ELECTIONS
CHAPTER 10
ELECTIONS
• ALLOW OPPOSING PARTIES TO
CHALLENGE THE INCUMBANTS
• IN AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES, ELECTIONS
ARE UTILIZED TO MOBILIZE POPULAR
SUPPORT FOR THE REGIME IN POWER
• THEY MAY ALSO SERVE AS SAFETY
VALVES FOR SOCIAL DISCONTENT
• AS INSTITUTIONS OF LEGITIMATION
ELECTIONS (CON.)
• PROBLEMS FACING PRINCIPALS IN
ELECTIONS
• ADVERSE SELECTION PROBLEM
• WHO HAVE WE SELECTED?
• INCOMPLETE INFORMATION
• COUNTERACTED BY A WELL-
HEELED OPPOSITION AND AN
ACTIVIST PRESS
ELECTIONS (CON.)III
• MORAL HAZARD
• HIDDEN ACTION MAKES PRINCIPALS
VULNERABLE TO ABUSES OF THE POWER JUST
DELEGATED TO ELECTED AGENTS
• SOLUTION
• THE WAY IN WHICH ELECTIONS ARE
CONDUCTED
• IN ORDER TO BE REELECTED, INCUMBANTS
MUST WATCH THEIR STEP.
ELECTIONS (CON.)IV
• SUFFRAGE
• VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965
POLITICAL PARTICIPATION
• VOTING=SOCIALIZED AND
INSTITUTIONALIZED FORM OF MASS
POLITICAL ACTION
• ADVENT OF ELECTIONS LED PARTLY TO
THE CONTROL OF THE AGENDA OF
ELECTIONS FROM THE CITIZEN TO THE
GOVERNMENT
• GOVERNMENTS ATTEMPT TO LIMIT
POLITICAL PARTICIPATION TO ACTIONS
“WITHIN THE SYSTEM”
POLITICAL PARTICIPATION-II
• TWO BASIC APPROACHES TO THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRINCIPALS
AND AGENTS
• CONSENT APPROACH
• LEGITIMIZES THE RIGHT OF THE
GOVERNMENT TO RULE
• AGENCY APPROACH
• DELEGATION OF GOVERNANCE TO
POLITICIANS CONTROLLED
THROUGH ELECTIONS
ENCOURAGING ELECTORAL
PARTICIPATION
• FORCES ENCOURAGING VOTER
PARTICIPATION
• LAW
• CIVIC EDUCATION
• PARTY SYSTEM
MAKING IT EASY TO VOTE
• VOTING COSTS ARE PAID PRIMARILY BY
THE STATE AND ARE RELATIVELY
PAINLESS
• THE ESTABLISHMENT OF VOTING AREAS,
MACHINES, STAFF OF INSPECTORS,
TALLYING AND REPORTING OF RESULTS
IS DONE ON THE STATE, COUNTY AND
MUNICIPAL LEVEL.
• BALLOTING METHODS STILL ARE A
MAJOR BONE OF CONTENTION BETWEEN
VARIOUS STATES
CIVIC EDUCATION
• REQUIRED IN ALL ELEMENTARY
AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS
• CELEBRATION OF HOLIDAYS AND
PRIVATE AND POLITICAL
ORGANIZATION CELEBRATIONS
• ELECTION CAMPAIGNS
• EXPOSURE TO CAMPAIGN STIMULI
ENCOURAGES CITIZENS TO VOTE
THE PARTY SYSTEM
• IN MOST STATES, PARTY WORKERS STAFF THE ELECTORAL
MACHINERY
• PARTY COMPETITION HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN A
STIMULUS TO “GET OUT THE VOTE”.
• PARTY COMPETITION GAVE THE PEOPLE A SENSE THAT
THEIR VOICES MEANT SOMETHING, AND PREVENTED THE
PEOPLE FROM TAKING THEIR DISCONTENTS TO THE
STREETS
• PARTY LOYALTY OF CITIZENS GENERALLY RESULTS IN
THEIR HAVING A GREATER LIKELIHOOD OF VOTING THAN
UNAFFILIATED CITIZENS.
• VOTER REGISTRATION DRIVES
• PRIMARIES
IS IT RATIONAL TO VOTE?
• IS LOW VOTER TURNOUT IN AMERICA
REALLY A REFLECTION OF VOTER
APATHY?
• VOTING OCCURS MORE OFTEN IN THE U.S.
• MORE OFFICIALS ARE ELECTED IN THE
U.S. (INCLUDING JUDGES)
• BESIDES GENERAL ELECTIONS, THERE
ARE PRIMARIES, REFERENDUMS AND
INITIATIVES
IS IT RATIONAL TO VOTE?-2
• COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
• IN ORDER TO VOTE REQUIRES TIME AND
EFFORT; POSSIBLE LOSS OF PAY
• THE ANSWER MAY LIE IN THE FACT OF
PEOPLE VALUE THE “ACT OF VOTING”
• EFFORT AND MONEY SPENT BY CANDIDATES
AND PARTIES IS FREQUENTLY CONTINGENT
ON THE POSSIBILITY OF SEIZING CONTROL OF
AN OFFICE.
• MORE VIGOROUS CAMPAIGNS WILL LEAD
TO INCREASED VOTER TURNOUT
REGULATING THE
ELECTORAL PROCESS
• ELECTIONS PROVIDE GOVERNMENTS THE
OPPORTUNITY TO REGULATE AND
CONTROL POPULAR INVOLVEMENT
• ELECTORAL COMPOSITION
• TRANSLATING VOTERS CHOICES INTO
ELECTORAL OUTCOMES
• INSULATING DECISION-MAKING
PROCESSES
ELECTORAL COMPOSITION
• HISTORICALLY THIS WAS TIED TO
LANDOWNERSHIP
• NOW, PERSONAL REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS
• WHILE COMBATTING CORRUPTION, IT
CREATED DIFFICULTY FOR PROSPECTIVE
VOTERS TO REGISTER
• OFTEN DURING WORKING HOURS
• WELL BEFORE THE ACTUAL ELECTION
• HAD TO FREQUENTLY DEAL WITH PURGES
OF VOTING ROLLS=RE-REGISTER
ELECTORAL COMPOSITION-2
• PERSONAL REGISTRATION
REQUIREMENTS SEEMS TO DIMINISH THE
VOTING ROLLS WHILE MAKING IT MORE
“ELITE”
• “MOTOR VOTER” REGISTRATION
ESTABLISHED BY CLINTON
• IN EUROPE REGISTRATION IS HANDLED
BY THE GOVERNMENT, THEREFORE
VOTER TURNOUT IS HIGHER
TRANSLATING VOTER’
CHOICES INTO ELECTORAL
OUTCOMES
• CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN
GOVERNMENT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
VOTER REGISTRATION, DOES NOT
ATTEMPT TO MANIPULATE VOTER
REGISTRATION.
• RATHER, GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTS TO
MANIPULATE THE OUTCOME OF THE
ELECTION
THE CRITERIA FOR WINNING
• MAJORITY SYSTEM
• A CANDIDATE MUST RECEIVE A 50% + 1 MAJORITY OF
ALL VOTES
• PROVISION IS INCLUDED FOR A “RUNOFF” ELECTION IF
NO CANDIDATES RECEIVES A MAJORITY OF VOTES
• PLURALITY SYSTEM
• WHICHEVER CANDIDATE RECEIVES THE MOST VOTES
• USED IN MOST GENERAL ELECTIONS IN THE U.S.
• PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
• LEGISLATIVE SEATS ARE AWARDED ON THE BASIS OF
THE PERCENTAGE OF POPULAR VOTES A PARTY
RECEIVES.
• FREQUENTLY USED IN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES
ELECTORAL DISTRICTS
• GERRYMANDERING
• CHANGING THE SHAPE OF
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS HAS BEEN
AN ONGOING BATTLE BY GROUPS
ATTEMPTING TO HAVE GREATER
REPRESENTATION (POWER) IN CONGRESS
• THE SUPREME COURT IN A SERIES OF
RULINGS HAS ATTEMPTED TO DEAL WITH
THIS ISSUE.
INSULATING DECISION-
MAKING PROCESSES
• THE MOST OBVIOUS MEANS OF
PREVENTING ELECTORAL INTERVENTION
INTO THE GOVERNMENTAL PROCESS ARE:
• CONFINEMENT OF POPULAR ELECTION
TO SOME GOVERNMENTAL POSITIONS
• INDIRECT ELECTION
• LENGTHY TERM OF OFFICE
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
• AMERICANS TECHNICALLY ARE NOT VOTING FOR A
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, RATHER THEY ARE VOTING A
SLATE OF ELECTORS WHO HAVE EITHER BEEN ELECTED
OR APPOINTED TO THEIR POSITIONS SOME MONTHS
EARLIER.
• ON THE MONDAY FOLLOWING THE SECOND WEDNESDAY
IN DECEMBER THE ELECTORS FORMALLY CAST THEIR
BALLOTS IN THEIR STATE CAPITAL. THE VOTES ARE THEN
TALLIED IN BY CONGRESS IN JANUARY.
• IF NO CANDIDATE HAS A MAJORITY, THE NAMES OF THE
TOP THREE CANDIDATES GOES TO THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES WHERE EACH STATES WOULD CAST
ONE VOTE.
FREQUENCY OF ELECTIONS
• “STAGGERED TERMS OF SERVICE IN THE
SENATE WAS DESIGNED TO DIMINISH THE
IMPACT OF SHIFTS IN ELECTORAL
SENTIMENT UPON THE SENATE AS AN
INSTITUTION.”
• A RAPID SUCCESSION OF NEW MEMBERS
WOULD CREATE DRAMATIC CHANGES IN
THE SENATE
SIZE OF ELECTORAL
DISTRICTS
• THE INFLUENCE OF VOTERS ON
NATIONAL POLICY QUESTIONS
WOULD BE FRAGMENTED BY MEANS
OF FREQUENT HOUSE ELECTIONS,
THEREBY MAKING IT LESS LIKELY
THAT LOCAL ISSUES WOULD
PERVADE THE WHOLE HOUSE OR A
LARGE PORTION OF IT.
THE BALLOT
• AUSTRAILIAN BALLOT
• LESSENS THE RISK OF BRIBERY OR
INTIMIDATION
• LESSENS THE INFLUENCE OF
PARTIES
• A GREATER LIKELIHOOD OF “SPLIT
TICKET” VOTING
HOW VOTERS DECIDE
• SOONER OR LATER, NO MATTER
HOW MUCH THE POWERS THAT BE
ATTEMPT TO STRUCTURE THE
ELECTORAL PROCESS, THE CHOICE
OF VOTERS DETERMINES AN
ELECTION’S OUTCOME
THE BASIS OF ELECTORAL
CHOICE
• PARTISAN LOYALTY
• ISSUES
• CANDIDATES CHARACTERISTICS
PARTISAN LOYALTY
• PARTISAN LOYALTY IS OFTEN HANDED DOWN FROM
PARENTS TO CHILDREN
• PARTISANSHIP WAS MORE EVIDENT IN THE MID-
TWENTIETH CENTURY
• VOTERS TEND TO KEEP THEIR PARTY AFFILIATION UNLESS
SOME CRISIS HAPPENS IN THEIR POLITICAL LIVES
• EXAMPLE: THE “SOLID SOUTH”
• OVER THE LAST SEVERAL DECADES PARTISAN
AFFILIATION HAS BEGUN TO LOSE ITS CAPACITY TO
INDICATE ASSUMED CHARACTERISTICS.
• THERE HAS BEEN A DRAMATIC RISE IN THE NUMBER OF
VOTERS WHO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS INDEPENDENTS
ISSUES
• ISSUES ARE MORE IMPORTANT IN SOME RACES
RATHER THAN OTHERS
• CANDIDATES OFTEN REFUSE TO TAKE STANCES
AS INOFFENSIVE AS POSSIBLE IN ORDER TO
PLAY IT SAFE AND NOT OFFEND ANY VOTERS.
• PROSPECTIVE VOTING
• BEHAVIOR BASED ON FUTURE PERFORMANCE
• RETROSPECTIVE VOTING
• BEHAVIOR BASED ON PAST PERFORMANCE
ISSUES (CON.)
• MEDIAN VOTER THEOREM
• “COMPETITION BETWEEN TWO CANDIDATES HAS THE
EFFECT OF PUSHING THE CANDIDATE POSITION ON
ISSUES TOWARD THE MIDDLE OF VOTER
PREFERENCES”
• CANDIDATE CONVERGENCE
• “BOTH CANDIDATES PUSH TOWARDS THE CENTER
POSITION OF THE MEDIAN”
• POLICY MODERATION
• “CANDIDATES ADOPT POLICIES THAT ARE LESS
EXTREME THAN THEY MIGHT OTHERWISE PREFER, IN
ORDER TO SWAY THE MEDIAN VOTERS”
CANDIDATE
CHARACTERISTICS
• “RACE, ETHNICITY, RELIGION, GENDER, GEOGRAPHY AND
SOCIAL BACKGROUND ARE THE MORE IMPORTANT
CHARACTERISTICS THAT EFFECT VOTERS’ CHOICES”
• THESE FACTORS ENTER THE IDEA OF “BALANCING THE
TICKET”
• PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS HAVE ALSO PLAYED AN
IMPORTANT ROLE: HONESTY, VIGOR, DECISIVENESS
• THE MEDIA EXERCISES A GOOD DEAL OF CONTROL OVER
THE PERCEPTION OF THE CANDIDATES
• SPIN-CONTROL: A TECHNIQUE DESIGNED TO TAKE
CONTROL OF IMAGE-MAKING AWAY FROM THE MEDIA
AND PLACING IN THE HANDS OF THE CANDIDATE
CAMPAIGN FINANCE
• AVERAGE HOUSE WINNER SPENDS $500,000
• AVERAGE SENATE WINNER SPENDS $4.5 MILLION
• 2000 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES OF THE
DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN PARTIES WERE
ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE $180 MILLION IN PUBLIC
FUNDS FOR THEIR CAMPAIGNS, AS WELL AS
TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM
CORPORATE AND IDEOLOGICAL “POLITICAL
ACTION COMMITTEES
• AS LONG AS POLITICAL EXPENDITURES ARE NOT
DIRECTED TOWARDS ANY PARTICULAR
CANDIDATE, IT CONSIDERED FREE SPEECH
SOURCES OF CAMPAIGN
FUNDS
• 25% DIRECT MAIL CONTRIBUTIONS
• 25% LARGE INDIVIDUAL GIFTS
• 25% CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PACS
• 25% POLITICAL PARTIES AND FROM
CANDIDATES PERSONAL OR FAMILY
RESOURCES
INDIVIDUAL DONORS
• BEGINS WITH THE PURCHASE OR
RENTAL OF COMPUTERIZED
MAILING LISTS OF VOTERS DEEMED
LIKELY TO SUPPORT THE
CANDIDATES
• WHILE MOST DONATIONS ARE IN
THE $50-$100 RANGE, DONATIONS
CAN BE MADE UP TO $1,000
POLITICAL ACTION
COMMITTEES
• ORGANIZATIONS ESTABLISHED BY
CORPORATIONS, LABOR UNIONS OR INTEREST
GROUPS TO CHANNEL CONTRIBUTIONS OF THEIR
MEMBERS INTO POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS
• PACS MAY DONATE A MAXIMUM OF $5,000 TO A
CANDIDATE
• PROSPECTIVE CANDIDATES HAVE
CIRCUMVENTED FEDERAL PAC LAWS BY
RECEIVING FUNDS FROM STATE PACS WHICH
ARE NOT SUBJECT TO FEDERAL LIMITATIONS ON
DONATIONS
THE CANDIDATES
• THERE NO LIMITS ON THE AMOUNT
OF MONEY CANDIDATES MAY
SPEND OF THEIR OWN MONEY
TOWARDS THEIR CAMPAIGN
• BUCKLEY V. VALEO (1976)
INDEPENDENT SPENDING
• “ISSUE ADVOCACY” IS CONSIDERED TO
BE “INDEPENDENT” SPENDING AND IS
NOT SUBJECT TO FEDERAL REGULATION
• THESE GROUPS ARE CAREFULL NOT TO
MENTION PARTICULAR CANDIDATES IN
THEIR ISSUE ADS TO AVOID ANY
SUGGESTION THEY ARE FRONTS FOR THE
CANDIDATES CAMPAIGN COMMITTEES
PARTIES AND SOFT MONEY
• STATE AND LOCAL PARTY ORGANIZATIONS USE
SOFT MONEY FOR GET-OUT-THE-VOTE DRIVES
AND VOTER EDUCATION AND REGISTRATION.
• MOST SOFT-MONEY DOLLARS ARE SPENT ON
“ISSUE ADVOCACY” AND ASSISTING
CANDIDATES REELECTION EFFORTS
• MANY CRITICS CONTEND THAT SOFT-MONEY
LESS CONCERNED WITH BUILDING PARTIES
THAN IT IS FOR CIRCUMVENTING FEDERAL
ELECTION LAWS
• “STEALTH DONORS”
PUBLIC FUNDING
• FEDERAL ELECTIONS CAMPAIGN ACT
• MAJOR PARTY PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES BECOME
ELIGIBLE FOR PUBLIC FUNDS BY RAISING AT LEAST
$5,000 IN INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTION OF $250 OR LESS
IN EACH OF TWENTY STATES.
• CANDIDATES MAY APPLY FOR FEDERAL MATCHING
FUNDS, ON A DOLLAR-FOR-DOLLAR BASIS FOR ALL
INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF $250 OR LESS THEY
RECEIVE.
• FUNDS ARE DRAWN FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION CAMPAIGN FUND.
• THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES ARE ELIGIBLE IF THEY
RECEIVED AT LEAST 5% OF THE POPULAR VOTE IN THE
PREVIOUS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
• THERE HAS BEEN MUCH DISCUSSION
OVER CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM,
MOSTLY IN THE DIRECTION OF LARGE
PRIVATE CONTRIBUTIONS BE MADE TO
POLITICAL PARTIES RATHER THAN TO
INDIVIDUAL CANDIDATES.
• IN 2001 THE McCAIN-FEINGOLD BILL
PASSED THE SENATE BUT FAILED TO PASS
IN THE HOUSE.
IMPLICATIONS FOR
DEMOCRACY
• WHILE THERE ARE MANY GROUPS
CONTRIBUTE CAMPAIGN FUNDS, AND
THEY ARE DIVERSE IN THEIR
COMPOSITION, THERE ARE MANY GROUPS
WHO ARE NOT FINANCIALLY ABLE TO BE
PLAYERS IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS.
• POOR, DESTITUTE AND THHE
DOWNTRODDEN
• WHO IS TO SPEAK FOR THEM?