermine individualism, constitutionalism, private property rights, Christianity,
or the white race’s ―rightful‖ status
• National government established a tyranny over the individual and American sovereignty has been
destroyed by affiliation with the United Nations and others
• Based on ideology of racial supremacy or sometimes anti-Semitic
• Have become more predisposed to use armed resistance to perceived sources of oppression
Right Wing Group Protests SPLC at Civil Rights Memorial

Right Wing Group Protests SPLC
• Four years ago, the Center's Intelligence Report exposed the League as increasingly rife with white
supremacists and racist ideology.
• Since then, the magazine has continued to report on the neo-Confederate movement's growing
influence. Its Fall 2004 issue links many Southern politicians to hate groups like the League and the
Council of Conservative Citizens.
• http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
• The Southern Poverty Law Center was founded in 1971 as a small civil rights law firm. Today, the Center
is internationally known for its tolerance education programs, its legal victories against white
supremacists and its tracking of hate groups.

Located in Montgomery, Alabama – the birthplace of the Civil Rights Movement – the Center was
founded by Morris Dees and Joe Levin, two local lawyers who shared a commitment to racial equality. Its
first president was civil rights activist Julian Bond.

Public Opinion Polling
• Public opinion polls are the most efficient way to determine the opinions of a range of people, not just
those who are vocal.
• Indicate the direction, the stability, and to some extent the intensity of public opinion at the time the
poll was taken.
• Reveal which groups of people are most likely to support certain policies, be concerned about certain
issues, and vote for particular candidates
• Indicate which issues do not generate much public interest or awareness – may not need to be
addressed by public officials
• Provide feedback to candidates about voters’ concerns, political attitudes and their reactions to
symbols, issues and images that the candidates are using.
• Polls enable candidates to assess the damage caused by an opponent’s charges almost immediately
and respond to them quickly. The failure to do so can be fatal: examples being Michael Dukakis in
1988 when Bush charged that he was soft on crime, weak on defense and out of touch with American
values. In 1992 and 1996 Clinton used polls to anticipate and reply to charges against him in less
than 24 hours.
Presidential Approval Ratings
• George W. Bush begins his second term with considerably less popular support than other recent
incumbent presidents after their reelection.
• He also is proposing a second-term policy agenda that differs in several key respects from the public's.
Health care, aid for the poor, and the growing budget deficit are all increasingly important public
priorities, while limiting lawsuit awards, making recent tax cuts permanent and tax simplification rank
near the bottom of the public's agenda.