ELECTIONS by benbenzhou

VIEWS: 3 PAGES: 40

									   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?

								
To top