Campaigns and Elections Assignments

MASTERY: Graphic Organizers, Diagram, Outline, Detailed Notes, etc.

1. WHO? WHY? Eligiblity? Who Runs?2. The Modern-Day Campaign3. Political Fiction (Create a candidate for office –House, Senate, or Presidency):background/education/family/political ideology, position on the major issues, etc

Political experiencePolitical ideology/Platform/PositionNew IdeasSupport GroupsFinancing strategyAdvisors (brief bios)Campaign Strategy (Filing, Primaries, Convention)

4. Federal Election Campaign Act (Explain in detail)5. Interest Groups and Campaign Moneya. Explain in detailb. Case Study—PACS (3)6. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 20027. Running for President: The Longest Campaign -Graphic Organizer8. The Electoral College

Definition/ExplanationAssessment/Analyze

9. Elections10. The American Voter 311-31411. Legal Restrictions 315-318

Homework

1. There are elections that created enormous controversy. As a result, they deserve serious analysis. Provide the details of the following elections and display mastery.

1800182418761912

a. Candidatesb. Controversyc. OutcomeD. ANALYSIS

2. Campaign Portfolio-You are to create a portfolio to help you to understand the 2008 Presidential campaign. Your portfolio must include sources. Be creative as you address each of the following:

a. The People: The major players in the election, candidates, advisors, supporters, critics, etc.

b. The Issues: The top issues facing the nation that are or are not being addressed by the candidates

c. The Media: The role of the media and the ways in which the candidates are using the media.

d. Partisanship: The political parties and ideologies at play. e. History: Past elections that captured the nation’s attention

3. CASE STUDY OF A CAMPAIGN 1952-2008Students will examine a single campaign to gain an understanding of how television ads reflect and address the concerns of the voting public. Furthermore, students will assess the extent to which the U.S. presidential campaign has become an event that influences our culture and history as well as being influenced by them.

1800The election campaign of 1800 was a partial replay of the campaign of 1796, with the Jeffersonians opposing Federalist

policies. The attacks of the Jeffersonians were somewhat muted by the Alien and Sedition Act. The attacks of the Federalists on the Jeffersonians were not similarly muted. As a result, Federalist newspapers claimed that the election of

Jefferson would cause the "teaching of murder robbery, rape, adultery and incest".

Foreign issues were not as important, as the rise of Napoleon had dampened Jefferson's support for the French. Instead, issues of domestic power and state rights took the spotlight. Jefferson had been one of the authors of the controversial

Virginia and Kentucky ResolutionsÐ which had declared the Alien and Sedition Act unconstitutional. Although the issue of state nullification of Federal laws would ultimately be settled in favor of the national government, it was a popular issue.

Adams faced substantial opposition within his own party. Hamilton opposed Adams reelection and schemed to have Pinckney, Adams Vice Presidential canididate receive more electoral votes and thus become President.The election was

settled when the New York legislature became dominated by supporters of Jefferson, thus providing him with 12 key electoral votes. The defeat to the Federalist however, did not end the Election of 1800. The Democratic-Republicans made the mistake of assigning the same number of electoral votes to both Jefferson as Burr. Thus no one had the majority of votes, and the election was turned over to the House of Representatives. The House deliberated from

February 11th to February 17th and voted 36 times. The Federalist had decided to support Burr, whom many felt was a lesser evil then the "dangerous" Jefferson. They would have won since they were the majority of the outgoing House.

However, the constitution called for the election of President by the House to be on a state by state basis, and the Federalist could not carry enough states. On the 36th ballot Jefferson was selected, but the country had come very close

to having Aaron Burr as President.1824

The Election of 1824 clearly showed that the "era of good feelings" had come to an end. All the candidates were Democratic-Republicans, but personal and sectional interests outweighed political orthodoxy. The candidates included:

John Quincy Adams , son of a Federalist president, represented the interests of the Northeast (high protective tariff) and was the leading contender

Henry Clay of Kentucky shared political views with Adams, but they held one another in contempt — the rigid New Englander versus the hard-drinking Westerner

Andrew Jackson , a Senator from Tennessee and military hero, drew Western support from Clay despite the fact that his political views were not well-known

William H. Crawford of Georgia was born in Virginia and hoped to continue the "Virginia Dynasty;" he held to the old-line Republican view of limiting the role of the central government, but was still the congressional power brokers' favorite

John C. Calhoun of South Carolina harbored presidential aspirations, but backed out in the hope of securing the vice presidency.

When results were tallied it was evident that Clay had siphoned-off enough votes from Adams to deny him an electoral majority. Adams finished with 84 votes, Jackson 99, Crawford 41 and Clay 37. Election of 1824Candidate Party Electoral

VotePopular

VotePresidential

John Quincy Adams (MA) Democratic-Republican

84 115,696

Henry Clay (KY) " 37 47,136Andrew Jackson (TN) " 99 152,933William H. Crawford (GA) " 41 46,979Vice PresidentialJohn C. Calhoun (SC) " 182Nathan Sanford (NY) " 30Nathaniel Macon (NC) " 24Andrew Jackson (TN) " 13Martin Van Buren (NY) " 9Henry Clay (KY) " 2Votes not cast 1

The Twelfth Amendment (adopted in 1804 following the disputed Election of 1800) provided that elections in which no candidate received a majority should be decided by the House of Representatives from among the top three candidates. Clay was out of contention and Crawford was an unlikely prospect because of a serious illness.

Jackson clearly expected to win, figuring that the House would act to confirm his strong showing. However, Clay, as Speaker of the House, used his influence to sway the vote to Adams. Although they were not close, Clay knew that he and Adams shared a common political philosophy; Clay also knew that Jackson was an avowed opponent of the Bank of the United States, a vital component of the American System. Clay also was not interested in doing anything to further the career of the hero of New Orleans, his main rival in the West.

Adams prevailed on the first ballot in the House of Representatives and became the nation's sixth president. His subsequent appointment of Henry Clay as Secretary of State led to angry charges of a "corrupt bargain."

Elections, Post-Civil War Corruption

Both major political parties were influenced by the Grant-era corruption and sought to nominate candidates who could win the public trust.

The Democrats turned to Samuel J. Tilden, who had established an enviable record as the reform-minded governor of New York. Tilden was on record as favoring the removal of the remaining federal occupation soldiers from the South, a position regarded favorably by his supporters in that region.

The Republicans passed over the frontrunner, James G. Blaine, because of his participation in some questionable dealings. The nomination was eventually given to the respected governor of Ohio, Rutherford B. Hayes. While the platform called for taking steps to assure black equality, Hayes was skeptical at best. Attacks were made on Tilden's questionable health and his ties to the railroads.

Peter Cooper, 85 years of age, received the nomination from the National Greenback Party.

The election results left the nation in suspense. All agreed that Tilden had won the majority of the popular vote, but there was little agreement on what the electoral results should be. In order to win, a candidate needed 185 electoral votes. Tilden controlled 184 votes and Hayes 165; 20 votes, however, were in dispute in South Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida, where Reconstruction Republican governments were still in control. (A single elector was challenged in Oregon.)

Each of the states with disputed votes submitted two sets of electoral ballots, one favoring Tilden, the other Hayes. The Constitution had not foreseen this event and offered no remedy. Loose talk was heard in some quarters about the possibility of war breaking out. In the end, Congress opted to appoint an "impartial" Electoral Commission to find a solution.

An informal agreement between the two parties, sometimes called the "Compromise of 1877," convinced the Democrats that they should accept the Commission's 8-7 vote, which made Hayes the new president.

Election of 1876Candidates Party Electoral

VotePopular

VoteRutherford B. Hayes (OH)William A. Wheeler (NY) Republican 185 4,034,311

Samuel J. Tilden (NY)Thomas A. Hendricks (IN) Democratic 184 4,288,546

Peter Cooper (NY)Samuel F. Cary (OH) Greenback 0 75,973

The electoral vote totals above represent the final decision made by the Electoral Commission.

1912

Elections

In 1912, former president Theodore Roosevelt sought the Republican nomination at the convention in Chicago. He was infuriated by what he took to be betrayal of his progressive program by his personally chosen successor, the incumbent William Howard Taft.

The delegates chose Taft and former New York congressman James "Sunny Jim" Sherman as his running mate. Roosevelt and his supporters bolted, then formed the Progressive Party, popularly known as the Bull Moose Party. TR's running mate was California governor Hiram Johnson.

The Democrats were elated by the Republican split, realizing that their opponents' 16-year rule was at an end. The only real suspense was generated around the question of which Democrat would be the next president. Favorite son candidates were put forth from all sections of the country. The strongest appeared to be House Speaker Champ Clark of Missouri, the personal favorite of the influential William Randolph Hearst. Despite widespread support, Clark was unable to gain the necessary two-thirds vote in the early balloting. The turning point occurred when the still influential William Jennings Bryan switched his support to New Jersey governor Woodrow Wilson, an advocate of moderate reform. After 46 ballots, the exhausted delegates finally selected Wilson and Indiana governor Thomas R. Marshall as his running mate.

For the fourth time, Eugene V. Debs became the presidential standard-bearer for the Socialist Party at their convention in Indianapolis.

Prohibition Party candidate Eugene W. Chafin won his party's nomination at Atlantic City; it would be his second and final run.

The election was an important and pithy discussion about the country's future. During the campaign, Roosevelt and Wilson commanded the lion's share of public attention. They presented the electorate with differing versions of progressivism. Roosevelt's New Nationalism called for an interventionist government with robust regulatory powers. Wilson's New Freedom advocated antimonopoly policies and a return to small businesses.

Wilson won a lopsided electoral victory. His election was nearly assured from the beginning because of the Republican split. The votes for Taft and Roosevelt combined indicate the G.O.P. would have won the presidency. All told, the votes cast for Wilson, Roosevelt and Debs reflected the people's leanings toward progressive reform.

Election of 1912Candidates Party Electoral

VotePopular

Vote

T. Woodrow Wilson (NJ)Thomas R. Marshall (IN) Democratic 435 6,293,152

Theodore Roosevelt (NY)Hiram W. Johnson (CA) Progressive 88 4,119,207

William H. Taft (OH)James S. Sherman (NY)

Republican 8 3,486,333

Nicholas M. Butler (NY)

Eugene V. Debs (IN)Emil Seidel (WI) Socialist 0 900,369

Eugene W. Chafin (IL)Aaron S. Watkins (OH) Prohibition 0 207,972

2000

Americans went to the polls on Nov. 7 but it wasn't until 36 days later that they got a new president. On Dec. 13, Republican George W. Bush declared victory, a day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Democrat Al Gore's call to recount votes in the pivotal state of Florida. The Bush transition is covered on a separate part of our Web site.

The high court's unprecedented involvement capped the longest election in over 100 years. It also ended five weeks of daily roller coaster rides through courts at all levels. That saga all but eclipsed an eventful election year, when the early primaries nearly toppled the front-runners and a few revelations triggered some mud slinging. Check out the action and the actors in Election 2000 in our links on the navigation bar on the left side of the page. Of particular note is our coverage of the issues, the Senate and House races and our lively discussion boards.

The 2000 presidential election between the Republican ticket of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney and the Democratic slate of Albert Gore, Jr., and Joseph Lieberman resulted in the most bizarre vote count in American history.

After initially conceding the election early in the morning, Vice President Gore rescinded the concession after late returns showed the results narrowing in Florida. The Democrats then sought court action mandating a ballot recount in counties where irregularities were claimed in the counting of the ballots, particularly the failure to count votes where ballots were punched only partly through to indicate a candidate choice, the so-called "hanging chads". Democrats also complained that confusion over the "butterfly ballot" used in Palm Beach and Dade Counties caused many Gore-Lieberman supporters to mistakenly vote in the wrong column due to the confusing ballot layout.

On November 21, the Supreme Court of Florida ruled that manual recounts could continue and that the totals must be included in the final results, and set November 26-27 as the deadline for certifying the election. After granting the Bush campaign Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, on December 4 the United States Supreme Court, in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, vacated the Florida Supreme Court decision and remanded the case for clarification by the Florida Supreme Court of the legal basis for its November 21 decision on recount deadlines. In 4-3 split decision released on December 8, the Florida Supreme Court ruled for the Gore-Lieberman campaign, ordering a statewide manual recount of undervotes to begin and adding 383 votes to the Democratic total. The Court directed that the recounts continue to

ascertain whether a vote should be counted as a "legal" vote if there is a "clear indication of the intent of the voter." The Bush-Cheney campaign then sought stays of this decision before the Florida Supreme Court, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court and additionally petitioned for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court requesting that the Court exercise its discretionary authority to hear an appeal of the Florida decision.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted the request to hear the case, and reversed the Florida Supreme Court order of December 8 in its decision released December 12. In a 7 to 2 vote, the Court held that the Florida Supreme Court improperly established new standards for resolving Presidential election contests, thereby violating Article II, section 1, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, and that the state Supreme Court's order directing manual recounts without specific standards on how to review the ballots violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court further held, by a 5 to 4 majority, that Federal election law specified a December 12 deadline for states to certify their winners, and that accordingly it was too late to allow any statewide recount remedy to proceed, even if the recount proceeded under the original standard. On December 18, the Electoral College met, casting 271 votes for George W. Bush and Richard Cheney and 266 votes for Albert Gore and Joseph Lieberman; the final popular vote total was 50,996,582 votes for the Democratic ticket and 50,456,062 votes for the Republicans. On January 6, with Vice President Gore presiding over a joint session of the Congress, the Electoral College votes were officially counted and Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney were declared as the new president and vice president.

LEARNING OBJECTIVESAfter students have read and studied this chapter, they should be able to: Identify the reasons people have for seeking public office. Explain the difference between a primary and a caucus. Describe the changes that have occurred in campaigning for public office over the last decade. Describe the use of polls and focus groups. Briefly explain the rules on public financing of presidential campaigns. Give the difference between “soft money” and “hard money.” Explain how the Campaign Reform Act of 2002 has encouraged independent expenditures and issue advocacy ads. Describe the different forms of primaries and the effects of “front-loading.” Describe the workings of the Electoral College and the effect of the unit rule. Distinguish the party-column ballot from the office-block ballot. Discuss problems that may result from low voter turnout. Explain the difference between the voting-age-population and the population of eligible voters. Identify factors associated with nonvoting. Trace the historical movement toward universal suffrage.

TOPICS FOR DISCUSSIONThomas Jefferson stated that the education of the public was essential to the American republic. The public must have

adequate information about potential public officials before voting. What might Jefferson say about modern campaigns and the modern public?

Why is money so important in elections? How do candidates reach potential voters? What kinds of reforms might be effective in curtailing money’s influence on the political process?Is eliminating money from politics even a good idea? Is it legitimate to consider contributions to be a form of

constitutionally protected speech?Did the campaign finance reforms of 2002 eliminate problems or create new problems?What problems result from “front-loading” the primaries? How might the primary system be altered?

What would it take to change the Electoral College? What is the chance of amending the Constitution? If states with small populations enjoy an advantage through the Electoral College, would they be likely to ratify an amendment that would eliminate the advantage?

Are there differences between voters and nonvoters? If those who vote are successful in electing officials who represent their ideas, will they be more likely to obtain favorable governmental policies? Who represents the nonvoters?

BEYOND THE BOOKIn a lecture, you could take a closer look at the presidential caucus procedure. The caucus method is more complex than a

primary but the end result is the same—the selection of delegates to the national convention. In a typical caucus procedure, voters meet at the local level to select representatives to attend a county or district caucus. This process is repeated at various levels until the representatives meet at the state convention, where delegates are selected to attend the national convention. While more states use presidential primaries, there are states that select delegates through the caucus method.

Critics of the use of political consultants claim that the candidate no longer runs the campaign—the consultant runs the operation and sells the candidate’s image, as opposed to selling the position of the candidate on the issues. From this perspective the candidate is merely a product, like a package on the shelf of a grocery store, whose image is prepackaged to meet the expectations of the voters.

Image has become an important factor in the campaign process. The candidate attempts to build a positive image while attacking the image of the other candidates. This has led to negative campaign tactics. When information that could damage the image of an opponent is discovered, the candidate is encouraged to use the information to tarnish the image of the opponent. Although many voters say they do not like this type of campaigning, these tactics are on the increase and in many cases have proven to be very effective in influencing the voters.

In 2000 the average cost of a campaign for a seat in the Senate was over $1.5 million. This means a candidate would have to raise $5,000 every week for six years in order to reach the goal of $1.5 million. Some candidates for the House of Representatives spent over $1 million in their campaigns. To raise that amount of money the candidate must be able to attract contributions of $1,370 every day for two years. Because presidential candidates must run on a nationwide basis, the amount of money they must raise is even more staggering.

Have your students watch Mike Nichols’ Primary Colors, based on the novel by Joe Klein and inspired by Bill Clinton’s improbable run for the presidency in 1992. Ask your students whether they agree with the decisions made by the Stanton campaign, especially the more cut-throat and hardball actions taken as victory seems more and more achievable for the main characters.

CHAPTER OUTLINEI. Who Wants to Be a Candidate?

A. Why They Run. There are two categories of individuals who run for office—the self-starters and those who are recruited by the party. Self-starters may choose to get involved to gain publicity to further a career, because of a commitment to a specific policy issue, or because of a political cause. Recruited candidates have been chosen by party leaders because they appear to have qualities that are necessary to gain the support of the voters.

B. The Nomination Process. Depending on the office and on state law, candidates can be placed on a party’s general election ticket by a state or local convention, a party caucus, or a primary election.

C. Who Is Eligible? Qualifications for candidates vary from office to office, but few offices have restrictive limitations. Residency requirements are common for legislative positions. Some offices have age requirements (25 years of age for the U.S. House, 30 years of age for the U.S. Senate, and 35 years of age for the presidency). Uniquely, the president cannot be a naturalized citizen.

D. Who Runs? While there are few restrictions on being a candidate, most candidates are not demographically representative of the general population. Traditionally, the overwhelming majority of candidates are white, male, and relatively well off. 1. Women as Candidates. However, in recent years, more women have run for office. Women are more likely

to run for local and state offices, though the number of women elected to Congress recently has increased significantly.

2. Lawyers as Candidates. A very large number of elected officials at all levels are lawyers. These professionals enjoy more flexible schedules and have careers that prepare them well for, and that can be aided by serving in, elected positions.

II. The Twenty-First Century Campaign A. The Changing Campaign. Campaigning for public office has changed dramatically over the past forty years. In

the years before most households had televisions, campaigning was personalized. Voters received information about a candidate from an individual, either the candidate or a person who was working on behalf of the candidate or the party of the candidate. Campaigns today are often less personal, with voters receiving information through the media, usually in the form of advertising. In recent decades campaigns have become less party-centered and more candidate-centered. Increasingly candidates form their own political organizations and choose not to rely on the party organization for campaign support.

B. The Professional Campaign. It is now commonplace for candidates even for local offices to hire consultants for their campaigns. Political consultants devise a campaign strategy that begins months before the general election. This strategy includes raising contributions, seeking endorsements of organized groups, arranging for the candidate to speak at meetings of organized groups, forming groups for grass roots neighborhood support, and creating an extensive advertising campaign.

III. The Strategy of WinningA. Candidate Visibility and Appeal. A key issue is the candidate’s name recognition. If the candidate is well

known, especially if the candidate is an incumbent, then the strategy will be to remind voters of the candidate’s accomplishments and to mobilize them to vote. If the candidate is unknown, which is likely if he or she is a challenger or a candidate for an open seat, then the strategy will be to get the candidate known to the voters. After this is accomplished, challengers frequently opt to criticize the incumbent or his or her positions. If the candidate is an independent candidate, or from a third party, the strategy must also include a rationale for votes to abandon the major parties and to support the third party and its candidate. Typically, the major party candidates will label third party candidates as unworthy of consideration.

B. The Use of Opinion Polls. Candidates for president and other major offices use private polls to fine-tune their campaign strategy.

C. Focus Groups. Consultants may organize focus groups. This technique must rely on far fewer people than a poll, but goes into far greater depth. The focus group is led in a discussion of the candidate’s character and positions. An attempt is made to discern the underlying emotions of the participants.

IV. Financing the CampaignThe change in the structure of campaigning has created a greater dependence upon campaign contributions. As campaigns have focused on advertising through the media to reach voters, the cost of campaigning has increased dramatically. In 2004, candidates spent more than $3.5 billion at all levels. Without the ability to raise large sums of money for campaign costs, candidates have little chance of winning.A. Regulating Campaign Financing. The first legislative attempts to control campaign financing occurred in 1925

and 1939. The 1925 corrupt practices acts were ineffective. The Hatch Act of 1939 was not much more effective.

B. The Federal Election Campaign Act. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 replaced all previous legislation. It attempted to limit spending on advertising and required disclosure on contributions of over $100. Unions and corporations could no longer make direct contributions but had to set up political action committees (PACs). The voluntary income-tax check-off for contributing to presidential campaigns was created.1. Further Reforms in 1974. Through the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974, Congress:

Created the Federal Election Commission, charged with overseeing the enforcement of federal election campaign laws.

Provided for public funding of presidential primaries and general elections. Limited presidential campaign spending for those who accept public funding. Placed limitations on contributions. Individual could contribute $1,000 per candidate per election, with a

maximum total of $25,000. PACs are limited to $5,000 per candidate per election. (These figures did not include “soft money” contributions to the political parties for “party building” activities, nor independent expenditures.)

Required disclosure of the source of contributions and what the expenditures were for.2. Buckley v. Valeo. The 1971 act had placed limits on how much money a candidate could spend on his or

her own campaign. In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that this provision was unconstitutional, an infringement upon freedom of speech. Some states nevertheless continue to attempt to impose spending limitations and it is likely that the Supreme Court will be called upon to review and reconsider its decision in Buckley.

V. Interest Groups and Campaign MoneyA. PACs and Political Campaigns. Political Action Committees (PACs) are set up to represent a corporation, a

labor union, or an interest group. They raise money and provide candidates with contributions. To be legitimate, a federal PAC must obtain donations from a minimum of 50 people and contribute to at least five candidates in a federal election. The number of PACs registered with the Federal Election Commission has increased significantly since 1976. The amount of money being contributed to campaigns by PACs also has increased significantly, and incumbents receive the lion’s share of contributions.

B. Campaign Financing Beyond the Limits. The problem of campaign finance is compounded by the practices of issue advocacy advertising and soft money contributions, which allow contributors to skirt contribution limitations but still influence the outcome of an election.1. Contributions to Political Parties. The legislation of 1971and 1974 placed no restrictions on money given to

parties for voter registration, general publicity about a party’s positions, and the national conventions. Contributions for such purposes were called “soft money,” as opposed to regulated “hard money.”

2. Independent Expenditures. It was soon discovered that it was legal to make independent expenditures that were not coordinated with the candidates’ campaigns.

3. Issue Advocacy. A major tactic is for interest groups to buy advertising that advocates positions on issues and either attack or praise candidates on the basis of the issues. As long as no candidates are actually endorsed, the tactic is legal.

C. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act was passed by Congress in 2002. 1. Key Elements of the New Law. The act banned soft money contributions to the national party committees.

It also placed limitations on issue advocacy advertisements and increased the individual contribution limit to $2000 (from $1000).

2. Challenges to the 2002 Act. The Act was challenged as unconstitutional but upheld by the Supreme Court. However the manner in which the Federal Election Commission interpreted the law allowed for very little actual reform.

3. The Rise of the 527s. Proving the old adage that money will always find a way to influence politics, interest groups that had previously made soft money contributions instead began setting up “527” organizations (named after the section in the tax code that allows their creation). These 527s ran advertisements that were frequently vitriolic in their attacks on candidates.

VI. Running for President: The Longest CampaignThe first primary election was held in Wisconsin in 1903. It was a way to open up the process to the ordinary voter and reduce the power of political “bosses.” Until 1968, however, only a minority of states had binding primaries. Some primaries were “beauty contests” that did not actually select delegates.A. Reforming the Primaries. After riots outside the 1968 Democratic Convention, the party created the McGovern-

Fraser Commission to recommend reforms. Under the new rules, delegates had to be chosen by primaries, open caucuses, or elected state conventions, and not by party leaders. In 1984, however, elected officials re-won the right to attend conventions as voting super delegates. The Republicans also instituted most of these reforms.

B. Types of Primaries. (A few states do not employ primaries, choosing instead to employ a caucus, a meeting of party members designed to select candidates and propose policies.) 1. Closed Primary. Voters are restricted to voting for candidates of the party in which the voter is registered. 2. Open Primary. Voters are restricted to voting for candidates of one party. The voter selects which party

primary to participate in at the voting booth.3. Blanket Primary. Voters may participate in the primaries of both political parties. In 2000, the Supreme

Court ruled the California blanket primary unconstitutional.4. Runoff Primary. In some states, if no candidate receives an absolute majority in a primary, a second

primary is held between the top two contenders.C. Front-Loading the Primaries. Each state determines the date for its primary or caucus.

1. The Rush to Be First. Because early primaries are more influential, states have competed to schedule their primaries as early as possible. As a result, the primary season is essentially over by March. This process is believed to help well-funded front-runners.

2. Consequences of Early Primaries. By choosing the nominees so early, there is a long lull in the news between the primaries and the national conventions. However, it also allows the nominee time to raise funds for the general campaign and to heal any wounds that were inflicted during the primary battle. James A. Baker and Jimmy Carter headed a private commission that recommended Iowa and New Hampshire continue their traditional opening of the electoral season. However, the commission’s recommendation presented a dramatic departure from the norm: four regional primaries that would be held in March, April, May and June with the order rotated every four years.

3. The 2004 Primary Contest. Despite an early lead by Vermont Governor Howard Dean, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry won one state contest after another and locked up the nomination by March 2.

D. On to the National Convention. Each state receives delegates to the national convention for each party. The number of delegates a state receives is roughly proportional to the population of the state, with extra delegates if the party’s candidate carried the state in the last presidential election. 1. Seating the Delegates. A credentials committee approves all delegates. This is usually not controversial but

there have been disputed delegations in the past.2. Convention Activities. The highlight of the convention is the nomination of the presidential candidate.

Because the identity of the nominee is a foregone conclusion, the television networks have drastically curtailed their coverage of the conventions in recent years.

VII. The Electoral CollegeA. The Choice of Electors. The Electoral College is set forth in the Constitution (Article II, Section 1;

Amendment XII; and Amendment XXIII). Each state chooses electors equal in number to the number of

representatives and senators the state has at the time of the election. The District of Columbia also chooses three electors. Currently there are a total of 538 electors. For a candidate to be elected president, he or she must win a minimum of 270 electoral votes.

B. The Electors’ Commitment. In each state the political party selects a number of people to serve as potential electors under the party label. When voters go to the polls to cast a ballot for the presidential candidate they are actually voting for a slate of electors pledged to support the presidential candidate of the party. In all but two states, there is the winner-take-all system. That is, if a candidate receives a plurality of the votes cast he or she wins all of the electoral votes from the state. This is the unit rule.

C. Criticisms of the Electoral College. As a result of the unit rule, presidential candidates often ignore states where the result is not in doubt. Also, in four different elections (including 2000), the presidential candidate who received a plurality of the popular vote did not receive a majority of the electoral vote. In 2000, George W. Bush lost the popular vote and still received a majority of the electoral vote, though Democrats challenged the popular vote count in Florida, which determined Bush’s Electoral College victory. In the wake of the 2000 elections, there have been numerous arguments against the Electoral College. Regardless of these arguments, it is likely to remain as the method for the election of the president. To change the Electoral College, an amendment to the Constitution would have to be proposed and ratified. Such an amendment is not likely to pass, given the advantages enjoyed by the least populous states under the Electoral College.

VIII. How Are Elections Conducted?All states have used a secret, or Australian ballot since 1888. But while every state uses a secret ballot, not all state’s ballots are of the same type.A. Office Block and Party Column Ballots. The office-block ballot groups candidates for elective office together

under the title of the office. The office-block ballot discourages straight-ticket voting. States that use the party-column ballot list candidates in columns arranged by political parties. This type of ballot makes voting for all candidates of one party easier. In general elections where a president or a governor is elected, voters who are not knowledgeable about candidates for lower offices may be swayed to support candidates of the same party as the president or governor. This is referred to as the coattail effect.

B. Voting by Mail. Increasingly, voting by mail has been used in the states. This has been done to make it easier for people to vote. Oregon is the only state in which all votes are cast by mail.

C. Vote Fraud. This is something regularly suspected but seldom proved.1. The Danger of Fraud. Failure to purge the electoral rolls of voters who have died or moved opens up

possibilities of fraud.2. Mistakes by Voting Officials. On the other hand, in some locales voting officials have purged many

legitimate voters from the rolls by mistake.IX. Turning Out to Vote

In the 2004 general election, 55.3 percent of the voting-age population cast ballots. Voter participation in the United States is low compared with other countries. In congressional elections in years when a president is not elected, the turnout rates are lower. Turnout rates are even lower yet for most local elections. A. The Effect of Low Voter Turnout. Some observers believe that low turnout represents a threat to our

representative democratic government. Others believe that nonvoting means satisfaction with the status quo.1. Is Voter Turnout Declining? The voting-age population is not the same as the population that is eligible to

vote. The VAP includes noncitizens and ineligible ex-felons and does not include overseas citizens (who can vote absentee). Correcting for eligibility, the turnout in 2004 was actually 58.8 percent. It may be possible to entirely explain recent declines in voter participation by an increase in immigration.

2. Factors Influencing Who Votes. The decision to vote appears to be influenced by the following factors: Age. Individuals who are older are more likely to vote.

Education. Individuals who have more formal schooling are more likely to vote. Minority status. Despite a decreasing gap, African-Americans are still less likely to vote than

whites. Turnout for Hispanics and Asian Americans is low because many are not yet citizens. Income. Individuals who have higher incomes are more likely to vote. Party competition. States that have two strong parties, as opposed to one strong and one weak

party, tend to have higher voter participation.B. Why People Do Not Vote. There are several explanations why people do not vote. Two include “rational

ignorance effect” and ”uninformative media coverage and negative campaigning.”1. Uninformative Media Coverage and Negative Campaigning. This theory says that voters are not given the

kind of information that would provide an incentive for them to vote, and many are turned off by the negativism of campaigns.

2. The Rational Ignorance Effect. This theory purports that many individuals rationally calculate that their vote is not important and that the effort to seek information to cast an informed vote is not worthwhile.

3. Plans for Improved Voter Turnout. More reliance on absentee ballots may not help. One idea is to declare Election Day a national holiday.

X. Legal Restrictions on VotingA. Historical Restrictions.

1. Property Requirements. By the 1850s individuals who did not own land were allowed to participate in most states.

2. Further Extensions of the Franchise. In 1870 African-Americans were granted the right to vote, though obstacles to their participation remained until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. By 1920 women were granted suffrage. The last major extension of suffrage occurred in 1971 when 18 to 20 year olds were allowed to vote.

3. Is the Franchise Still Too Restrictive? The principal argument is over ex-felons who have served their sentences but are barred from voting, often for life. Most other democracies do not impose this rule and not all U.S. states have it. This restriction alters the shape of the electorate because ex-felons are often members of minority groups, poor, or both.

B. Current Eligibility and Registration Requirements. In order to participate in the electoral process in most states an individual must complete a registration process. While this process varies from state to state, it is considered important to prevent voter fraud. Some have argued that the registration process is too complicated and therefore reduces the number of people who vote. In 1995, Congress passed a bill that allows individuals to complete the registration process when they apply for a driver’s license, assuming they are at least 18 years of age. It is now considerably easier for citizens to register.

XI. FeaturesA. What If . . . Spending Limits Were Placed on Campaigns?

Spending limits would most likely have the effect of deterring millionaire candidates from getting involved in campaigns and spending unlimited amounts of their own money, limiting the ability of special interests to influence the outcomes of campaigns and lower the profits of television stations that have grown fat on the multitude of endless campaign commercials. On the other hand, though, such measures have been attempted in the past and never seem to produce the results their well-intentioned advocates imagine.

B. Politics and Campaigns—Charities and Politics Are Not Supposed to MixAlthough charities are tax-exempt organizations and under IRS regulations precluded from participating in political campaigns, IRS Commissioner Mark Everson announced in 2006 that charities manifested “a disturbing amount of political intervention in the 2004 election cycle,” especially churches.

C. Which Side Are You On? Should Voting By Mail Be Universal?

Voting by mail is proposed by many as a means of increasing voter participation. One of the groundbreaking states in this movement is Oregon, which boasted participation rates of 87 percent in the 2004 elections. Some criticize voting by mail as more susceptible to fraud and as a betrayal of the civic responsibility to take the initiative to physically show up at the polls on election day. Norman Ornstein argues that voting by mail prompts citizens to cast their votes before all of the issues have been fully explored and all of the debates have been held in the days leading up to the election.

BurnsNational Archives and Records Administration (NARA)

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/** What is the Electoral College?** What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 electoral votes?**  What would happen if two candidates tied in a state's popular vote,or there was a dispute as to the winner?**  How is it possible for the electoral vote to produce a differentresult than the nation-wide popular vote?**  What are the qualifications to be an elector?**  How does the Electoral College process work in my state?

LECTURE OUTLINE

I. What If . . . We Had a National Election System?A. If Congress could mandate a national election system, chances are that there would be less risk

involved in a uniform voting system. Using optical scanners, voters could ensure that the correct vote was being registered before they left the voting booth.

B. One impact of a national election system would be the enormous cost. If the federal government mandated a national election system, either the federal government or the states would have to pay for the equipment.

C. Because the Constitution left state elections to the states, it is unlikely that Congress could or would simply pass legislation requiring a national election system. Such action would first require a Constitutional amendment, which is quite unlikely.

II. The People Who Run for OfficeA. There are two categories of individuals who run for office, the self-starters and those who are

recruited by the party to run for office. 1. Self-starters may choose to get involved for the following reasons:

a. to gain publicity to further a career outside of the electoral processb. because of a commitment to a specific policy issuec. support for a political cause

2. Recruited candidates have been chosen by leaders within the party to run for office because they appear to have qualities that are necessary to gain the support of the voting public.

B. Qualifications for candidates vary from office to office, however few offices have restrictive limitations. If a person is eligible to vote then he or she is usually eligible to run for office providing they meet the age requirement set for the specific office (25 years of age for the U.S. House, 30 years of age for the U.S. Senate, and 35 years of age for the presidency). While there are few restrictions on being a candidate, most candidates are not demographically representative of the general population. Traditionally, the overwhelming majority of candidates are male, Caucasian, and have significantly more wealth than the average citizen. However, in recent years, more women have run for office than in the past. Women are more likely to run for local and state offices, though the number of women elected to Congress in the 1990s did increase significantly.

III. The Modern Campaign MachineA. Campaigning for public office has changed dramatically over the past forty years. In the years before

most households had televisions, campaigning was personalized. Voters received information about a candidate from an individual, either from the candidate or a person who was working on behalf of the candidate or the party of the candidate. Campaigns today are impersonal, with voters receiving information through the media, usually in the form of advertising. In the last ten years campaigns have become less party-centered and more candidate-centered. Increasingly candidates must form their own political organizations and not rely on the party organization for campaign support.

B. The change in the structure of the campaign has created a cyclical dependence upon contributions. Less personalized contributions cost more, and so candidates must raise more money. In the 1999-2000 election cycle, more than $3 billion was spent by candidates for local, congressional and presidential races.

C. The cost of campaigns has also increased because of the rise of the consultant-centered campaigns. It is now commonplace for candidates for local offices to hire consultants for their campaigns. Political consultants devise a campaign strategy that begins months prior to the general election. This strategy will include: raising contributions, seeking endorsements of organized groups, arranging for the candidate to speak at meetings of organized groups, the formation of groups for grass roots neighborhood support, and an extensive advertising campaign. Critics of this new type of campaigning indicate that candidates no longer run campaigns, the consultant runs the operation and sells the candidate’s image, as opposed to selling the position of the candidate on the issues. From this perspective the candidate is merely a product, like a package on the shelf of a grocery store, whose image is prepackaged to meet the expectations of the voters preferred image.

D. Image has become an important factor in the campaign process. The candidate attempts to build a positive image while attacking the image of the other candidates. This has led to a phenomenon known as negative campaign tactics. When information that could damage the image of an opponent is discovered, the candidate is encouraged to use the information to tarnish the image of the opponent. Although many voters indicate they do not like this type of campaigning, these tactics are on the increase and in many cases have proven to be very effective in influencing the voter’s perception of the image of the candidates.

IV. The Strategy of WinningA. Campaign strategy is largely dependent upon the candidate’s name recognition. If the candidate is

well known (most likely to occur if the candidate is an incumbent) then the strategy will be to remind voters of the candidate’s accomplishments, and to mobilize them to vote.

B. If the candidate is unknown (more likely if s/he is a challenger or a candidate for an open seat), then the strategy will be to get the candidate known to the voters. After this is accomplished, challengers frequently will opt to criticize the incumbent or his or her positions.

C. If the candidate is an independent candidate, or from a third party, the strategy must also include a rationale for votes to abandon the major parties and to support the third party and its candidate. Typically, the major party candidates will label third party candidates as unworthy of consideration. Because of the obstacles discussed in Chapter 9, third parties in the United States typically tend to face an uphill battle.

V. Financing the Campaign

A. As campaigns have focused on advertising through the media to reach voters, the cost of campaigning has increased dramatically. Without the ability to raise large sums of money for campaign costs, candidates have little chance of winning an election. In 2000, the average cost of a campaign for a seat in the United States Senate was well over $1.5 million. This means a candidate would have to raise $5,000 every week for six years in order to reach the goal of $1.5 million. Some candidates for the United States House of Representatives spent over $1 million in their campaign. In order to raise that amount of money the candidate must be able to attract contributions of $1,370 every day for two years. Because presidential candidates must run on a nationwide basis, the amount of money they must raise is staggering.

B. Through the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1972, Congress enacted limitations on the amount of money candidates for president could spend, although no such limits were placed on other elective positions. Limits were placed on how much money a person or organization could contribute to a candidate for a national office. The reason for such legislation was to reduce and regulate the amount of money candidates received. While individuals were no longer able to directly contribute large sums of money to a candidate the total cost of campaigning was not reduced. Candidates were able to receive contributions from the newly created political action committees (PACs).

C. Through the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974, Congress passed even further restrictions on contributions and expenditures in federal campaigns. This Act accomplished several things.1. It created the Federal Election Commission, charged with overseeing the enforcement of federal

election campaign law.2. It provided for public funding of presidential primaries and general elections for those candidates

who receive adequate contributions. 3. It limited presidential campaign spending for those accept public funding.4. It placed limitations on contributions. Individual can contribute $1,000 per candidate per election,

with a maximum total of $25,000. PACs are limited to $5,000 per candidate per election. These figures do not include “soft money” contributions to the political parties for “party building” activities.

5. It required disclosure of the source of contributions and what expenditures were for.D. Political action committees were created when Congress enacted legislation that required

organizations to abide by specific guidelines when contributing money to a candidate. If an organization wants to establish a PAC it must seek donations from a minimum of 50 people and all money raised must be contributed to at least five candidates in a federal election.

E. The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act was passed by Congress in 2002. This act amended FECA, and banned soft money contributions to the national party committees. It also placed limitations on issue advocacy advertisements and increased the individual contribution limit to $2000 (from $1000). One impact of the act will be that it will hurt the ability of the political parties to help the candidates running on the party label. This could lead to less cohesiveness within the parties. Also, the act probably will have the impact of helping incumbents, who are less likely to need soft money contributions and issue advocacy ads.

VI. Running for President: The Longest CampaignA. The campaign for presidency officially begins in January of every other even year (the next election

will be in 2004). However, if a candidate is serious in the quest for the White House the campaign process will begin at least two years in advance of the general election. Furthermore, there are two distinct aspects to the campaign, the primary process and the general election/electoral college process.

B. In the Primary Process, for a candidate to get the nomination of one of the two major parties, the candidate must receive a majority of the delegates at the national convention. Each state receives delegates to the national convention for each party. The number of delegates a state receives is roughly in proportion to the population of the state. Selection of delegates is usually conducted in one of two methods: a presidential primary or a state caucus. Prior to 1968 most delegates were selected through the caucus method. Today the overwhelming majority of delegates are selected through some form of a presidential primary.

The Primary Process

January The first caucus starts selecting delegates for each party.

February The first presidential primary is conducted and delegates are selected for each party.

March through June

The remaining delegates are selected in each state through primary or caucus.

July and August The Democrats and Republicans each hold a national convention to select the presidential candidate of their party.

The General Election/Electoral College Process

August through November

The campaign for the general election. After the national convention, each candidate will campaign in states for popular votes hoping to win a plurality in order to gain electoral votes from the state.

November The general election in which the public votes for electors.

December The electors meet in their state and cast their vote for President and Vice-President.

C. New Hampshire begins the process in February for states utilizing the primary. The last presidential primary is conducted in June. Each state determines the date for the primary and limitations for voter participation. Restrictions for voter participation fall into three types of primaries.1. Closed primary - Voters are restricted to voting for candidates registered in the same party as the

voter. 2. Open primary - Voters are restricted to voting for candidates of a single political party. The voter

selects which party to participate in at the voting booth.3. Blanket primary - Voters may choose to participate in the election of both political parties. Only

three states (Alaska, Louisiana, and Washington) use this method.C. The caucus method is more complex than a primary but the end result is the same, selection of

delegates to the national convention. In the typical caucus voters meet at the local precinct to select representatives to attend the next meeting. This process is repeated at various levels until the representatives meet at the state convention where delegates are selected to attend the national convention. While states using presidential primaries receive most of the attention of the media there are still some states that select delegates through the caucus method.

D. Each party conducts a national convention that is the meeting of all of the delegates who have been selected in state primaries and caucuses. Once the delegates have been approved by the credentials committee, they begin the process of making decisions for the party for the next four years. The highlight of the convention is the nomination of the presidential candidate. This process has changed for both parties in recent years. Because of the popularity of presidential primaries, candidates must have vast amounts of money to campaign. The early primaries tend to serve as a process of eliminating candidates who do not fare well. These candidates lack adequate funding to continue and they suspend their campaign. Usually by April there are only two or three candidates remaining in each party. By the time the last primary is conducted one candidate in each party has a simple majority of the delegates and therefore, attends the national convention knowing he or she has already secured the nomination of the party.

VII. The Electoral College

A. After receiving the nomination of the party the candidate must begin a new campaign that will focus on gaining a majority of the electoral votes. The electoral college is set forth in the Constitution (Article II, Section 1; Amendment XII; and Amendment XXIII). Each state receives electors equal to the number of United States Representatives and United States Senators the state has at the time of the election. The District of Colombia receives three electors. Currently there are a total of 538 electors (435 based on the number of Representatives, 100 based on the number of Senators, and 3 from the District of Colombia). In order for a candidate to be elected by the electors he or she must win a minimum of 270 electoral votes.

B. In each state the political party selects a number of people to serve as potential electors under the party label. When voters go to the polls to cast a ballot for the presidential candidate they are actually voting for a slate of party members pledged to support the presidential candidate of the party. In nearly all states, there is the winner-take-all system, That is, if a candidate receives a plurality of the votes cast he or she wins all of the electoral votes from the state.

C. In order to be elected president, a candidate must receive 270 electoral votes. The candidate will attempt to determine which states he or she has a chance to win and will then focus the campaign in those states. If polls indicate a close election in a particular state both candidates will campaign in the state hoping to win the popular vote and therefore obtain all of the electoral votes of the state. If polls indicate that one candidate has a huge lead, neither candidate is likely to campaign in the state. Currently, winning the 11 most populous states would result in a victory in the electoral college. Thus, it is rational for presidential candidates to spend a lot of time campaigning in these states.

D. After the voters have cast their ballots, one candidate is said to have won the electoral vote for the state. Such a statement is not totally accurate. The presidential candidate’s party has won the state and the party’s slate of electors will cast their ballots in December for president and vice president.

E. In four different elections (including our most recent in 2000), the presidential candidate who received a plurality of the popular vote did not receive a majority of the electoral vote. In 1824 no candidate received a majority of the electoral votes and the House elected John Quincy Adams, although Andrew Jackson had received more popular votes than any other candidate. In 1876 Rutherford Hayes won the Electoral College by a single vote (Hayes 185 to Tilden’s 184) even though Tilden had won a majority of the popular vote. In 1888 Grover Cleveland received over 100,000 more popular votes than Benjamin Harrison, but Cleveland was not reelected as president because Harrison received the majority of votes cast in the Electoral College (Harrison 233 - Cleveland 168). In 2000, George W. Bush lost the popular vote and still received a majority of the electoral vote, though Democrats challenged the popular vote count in Florida, which determined Bush’s Electoral College victory. However, this could have occurred in four elections.

F. In the wake of the 2000 elections, there have been numerous arguments against the Electoral College. Regardless of these arguments, it is likely to remain as the method for the election of the president. Many Americans cannot understand why the president is still elected by electors as opposed to the vote of the people. The answer is simple: the United States Constitution provides for the election of the president by electors. In order to change how the president is elected, an amendment to the Constitution would have to be proposed and ratified. Such an amendment is not likely to occur.

VIII. How Are Elections Conducted?A. All states have used a secret, or Australian ballot since 1888. But while every state uses the secret

ballot, not all state’s ballots are the same type of ballot. There are two types of secret ballots.1. The office-block ballot provides for candidates for elective office to be grouped together under the

title of the office and the party-column ballot. The office-block ballot discourages straight party voting. Voters are encouraged to vote for the candidate for each office regardless of the party affiliation of the candidate.

2. The party column ballot provides for the grouping of candidates for all offices under their party label. States that use the party-column ballot list candidates in columns arranged by political parties. This type of ballot makes voting for all candidates of one party easier. In general elections where the president or the governor is elected, voters who are not knowledgeable about candidates for some lower offices may be swayed to support candidates of the same party as the

president or governor. This is referred to as the coattails of the president or governor. The larger the margin of victory for the president or governor means longer coattails, meaning more candidates of his party will be elected because of the popularity of the candidate at the top of the ballot.

B. Increasingly, voting by mail has been used in the states. This has been done to make it easier for people to vote. In nearly all elections in which vote by mail has been used, we have seen and increase in levels of participation. Arguments against vote by mail include the suggestion that all votes do not occur at the same time (the window for voting is longer than the typical 12-14 hour window) and charges that vote by mail could result in widespread election fraud.

C. After the votes have been cast they must be counted. In order to ensure fairness in the counting of ballots many local election officials establish an official body known as a canvassing board. This board is composed of individuals of both major political parties. Most states have provisions for a recount of the ballots if there is an allegation of voting fraud or in the event of a very close election. It has been exceedingly rare that a recount has resulted in a reversal of the election outcome.

IX. Voting in National, State and Local ElectionsA. In the 2000 general election approximately 50.7 percent of the people who were eligible to register to

vote actually cast a ballot. This was an increase from 1996 when there was a turnout rate of 48.4 percent, but the 2000 turnout was still less than 1992 by almost 5 percent. What does this indicate? Voter participation in the United States is very low compared to other countries. If congressional elections in years the president was not elected were included the turnout rates would be far lower. Turnout rates are even lower yet for most local elections. Why there are fewer voters at the local level is the subject of considerable debate, as are the reasons for why turnout rates in all elections have been gradually declining over the past 20 years. While political scientists have not been able to totally agree on the reasons for declining voter participation, they have been able to identify major differences between voters and nonvoters.

B. The decision to vote appears to be influenced by the following factors:1. Age. Individuals who are older are more likely to vote.2. Education. Individuals who have more formal schooling are more likely to vote.3. Minority status. Despite a decreasing gap, African-Americans are still less likely to vote than

whites.4. Income. Individuals who have higher incomes are more likely to vote.5. Party competition. States that have two strong parties, as opposed to one strong and one weak

party, tend to have higher voter participation.X. Legal Restrictions on Voting

A. By the 1850s individuals who did not own land were allowed to participate in most states. In 1870 African-Americans were granted the right to vote, though obstacles to their participation remained until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. By 1920 females were granted suffrage. The last major extension of suffrage occurred in 1971 when 18 to 20 year olds were allowed to vote.

B. In order to participate in the electoral process in most states an individual must complete a registration process. While this process varies from state to state, it is considered important to prevent voter fraud. Some have argued that the registration process is too complicated and therefore reduces the number of people who would vote if voting were made easier. In 1995, Congress passed a bill that allows individuals to complete the registration process when they apply for a drivers license, assuming they are at least 18 years of age. It is now considerably easier for citizens to become registered. However, the major problem will continue to be how many people actually vote and whether these voters are knowledgeable about the issues and candidates.

XI. How Do Voters Decide?A. For which candidates and political parties individuals decide to cast their votes are influenced in part

by certain demographic and socioeconomic factors1. Education. Higher education levels appear to be correlated with voting for Republican candidates.

2. Income and Socioeconomic status. Professionals and people considered to be mid- to high-level managers in business tend to support the Republican party while the Democratic party tends to receive support from people employed in manual labor

3. Religion. Protestants have been more inclined to support Republican candidates; Catholics and Jewish voters have traditionally supported Democratic candidates.

4. Ethnic Background. Anglo-Saxon and northern European ethnic groups have been supportive of the Republican party; Irish and Italians are more likely to support the Democratic party.

5. Gender. Prior to the 1980 election there was little difference between men and women in support for the political parties. But beginning in the 1980 election, a “gender gap” developed where women have been more supportive of Democratic candidates.

6. Age. Younger voters have been more likely to support candidates of the Democratic party while older voters have been more likely to support the candidates of the Republican party. In addition, older Americans are more likely to turnout to vote.

7. Geographical region. Democrats tend to gain more supporters from the northern and eastern cities while Republicans have more supporters from rural areas and from the southern and western states.

B. The other major category influencing an individual’s vote is often referred to as the psychological factor:1. Party Identification. This is the strongest determinant of an individual’s vote. If an individual

identifies with a particular party there is greater the likelihood this person will vote and support the candidates of that party.

2. Perception of the Candidate. The candidate who is more successful in projecting an image that the public wants has a better chance of winning the election. Typically, these characteristics are emotional characteristics, like trustworthiness.

3. Issue Preferences. Although not as important as party identification or image, where a candidate stands on a given issue does have an impact on voters. Some voter have issue “litmus tests,” where they will never vote for a candidate who doesn’t agree with their issue stance on abortion, or some other salient issue.

XII. The Media and PoliticsA. Entertainment. Many current political issues are presented in the various types of media. While the

purpose is to entertain the public this type of program or article does serve to stimulate public discussion on important issues. An example of this occurred in the spring and fall of 1992. In the television program Murphy Brown the lead character became pregnant and then made the decision to have and to raise the child as a single parent. This show led to considerable public debate about single parenthood. Even Vice President Quayle became involved in the debate when he was publicly critical of the values portrayed in the show. His criticism led the show to begin the fall series with statements about the real vice president.

B. Reporting the news. This is a primary function of the media. In a democracy the public must be informed about issues that will affect them. The media must serve as the eyes and the ears of the public if it is to be informed about important issues related to the governing process.

C. Identifying public problems. Identifying public problems occurs in two ways.1. Setting the Public Agenda. The media identifies public problems and serves as a forum for

various policy alternatives. The primacy of certain issues on the agenda is the importance that the media places on these issues.

2. Investigative function. The media also uses investigation to uncover wrong-doing by the government or government officials or candidates. The most important media investigation was conducted by Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Their reporting uncovered high-level Nixon administration misconduct, thus prompting President Nixon’s resignation in 1974.

D. Socializing a new generation. This occurs by the transmission of historical information which is important for the continuation of the political culture. This function is particularly important in the

socialization of immigrants and of children who “learn to be American” through the transmission of values from television.

E. Providing a political forum. Officeholders attempt to gain support for policies. This functions refers both to the ability of politicians to use the media to generate interest in their campaigns, and to the ability of voters to express their opinions through the media. An important example of this is the “letters to the editor” section of newspapers.

F. Making profits. Most of the news media is owned by private individuals and therefore, is run as a business. If the business is profitable the owners will make money. Most of the profit is made by selling advertising. The cost of the advertising is based on the circulation (print media) or the size of the audience (electronic media).

XIII. The Primacy of TelevisionA. Currently the most influential type of media is television. Viewers can actually see news and history

as it is happening. The start of the Persian Gulf War transpired live to viewers in the United States and throughout the rest of the world. It is very difficult for the print media or the radio media to compete effectively with this type of television. Most people indicate that their primary source for news is television. The major criticism of most television news is the lack of depth in reporting, or it’s lack of “context.” Only a few seconds are allocated for most stories on the major networks. If the public does not seek out more in-depth information from other media sources the result could be an uninformed public on complex topics that require detailed information. In some ways, the Internet is helping solve this problem, as many news programs offer additional information on their websites about stories that have been broadcast on network or cable television shows.

B. The revolution of the electronic media is changing. Cable television, which is available in most areas, has greatly increased the choices viewers have. Channels are devoted to nonstop news (Cable News Network [CNN]) and to the operation of the government (C-Span). These types of options allow the public access to detailed information about world events and the operation of the government. Conversely, the public may choose to tune out events that used to be carried by all stations, like the national conventions, the State of the Union address, and presidential press conferences. The public can opt to literally tune out.

C. Another growing electronic means of communication is personal computer networks. The Internet allows individuals to communicate ideas and opinions instantaneously. Many telecommunications companies have begun using the Internet as a way of reaching viewer/users. As more people purchase computers for home use this source of communication will increase and could have a major impact on the transmission of ideas.

D. Radio and television “talk” shows also have proven to be a rapidly grow format for political information. Dominated by conservatives, talk programming tends to be “narrowcasting” -- listeners are self-selected and typically share the host’s viewpoint or ideology.

XIV. The Media and Political CampaignsElections in the electronic media age are very different from the elections that were conducted prior to television and radio. Voters now receive most information from some type of electronic media. The most important of the electronic media is television. There are three classifications of television coverage during a campaign: paid-for political announcements, management of news coverage, and campaign debates.A. Paid-for political announcements (advertising) are the most obvious of the methods to reach potential

voters. Typically these ads run for 30 to 60 seconds. Increasingly these brief messages are negative attacks on the opposition. While many voters have complained about negative campaigns, research indicates that such messages are effective. Even when advertisements are not attacks on the opposition, time constraints dictate that messages will be superficial and will not delve deeply into substantive policy positions. Increasing, groups are using unregulated “soft money” contributions to purchase issue-oriented ads.

B. Management of news coverage by campaign staff of the candidate has become increasingly important. Instead of letting the media determine what is important in the campaign, the campaign staff attempts

to manipulate the media into presenting “news” related to the candidate and the campaign in a fashion that is favorable to the candidate. This can be accomplished by:1. planning political events to accommodate the press (for example, a candidate stages and event

something early in the day to be included in the evening news broadcast)2. developing a good working relationship with reporters and sponsors3. convincing the media to put the right “spin” or interpretation on a story

C. Debates between the candidates offer voters the opportunity to see and hear the candidates in a controlled setting. But typically, not all candidates are willing to debate. If an incumbent is shown to be significantly ahead of the challenger, the incumbent has nothing to gain by debating, and therefore, will hesitate to agree to a debate. If the election appears to be close, both candidates may choose to debate in hopes of gaining support from the undecided voters. Presidential debates have generated considerable attention from the public but have rarely resulted in a significant advantage for one candidate over another. One reason for little change is that the candidates practice and are coached as to how to respond to questions that are likely to be asked

XV. The Media and the GovernmentA. The proper role for the media in a democratic government is hard to define. At minimum, the media

is responsible for informing the public about topics that are important to the public so that the public can attempt to influence governmental policy. Some would argue that the media is also responsible for informing the public about governmental actions which the government would prefer to not make public, at least at this time. If the latter is considered to be a part of the media’s role the media and the government will be adversaries on occasion.

B. The relationship between the media and the presidency has been symbiotic, each needing the other to accomplish major objectives. The media needs information about the development of policy in the executive branch and the president needs the media to report his ideas to the public in order to gain public support for these ideas. Yet the complexity of the relationship between the media and the President became increasingly clear during the scandal involving President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky since the media stood to profit from increased viewing of salacious details that would embarrass the President. The relationship between the media and the President is likely to remain complicated. How much access the media should have to the president and other governmental officials will be determined by them and the media because of the needs they have for each other. For example, during the war in Iraq in 2003, it was clear that the administration and the military needed the media to convey the story of the war. Thus, print, radio and television journalists “embedded” with different military forces and reported from that vantage.

C. The media helps to determine the public agenda by focusing attention on certain issues. In this capacity, the media communicates the governmental officials’ point of view for the benefit of the public, and, conversely, helps the government understand society’s point of view.

D. While the media in the United States is one of the least regulated institutions of its type anywhere in the world, the government does regulate some aspects of the media. Such regulations must not abridge the freedom of the press clause of the First Amendment. There is a major distinction between the printed media and the broadcast media. The government does not regulate the print media as much as it regulates the broadcast media. Supreme Court decisions have indicated that any person can start a newspaper, but in order to broadcast news, an individual must have the permission of the government. The government can therefore place some restrictions on the broadcast media that it cannot place on the print media.

E. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 provided for other means by which the government could regulate the media. It mandated that television manufacturers include a “V-chip” in each set that can be used by parents to block programs that include sex or violence. Another provision of the Act prohibited the transmission of “indecent or patently offensive” material via the Internet. Two federal district courts ruled this component unconstitutional.

F. The broadcasting industry has eliminated the need for the government to control the content of the media by establishing its own voluntary code of content. This code regulates content of violence, nudity, profanity and sex in television shows.

PEO

What is "soft money"?

In 1974, the Federal Election Campaign Act was signed into law. Among other things, the Act limited the amounts of money individuals, political action committees (PACs) and political parties could give to candidates in federal, i.e. House, Senate and presidential, elections. Under the FEC Act, money given directly to candidates for federal elective office is known as "hard money" and is strictly regulated. Money given directly to political parties for the purpose of supporting candidates for federal office is also regulated "hard money."

"Soft money" contributions are sometimes called "nonfederal" contributions because they are given to political parties for purposes other than supporting candidates for federal office. Unlike hard money contributions, there are no limits on the amounts of soft money that can be given by individuals to political parties. Moreover, while labor unions and corporations are prohibitted from giving money to candidates for federal office, they can give soft money to parties.

While soft money cannot be used by political parties to support federal candidates, it can be used for "party building" activities. These efforts have become controversial because they are almost indistinguishable from party support for federal candidates. For example, a political party would have to use hard money contributions, which are limited and regulated, to pay for a television advertisement that explicitly encouraged voters to vote for a specific candidate. If the ad, however, simply showed a particular candidate and then encouraged voters to support that candidate's party, soft money could be used to pay for it.

The amounts of soft money raised and spent by both parties is another reason soft money is increasingly the subject of campaign finance reform efforts. Common Cause, a nonpartisan citizen "watchdog" group, reports that parties spent $86 million in soft money on the 1992 presidential election, $260 million in 1996 and projects that soft money spending may triple again--to a staggering $750 million--for the 2000 presidential election.

Lecture Notes:

This chapter investigates America’s two-party system and its role in American politics. It traces the historical development of political parties in the United States, examining the role of minor parties and the reasons for the emergence and persistence of the two-party system. The chapter also discussed the effects of this system on policy and coalition formulation.

The main ideas of this chapter are:

Party competition is the mechanism that enables voting majorities to have a substantial influence on the direction of government. This competition peaks during periods of realignment but at all times is a vital aspect of democratic government.

Throughout most of the nation’s history, political competition has centered on two parties. This two-party tendency is explained by the nature of America’s electoral system, political institutions, and political culture. Minor parties exist in the United States but have been unable to compete successfully for governing power.

The Republican and Democratic coalitions are very broad. Each includes a substantial proportion of nearly every economic, ethnic, religious, and regional grouping in the country.

To win an electoral majority, each of the two major parties must appeal to a diverse set of interests; this necessity normally leads them to advocate moderate and somewhat overlapping policies and to avoid taking detailed positions on controversial issues. Only during national crises are America’s parties likely to present the electorate with starkly different policy alternatives.

Political parties serve to link the public with its elected leaders and to organize political conflict. In the United States, this linkage is provided by a two-party system; only the Republican and Democratic parties have any chance of winning control of government. The first political parties (Hamilton and Jefferson) evolved through Jackson’s grass-roots framework to the emergence of Lincoln’s Republican Party in 1860. Since that time, the Republicans and Democrats have monopolized the system, alternating in victory and defeat.

Many other democracies, such as France and Great Britain, have a multiparty system. The fact that the United States has only two major parties is explained by several factors: an electoral system, characterized by single-member districts, that makes it difficult for third parties to compete for power; each party’s willingness to accept political leaders of differing views; and a political culture that stresses compromise and negotiation rather than ideological rigidity. America’s two major parties are also maintained by laws and customs that support their domination of elections. Minor political parties (there have been more than a thousand in the nation’s history) generally have been short lived, although they have been responsible for raising issues that have been neglected by the major parties. Minor parties can be classified as single-issue (Prohibition Party), ideological (Libertarian), and factional (Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party in 1912).

A realignment occurs when new and powerful issues emerge and disrupt the normal pattern of party politics. Realigning elections offer voters the opportunity to have a large and lasting impact on national policy. In responding to these issues and then by endorsing the action of the party that takes power, the electorate helps to establish a new governing philosophy and its associated policies. A realignment is maintained in part through the development of loyalties among first-time voters to the new governing party and its policies. Realignments have occurred around the time of the Civil War, during the 1890s, and the Great Depression of the 1930s (FDR and the New Deal). Some argued that the GOP sweep of Congress and many state governorships in the 1994 midterm elections represented a new realignment, yet the Republicans suffered a setback in the 1996 election. It may be that recent elections are best explained by dealignment, the weakening of partisan loyalties coupled with the extreme volatility of the electorate.

Because the United States has only two major parties, each of which seeks to gain majority support, they normally tend to avoid controversial or extreme political positions. The parties typically pursue moderate and somewhat overlapping policies. Their appeals are designed to win the support of a diverse electorate with moderate opinions. (See OLC audio, "Jimmy Carter’s Speech to the Democratic National Convention," at www.mhhe.com/patterson5). This form of party competition is reflected in the Republican and Democratic coalitions. Although the two parties’ coalitions are not identical -- Democrats are often identified with the "underdogs" of society while the GOP is usually linked to wealthier citizens and big business -- they do overlap significantly, and each party includes large numbers of individuals who represent nearly every significant interest in the society. Nonetheless, the Democratic and Republican parties sometimes do offer sharply contrasting policy alternatives, particularly in times of political unrest. In recent years differences have revolved around the degree of governmental involvement in policy, i.e., "big government and spending" vs. power being decentralized back to the states. It is at such times that the public has its best opportunity to make a decisive difference through its vote.

America’s party organizations are flexible enough to allow diverse interests to coexist within them; they can also accommodate new ideas and leadership, since they are neither rigid nor closed. Sometimes, ideological or group fissures occur within each party, such as racial polarization among Democrats or religious fundamentalism within the GOP. Although American parties do not represent class-oriented differences as many European parties do, they still represent the public’s best protection against an unresponsive government.

This chapter investigates America’s two-party system and its role in American politics. It traces the historical development of political parties in the United States, examining the role of minor parties and the reasons for the emergence and persistence of the two-party system. The chapter also discussed the effects of this system on policy and coalition formulation.

The main ideas of this chapter are:

Party competition is the mechanism that enables voting majorities to have a substantial influence on the direction of government. This competition peaks during periods of realignment but at all times is a vital aspect of democratic government.

Throughout most of the nation’s history, political competition has centered on two parties. This two-party tendency is explained by the nature of America’s electoral system, political institutions, and political culture. Minor parties exist in the United States but have been unable to compete successfully for governing power.

The Republican and Democratic coalitions are very broad. Each includes a substantial proportion of nearly every economic, ethnic, religious, and regional grouping in the country.

To win an electoral majority, each of the two major parties must appeal to a diverse set of interests; this necessity normally leads them to advocate moderate and somewhat overlapping policies and to avoid taking detailed positions on controversial issues. Only during national crises are America’s parties likely to present the electorate with starkly different policy alternatives.

Political parties serve to link the public with its elected leaders and to organize political conflict. In the United States, this linkage is provided by a two-party system; only the Republican and Democratic parties have any chance of winning control of government. The first political parties (Hamilton and Jefferson) evolved through Jackson’s grass-roots framework to the emergence of Lincoln’s Republican Party in 1860. Since that time, the Republicans and Democrats have monopolized the system, alternating in victory and defeat.

Many other democracies, such as France and Great Britain, have a multiparty system. The fact that the United States has only two major parties is explained by several factors: an electoral system, characterized by single-member districts, that makes it difficult for third parties to compete for power; each party’s willingness to accept political leaders of differing views; and a political culture that stresses compromise and negotiation rather than ideological rigidity. America’s two major parties are also maintained by laws and customs that support their domination of elections. Minor political parties (there have been more than a thousand in the nation’s history) generally have been short lived, although they have been responsible for raising issues that have been neglected by the major parties. Minor parties can be classified as single-issue (Prohibition Party), ideological (Libertarian), and factional (Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party in 1912).

A realignment occurs when new and powerful issues emerge and disrupt the normal pattern of party politics. Realigning elections offer voters the opportunity to have a large and lasting impact on national policy. In responding to these issues and then by endorsing the action of the party that takes power, the electorate helps to establish a new governing philosophy and its associated policies. A realignment is maintained in part through the development of loyalties among first-time voters to the new governing party and its policies. Realignments have occurred around the time of the Civil War, during the 1890s, and the Great Depression of the 1930s (FDR and the New Deal). Some argued that the GOP sweep of Congress and many state governorships in the 1994 midterm elections represented a new realignment, yet the Republicans suffered a setback in the 1996 election. It may be that recent elections are best explained by dealignment, the weakening of partisan loyalties coupled with the extreme volatility of the electorate.

Because the United States has only two major parties, each of which seeks to gain majority support, they normally tend to avoid controversial or extreme political positions. The parties typically pursue moderate and somewhat overlapping policies. Their appeals are designed to win the support of a diverse electorate with moderate opinions. (See OLC audio, "Jimmy Carter’s Speech to the Democratic National Convention," at www.mhhe.com/patterson5). This form of party competition is reflected in the Republican and Democratic coalitions. Although the two parties’ coalitions are not identical -- Democrats are often identified with the "underdogs" of society while the GOP is usually linked to wealthier citizens and big business -- they do overlap significantly, and each party includes large numbers of individuals who represent nearly every significant interest in the society. Nonetheless, the Democratic and Republican parties sometimes do offer sharply contrasting policy alternatives, particularly in times of political unrest. In recent years differences have revolved around the degree of governmental involvement in policy, i.e., "big government and spending" vs. power being decentralized back to the states. It is at such times that the public has its best opportunity to make a decisive difference through its vote.

America’s party organizations are flexible enough to allow diverse interests to coexist within them; they can also accommodate new ideas and leadership, since they are neither rigid nor closed. Sometimes, ideological or group fissures occur within each party, such as racial polarization among Democrats or religious fundamentalism within the GOP. Although American parties do not represent class-oriented differences as many European parties do, they still represent the public’s best protection against an unresponsive government.

Campaigns and Elections: Democracy in Action

Al Gore won the popular vote by 539,947 only slightly more than 180 votes per country. The contest was especially close in Florida and New Mexico, where the margins were 193 and 366 votes respectively.

You can truthfully say that every vote counted.

Counting and Recounting Ballots, the legitimacy of some absentee ballots, and problems with punchcards ballots all ended up in court. Dangling, pregnant, and dimpled chads.

Voting technology is antiquated. Elections are governed by state law and administered by local election officials. Consequently the mode of voting can vary from county to county. Since Campaign 2000 governments at all levels have started to look for ways to improve and election procedures.

In the U.S.,Citizens vote more often and for more offices than citizens of any other democracy. We hold thousands of elections from community college directors to county sheriffs, a half a million persons hold elected state and local offices. In 2000 we elected a president, a vice-president, 33 U.S. senators, all 435 members of U.S. House of Representatives, 11 governors, plus dozens of treasurers, secretaries of state and judges.

ELECTIONS: THE RULES OF THE GAME

(Although the Constitution sets certain conditions and requirement, most electoral rules remain matters of state law.)

Regularly Scheduled ElectionsIf the calendar calls for an election, an election will take place in spite of economic crises or war. Elections for members of Congress occurred the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of even-numbered years.

Odd-number year elections Mid-term elections (mostly state and local officials)

Fixed, Staggered, and Sometimes Limited TermsHouse of Representatives at two years, Senate at six years, and presidency at four. Staggered Only one-third of the senators are up for election at the same. Interestingly in Connecticut Joe Lieberman was reelected to the US Senate in 2000 while being narrowly defeated in his race for vice-president. Had he been victorious in both campaigns, he would have resigned his Senate seat

Some Senators can run for the presidency because elections occur two or four years into a senator’s six year term.

Term LimitsThe Twenty-second Amendment to the Constitution adopted in 1951 limits presidents to two terms. A politician who cannot or has announced he or she will not, run again is called a “lame duck.” Efforts to limit the terms of other politicians have become a major issue in several American states. Terms limits are popular. Voters in 22 states have enacted them for their state legislature, and even more states limit term of governors. Still, despite their popularity, proposals for term limits have repeatedly lost when they have come to a vote in recent sessions of Congress. See Supreme Court guidelines p.195 Congress has refused to propose a constitutional amendment to amendment to impose a limit on congressional terms.

Winner Takes AllThe candidate with the most votes wins in the most American electoral settings. The winner does not need to have majority (more than half the votes cast); in a multicandidate race the winner may have only a plurality (the largest number of votes).

Most American electoral districts are single member districts – an electoral district in which voters choose one representative or official. Examples: senator, governor, U.S. House, and state legislative seats.

Proportional representation an election system in which each party receives the proportion of legislative seats corresponding to its proportion of the vote. Germany, Israel, and Japan. See 195 for details and examples.

The Electoral College System used in electing the president and vice president in which voters for electors pledged to cast their ballots for a particular party’s candidates. The framers devised this system because they did not trust the choice of president to a direct vote of the people. Each state has a many electors as it has representatives and senators. Thus California will have 55 electoral votes, Vermont 3, and NC 15 for 2004 election. Each state legislature is free to determine how its electors are selected. Each party nominates a slate of electors, usually long time party workers. They are expected to cast their votes for the party’s candidate for president and vice president. In our entire history, no “faithless elector” an elector who does not vote for his state’s popular vote winner—has ever cast the deciding vote. The Twelfth Amendment requires electors to vote separately for president and vice president.

It takes a majority of the electoral votes to win. If no candidate gets a majority of the electoral votes for president, the House chooses among the top three candidates for presidency.

Only two major candidates for the presidency, the chances of an election being thrown into the House are remote

But twice in our history the House had to act: Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr in 1800, and 1824 John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson and William Crawford.

Campaign 2000 Our Electoral College system makes it possible for a presidential candidate to receive the most popular votes, as Al Gore did, and not get enough electoral votes to be elected president. Al Gore won the popular vote by over 500,000 votes but lost the Electoral College 271 to 266. This happen in 1824, when Andrew Jackson won 12% more of the vote than John Quincy Adams; in 1876 when Samuel Tilden received more popular votes than Rutherford B. Hayes; and in 1888 when Benjamin Harrison won in the Electoral College although Grover Cleveland received more popular votes. Only in 1888 and 2000 did the Electoral College award the presidency to the candidate with fewer popular votes.

Campaigns and Elections: Democracy in Action

Al Gore won the popular vote by 539,947 only slightly more than 180 votes per country. The contest was especially close in Florida and New Mexico, where the margins were 193 and 366 votes respectively. You can truthfully say that every vote counted.

Counting and Recounting Ballots, the legitimacy of some absentee ballots, and problems with punchcards ballots all ended up in court. Dangling, pregnant, and dimpled chads.

In 2000, debates had a different format, one of which had voters asking George W. Bush and Al Gore questions. The debates did not result in large numbers of voters changing their minds about the candidates; rather they reinforced voters’ prior choices. Al Gore had the advantage of previous debate experience but was seen by critics and even some as too aggressive and confrontational. Bush avoided serious mistakes and met or exceeded expectations as a result. He didn’t win but he didn’t lose.

Ralph Nader, the Green party—third party, candidate charged that it was unfair for the two major parties to debate while excluding other candidates.

The Electoral College sharply influences presidential politics. To win a presidential election, a candidate must appeal successfully to the big states of California, Texas, Ohio, and Illinois. CA electoral vote of 54 in 2000 exceeded the combined electoral votes of the 14 least populous states plus the District of Columbia. As a result, candidates spend little time in states unless they have a chance of carrying it, nor do they waste time in a state in which their party is a sure winner. In 1960, Nixon was the last candidate to campaign in all 50 states, Kennedy focused on the more populous states in which he had a chance to win.

2000 presidential election, where George W. Bush received fewer popular votes than Albert Gore Jr., but received a majority of electoral votes.

NOTES:

Narrowest Margin between the winner and loser Florida (Critical State)Recounts were ordered, ended after 5 weeks, Bush won FL and the election 271 electoral votes to 267By traditional standards Gore should have won: The country was at peace, economy was booming, unemployment less than 4 percents, inflation scarcely, stock market record a record high, Yet Gore trailed in the opinion polls

Why? Gore had to deal with the scandals Gore was a liberalDenounced large corporations and opposed giving tax breaks to “the rich.”

3. Explain how candidate appeal and the issues played an important role in the 2000 election. p. 188-189 Most political scientists agree that issues, while important, are not as central to the decision process as party identification and candidate appeal. Most candidates are obscure/vague on the issues. In times of peace and prosperity, voters will reward the incumbent; if the nation falls short on either, voters will elect the opposition. But good economic times do not always lead to the retention of an administration, as Al Gore learned in 2000. Part of Gore’s problem in 2000 was that only half of the public saw their family’s financial situation as having gotten better. Republicans claimed that the American people and not the government that produced the strong economy. If the party in official does poorly at the polls it’s typically because of the economy or their

leadership skills are questionable in the case of Bill Clinton (and the democrats who lost ground) in 1994. Newt Gingrich captured the attention of voters with his Contract with America (balanced budget, term limits in Congress, and other reforms). In the 2000 election Republicans put forth plans to privatize Social Security, foster better public schools, and provide prescription drugs for seniors. Democrats complained that Republicans were stealing their issues. The bitterness and partisanship of the protracted ballot counting controversy in Florida following the 2000 votes was brought to an end by the Supreme Court, provides the Democrat with an issue for the future. The 2000 presidential election was exceedingly close. Voters and political gurus learned the importance of just a few votes. Both parties will never take votes for granted and reach supporters and potential supporters.

Election Wrap-UpGore concedes; Bush becomes 43rd president

by Beth Rowen

This article was posted on December 15, 2000.

ON DECEMBER 13, 2000, 36 days after the election and the flurry of lawsuits, counter suits, appeals, and bitter partisan bickering that followed, Texas governor George W. Bush became the president-elect, prevailing over Vice President Al Gore in the electoral college by the narrowest of margins, 271–267. Gore dominated the popular vote, however, winning 50,158,094 votes over Bush's 49,820,518.

One day after the divided U.S. Supreme Court handed down its monumental 5–4 decision that essentially cleared the path for Bush to claim the White House, Gore conceded the presidency in a speech marked by its integrity. An hour later, Bush spoke to the nation in an equally dignified address.

Healing A Divided Nation

Both men called on Americans to begin the healing process and end the rancor that has divided the nation, Congress, and even the U.S. Supreme Court.

"I call on all Americans—I particularly urge all who stood with us—to unite behind our next president," Gore said. Bush echoed that sentiment, saying, "Together, guided by a spirit of common sense, common courtesy, and common goals, we can unite and inspire the American citizens."

Electoral College Triumph, Popular Vote Defeat

When Bush takes the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2001, he will be the fourth president to have triumphed in the electoral college but lost the popular vote. The others were John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, and Benjamin Harrison. Adams is also the only other son of a former president to occupy the Oval Office in his own right.

The 2000 election will go down in history, not only for the gridlock in Florida, but also for the way in which it split the Supreme Court and Congress. The court divided 5–4 on partisan lines in its decision to reverse the Florida Supreme Court, which had ordered manual recounts, saying the recount was not treating all

President-elect George W. Bush flashes a "W" sign after addressing the nation from

the Texas House of Representatives on Wednesday, Dec. 13, 2000. (Source:AP)

ballots equally, and was thus a violation of the Constitution's equal protection and due process guarantees. Never before has the Supreme Court stepped in to rule on a federal election.

In a scathing dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."

Evenly Divided Senate

The Senate will be evenly divided, 50–50, since Gore's running mate, Sen. Joe Lieberman, lost the vice presidency but won his reelection bid for senator from Connecticut. As vice president, Dick Cheney will cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate. Republicans will hold the majority in the 221–210 House of Representatives, with two independents and one vacancy.

Election for the Record Books

It was clear from November 7 on that the 2000 election would be one for the record books. Indeed, at different times on election night and in the wee hours of November 8, each of the candidates was declared the winner, later to be stripped of the title president-elect. On November 11, after the mandatory machine recount revealed that the two candidates were only a few hundred votes apart, the election began its tortuous journey through the judicial system, when the Bush camp sued in federal district court to prohibit manual recounts, and ultimately ended in the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the end, tens of thousands of undervotes—votes that were never tallied by voting machines for a number of reasons—remain uncounted, casting doubt on who actually won the election.

The Drama of the Florida Recounts

While the campaign itself elicited yawns from the public, the drama in Florida engrossed the nation and undoubtedly signified the influence of and the public's reliance on the cable news stations, which offered round-the-clock coverage and commentary on the spectacle. It seemed that just when voters had had enough of the litigation, a bomb would drop, providing ample fodder for new debate and discussion.

Eventually, the country will move past the 2000 federal elections, and the debacle will become a footnote in history.

Running For Congress

Safe seat an elected office that is predictably won by one party or the other

Coattail effect the boost candidates of the president’s party receive in an election because of the president’s popularity.

The House of RepresentativesEvery two years, as many as 1000 candidates—including approximately 4000 incumbents—campaign for Congress.

Incumbents are rarely challenged for renomination from within their own party.

Steps:1. Mounting a primary campaign --raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to mount a serious campaign

from friends, acquaintances, and interest groups. 2. Personal organization 3. Hire a campaign managers and techinicians, buy television and other advertising, conduct polls, and pay

for a variety of activities. 4. Gain visibility: personal contacts, on hand shaking and door to door campaigning5. Campaigning for the general election: Incumbents are rarely challenged for renomination from within

their own party. Why do they have this advantage? Incumbent have “perks” including free mailing to constituents (franking privilege), free use of broadcast studios to record radio and television tapes to be sent to local media outlets, and most importantly a large staff to perform countless favors (i.e. press reports and send mail back to the district)

The Senate (Big Time Politics)--6 year terms and national exposure--campaigning is serious tense competition--campaigning is costly amounting to millionsThe essential tactics are to raise lots of money, get good people involved, make as many personal contacts as possible, avoid giving the opposition any positive publicity, and have a simple campaign theme.--Incumbency is an advantage (although not as much as for representatives)

Running for presidentPresidential elections are major media events, positive television coverage is essential, negative ads should be avoided but have played a prominent role in numerous elections. Stages:

1. The Nomination --the sooner the better regarding starting a campaign. Money, assembling an organization, recognition, lining up supporters are all critical tactical decisions in a seeking nomination.

*There is a complex maze of presidential primaries and caucuses --Presidential Primaries –State presidential primaries have become the main method of choosing delegates to the national convention. Today more than 3.4 of the states use presidential primaries. In 2000, 84% of the Republican delegates were chosen in the primaries.

Voters in states like Iowa and New Hampshire bask in media attention for weeks and even months before they cast the first ballots in the presidential sweepstakes. Presidential Primaries have two main features: a beauty contest or popularity vote in which voters indicate which candidate they prefer but do not actually elect delegates to the convention. And actual voting for delegates pledged to a candidate. --Caucuses and Conventions –a caucus is a meeting of local party members to choose party officials and/or candidates for public office and to decide the platform. About a dozen states use a caucus and/or convention system for choosing delegates. This is the oldest method of choosing delegates and differs from the primary system because it centers on the party organization. The best-known example of a caucus is in Iowa, because Iowa has held the earliest caucuses in the most recent presidential nominating contests. Every January or February in a presidential election year, Iowans have the opportunity to attend Republican and Democratic precinct meetings. Large numbers of voters attend these small town meetings and have a chance to meet and exchange views on issues and candidates, rather than merely pulling a lever in a voting booth or placing an X on the ballot.

DILEMMA: Republican candidates have to appeal to the more intensely conservative Republican partisans, those who vote and support campaigns. Democratic hopefuls have to appeal to liberal wing of their party as

well as minorities, union members, and environmental activists. But the win the general election, candidates have to win support from moderates and pragmatic voters, many of whom do not vote in the primaries.

--Strategies - Candidates must exhibit their ability to manage the media’s expectations of their performance in Iowa and New Hampshire. Some skip Iowa, focus on NH. Others run hard in both places hoping to receive positive media attention gaining the spotlight.

2. Campaign at the convention - Delegates elected in primaries, caucuses, or state conventions assemble at their National Party Convention The national meeting of delegates elected in primaries, caucuses, or state conventions who assemble once every four years to nominate candidates for president and vice president, ratify the party platform, elect officers, and adopt rules. See the Role of the Convention p.204

-Party Platform defines the direction a party wants to take. -The Vice – Presidential Nominee Sometimes the decision is made at the convention, but more often it is done prior to the convention for enhance media coverage and momentum going into the convention. The VP candidate is selected on the basis of the presidential candidate choosing one who will “balance the ticket” Walter Mondale in 1984 choose Geraldine Ferraro. He hoped to appeal to women voters. Bush ignored the idea and choose a fellow Texan, Dick Cheney who changed his residency to Wyoming for constitutional reasons.

The Value of Conventions time of coming together to endorse a party program and to build unity and enthusiasm for the fall campaign.

Nomination by petition this process avoids the grueling process of primary elections and conventions. John Anderson 1980 and H.Ross Perot in 1992 met the various state petition requirement. In 2000, the petition process was a simple as submitting the signatures of 2% of voters who voted in last election in North Carolina (52,000). Patrick Buchanan candidate of the Reform party, was able to get his name on the ballot in all but one state and the District of Columbia, Ralph Nader, candidate of the Green party in all but seven states.

3. The General Election: Mobilizing support in the general electionConvention adjourns immediately after the presidential and vice presidential candidates deliver their acceptance speeches to the delegates and the national television audience.

--Presidential Debates Televised presidential debates are a major feature of elections. 1960 Kennedy and Nixon boosted Kennedy’s campaign and elevated role of television in national politics.

In 1976, Gerald Ford debated Jimmy Carter and both made mistakes regarding foreign policy.

In 1980 and 1984, debates confirmed that Ronald Reagan’s public view was that of a decent, warm, and dignified.

Bill Clinton’s debates with Bush 1992 and 1996 Bob Dole

In 2000, debates had a different format, one of which had voters asking George W. Bush and Al Gore questions. The debates did not result in large numbers of voters changing their minds about the candidates; rather they reinforced voters’ prior choices. Al Gore had the advantage of previous debate experience but was seen by critics and even some as too aggressive and confrontational. Bush avoided serious mistakes and met or exceeded expectations as a result. He didn’t win but he didn’t lose.

Ralph Nader, the Green party—third party, candidate charged that it was unfair for the two major parties to debate while excluding other candidates.

The Supreme Court decision that ended the recounts, Bush won Florida electoral votes to 267.

MONEY IN AMERICAN ELECTIONS

Campaigns cost money, and comes from a variety of sources: One’s own wealth, political parties, interested individuals, or interest groups. Interested money contributions by individuals or groups in hopes of influencing the outcome of an election and subsequently influencing policy.

Scandals concerning/involving money are not new e.g. Teapot Dome Scandal in which a cabinet member in 1925 was convicted of accepting bribes, Congress passed the Corrupt Practices Act which required disclosure of campaign fundsWatergate in 1972 an illegal break in of Democratic party headquarters by persons associated with the Nixon campaign to steal campaign documents and plant listening devices led to discoveries of secret bank accounts for political and campaign purposes outside the country. In the early 1990s, Charles Keating and his failed Lincoln Savings and Loan spotlighted the possibility that undue influence comes with large contributions. Keating asked five senators to intervene on his behalf with federal bank regulators, they had received perks from him (namely campaign contributions). The Keating Five included John McCain, a strong advocate for campaign finance reform.

Efforts to Reform Three basic strategies:

1. imposing limitations on giving, receiving, and spending political money2. requiring public disclosure of the sources and uses of political money3. giving governmental subsidies to presidential candidates, campaigns, and parties.

The Federal Election Campaign Act In 1971, Congress passed two significant laws dealing with campaign funding. The Federal Election Campaign Act FECA limited amounts that candidates for federal office can spend on advertising, required the disclosure of the sources of campaign funds as well as how they are spent, and required political action committees to register with the government and report all major contributions and expenditures.

This law also provided a checkoff that allowed taxpayers to contribute $1 to a fund to subsidize presidential campaigns by checking a box on their income tax form. That option is now up to $3.

In 1974, Congress passed and Gerald Ford passed the most sweeping campaign reform measure in U.S. History. Amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act that established more realistic limits on contributions and spending, tightened disclosure, and provided for public financing of presidential campaigns. Buckley v. Valeo decision, which overturned several of its provisions on grounds that they violated the First Amendment. The Supreme Court made a distinction between campaign spending and campaign contributions, holding that the First Amendment protects spending and thus Congress had no control over how much one spent on their own campaign but only on the contributions to others.

Soft money Money contributed to a state or local party for party-building purposes that does not have to be disclosed under federal law. National political parties, corporations, labor unions, and individuals could give unlimited amounts to state parties, provided the funds are used for party building purposes –registration drives, mailings, and advertising, which do not specify a candidate by name.

The most serious problem with the presidential campaign finance system is NO LIMITS are set on the amount of such contributions. AND it is used to influence the election of federal candidates

Issue Advocacy Advertising

Issue advocacy commercial advertising on radio and television advocating a particular positions on an issue, paid for by interest groups and designed to influence voters’ choices on election day. It is unlimited because it deals with issues, not candidates. See Table 9-1 for Top Ten Issue Advertisers, 2000. These ads not only help the candidates interest groups prefer or punish the candidate they oppose; they also force candidates to discuss the interest group’s agenda. The major concern is accountability since interest groups are not require to disclose how much they spend or how they raise their money, voters have a hard time knowing the source of the funds.

Candidates’ Personal WealthCampaign finance legislation can’t restrict rich candidates from giving heavily to their own campaigns.

Independent expenditures giving by groups or individuals who are separate from political candidates. This loophole has been permitted by the Supreme Court on free speech grounds. Groups sympathetic too, but independent of, candidates are allowed to raise and spend unlimited funds to help elect them or to defeat their opponents. Issue ads have largely replaced independent expenditures in recent election cycles because interest groups can spend the same amount of money without having to disclose the activity. The NRA or National Education Association continue to use independent expenditures, however, perhaps because they urge voters to vote for or vote against specific candidates words you cannot include in an issue ad.

CONSEQUENCES of Current Campaign FinancesEscalating costsA growing dependence on PAC moneyDecreasing visibility and competitiveness of challengersWealthy candidates using their own fundingAnd the Danger of large contributions altering election outcomes

IMPROVING ELECTIONS-Reforming Presidential Primaries—primaries open the nominating process to more voters than do caucus or convention methods for selecting presidential candidates. Some say primary season is too long, others say participation is so low that only a small number of voters actually have their say. Some question whether primaries test the qualities needed to be president. -Reforming the Nominating Process—critics call for a national presidential primary = simple, direct, and representative. It would attract large numbers and reduce the wear and tear of candidates early on. Some call for regional primaries, some call for an increase in the use of the caucus system. -Reforming the Electoral College Critics call for direct popular election. The current 538 Electoral College member has had proposed adding another 102 electoral votes to be awarded on a winner takes all basis to the candidate with the most votes. This would prevent House involvement and ensure election of the popular vote candidate. Only after problems such as in 2000 are Americans concerned with procedures and such.-Reforming How We Vote—Perhaps we should update voting technology, including internet. -Reforming Campaign Finance –Pros and Cons on soft money, issue advocacy, personal wealth, PAC contributions

Considering Debate on the Electoral College (Seminar/Debate)

What is the Electoral College?

The Electoral College, administered by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is not a place, it is a process that began as part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution. The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election

by popular vote. The people of the United States vote for the electors who then vote for the President. Read more about how the terms "Elector" and "Electoral College" came into usage.

How Many Votes do States Get?

Each State is allocated a number of electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives. The number of electors for a State is based on the number of members in the House of Representatives who represent the State, plus two for the State's Senators. A State's Congressional delegation

is determined by the State's population.

The number of people in each State is determined by the Federal census, which is taken every ten years and includes a count of every State's population.

The 2000 Federal census determined the number of electors allocated per State in the 2004 Presidential Election.

The Certificates of Ascertainment confirm the names of the appointed electors.

The Certificates of Vote show the official tally of electors' votes in each State.

Who Selects the Electors?

The process for selecting electors varies throughout the United States. Generally, the political parties nominate electors at their State party conventions or by a vote of the party's central committee in each State.

Electors are often selected to recognize their service and dedication to their political party. They may be State-elected officials, party leaders, or persons who have a personal or political affiliation with the Presidential

candidate.

Then the voters in each State choose the electors on the day of the general election. The electors' names may or may not appear on the ballot below the name of the candidates running for President, depending on the

procedure in each State.

There are some restrictions for appointing electors.

Certificates of Ascertainment confirm the names of the appointed electors.

What are the qualifications to be an elector?

The U.S. Constitution contains very few provisions relating to the qualifications of electors. Article II, section 1, clause 2 provides that no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the

United States, shall be appointed an Elector. As a historical matter, the 14th Amendment provides that State officials who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States or given aid and comfort to its

enemies are disqualified from serving as electors. This prohibition relates to the post-Civil War era.

A State's certification of electors on its Certificates of Ascertainment is generally sufficient to establish the qualifications of electors.

Is my vote for President and Vice President meaningful in the Electoral College system?

Yes, within your State your vote has a great deal of significance. Under the Electoral College system, we do not elect the President and Vice President through a direct nation-wide vote. The Presidential election is decided by the combined results of 51 State elections (in this context, the term "State" includes DC). It is possible that an

elector could ignore the results of the popular vote, but that occurs very rarely. Your vote helps decide which candidate receives your State's electoral votes.

The founders of the nation devised the Electoral College system as part of their plan to share power between the States and the national government. Under the Federal system adopted in the U.S. Constitution, the nation-wide popular vote has no legal significance. As a result, it is possible that the electoral votes awarded on the basis of State elections could produce a different result than the nation-wide popular vote. Nevertheless, the individual

citizen's vote is important to the outcome of each State election.

Must electors vote for the candidate who won their State's popular vote?

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular

vote. These pledges fall into two categories -- electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

Which States bind electors to popular vote results? Refer to Electors Bound by State Law and Pledges to find out.

The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting

an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution.

No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.

Today, it is rare for electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of electors have

voted as pledged.

How is it possible for the electoral vote to produce a different result than the nation-wide popular vote?

It is important to remember that the President is not chosen by a nation-wide popular vote. The electoral vote totals determine the winner, not the statistical plurality or majority a candidate may have in the nation-wide vote

totals. Electoral votes are awarded on the basis of the popular vote in each State.

Note that 48 out of the 50 States award electoral votes on a winner-takes-all basis (as does DC). For example, all 55 of California's electoral votes go to the winner of that State election, even if the margin of victory is only

50.1 percent to 49.9 percent.

In a multi-candidate race where candidates have strong regional appeal, as in 1824, it is quite possible that a candidate who collects the most votes on a nation-wide basis will not win the electoral vote. In a two-candidate

race, that is less likely to occur. But it did occur in the Hayes/Tilden election of 1876 and the Harrison/Cleveland election of 1888 due to the statistical disparity between vote totals in individual State

elections and the national vote totals. This also occured in the 2000 presidential election, where George W. Bush received fewer popular votes than Albert Gore Jr., but received a majority of electoral votes.

Why do we still have the Electoral College?

The Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution. It would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system.

Note that the 12th Amendment, the expansion of voting rights, and the use of the popular vote in the States as the vehicle for selecting electors has substantially changed the process.

Many different proposals to alter the Presidential election process have been offered over the years, such as direct nation-wide election by the People, but none have been passed by Congress and sent to the States for

ratification. Under the most common method for amending the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the States.

What proposals have been made to change the Electoral College system?

Reference sources indicate that over the past 200 years, over 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on

changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The American Bar Association has criticized the Electoral College as "archaic" and "ambiguous" and its polling showed 69 percent of lawyers favored

abolishing it in 1987. But surveys of political scientists have supported continuation of the Electoral College. Public opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58 percent in 1967; 81

percent in 1968; and 75 percent in 1981.

Opinions on the viability of the Electoral College system may be affected by attitudes toward third parties. Third parties have not fared well in the Electoral College system. Candidates with regional appeal such as

Governor Thurmond in 1948 and Governor Wallace in 1968 won blocs of electoral votes in the South, which may have affected the outcome, but did not come close to seriously challenging the major party winner. The last third party or splinter party candidate to make a strong showing was Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 (Progressive, also known as the Bull Moose Party). He finished a distant second in electoral and popular votes (taking 88 of the 266 electoral votes needed to win). Although Ross Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote nationwide in 1992, he did not win any electoral votes since he was not particularly strong in any one or several states. Any candidate who wins a majority or plurality of the popular vote has a good chance of winning in the Electoral

College, but there are no guarantees (see the results of 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000 elections).

How do the 538 electoral votes get divided among the States?

The number of electoral votes allotted to each State corresponds to the number of Representatives and Senators that each State sends to Congress. The distribution of electoral votes among the States can vary every 10 years

depending on the results of the United States Census.

One of the primary functions of the Census is to reapportion the 435 members of the House of Representatives among the States, based on the current population. The reapportionment of the House determines the division of

electoral votes among the States. In the Electoral College, each State gets one electoral vote for each of its Representatives in the House, and one electoral vote for each of its two Senators.

Thus, every state has at least 3 electoral votes, because the Constitution grants each State two Senators and at least one Representative. In addition to the 535 electoral votes divided among the States, the District of

Columbia has three electoral votes because the 23rd Amendment granted it the same number of votes as the least populated State.

If a State gains or loses a Congressional district, it will also gain or lose an electoral vote. As a result of the Census conducted in 2000, the number of electoral votes allotted to certain States changed for the 2004 election.

See, Allocation of Electoral Votes based on the 1990 Census and Allocation of Electoral Votes based on the 2000 Census.

What is the difference between the winner-takes-all rule and proportional voting, and which States follow which rule?

There are 48 States that have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than

any other candidate) takes all of the State's electoral votes.

Only two States, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those States, there could be a split of electoral votes among candidates through the State's system for proportional allocation of votes. For

example, Maine has four electoral votes and two Congressional districts. It awards one electoral vote per Congressional district and two by the state-wide, "at-large" vote. It is possible for Candidate A to win the first

district and receive one electoral vote, Candidate B to win the second district and receive one electoral vote, and Candidate C, who finished a close second in both the first and second districts, to win the two at-large electoral

votes. Although this is a possible scenario, it has not actually occurred in recent elections.

Can citizens in U.S. Territories vote for President?

No, the Electoral College system does not provide for residents of U.S. Territories, such as Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and American Samoa to vote for President. Unless citizens in U.S. Territories have

official residency (domicile) in a U.S. State or the District of Columbia (and vote by absentee ballot or travel to their State to vote), they cannot vote in the Presidential election. Note that prior to the adoption of the 23rd

Amendment, DC residents could not vote in the Presidential election.

The political parties may authorize voters in primary elections in Territories to select delegates to represent them at the political party conventions. But that process does not affect the Electoral College system.

What would happen if two candidates tied in a State's popular vote, or there was a dispute as to the winner?

A tie is a statistically remote possibility even in smaller States. But if a State's popular vote were to come out as a tie between candidates, State law would govern as to what procedure would be followed in breaking the tie. A

tie would not be known of until late November or early December, after a recount and after the Secretary of State had certified the election results. Federal law would allow a State to hold a run-off election.

A very close finish could also result in a run-off election or legal action to decide the winner. Under Federal law (3 U.S.C. section 5), State law governs on this issue, and would be conclusive in determining the selection of Electors. The law provides that if States have laws to determine controversies or contests as to the selection of

Electors, those determinations must be completed six days prior to the day the Electors meet.

NORTH CAROLINA -- 14 electoral votes cast for George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney1,631,163 popular votes cast for George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney

Population, 1990 census, 6,628,637

Certificate of Ascertainment   |   Certificate of Vote

ElectorsSteve RaderSam Currin

Linda Whitener (replacing Mike Gorman)Jeff Mixon

Dewitt RhoadesMarshall Hurley

A. Dial GrayTom DwigginsMargaret KingClaude BillingsJoe L. Morgan

Barbara Holt (replacing Fred Steen)Fran BarnhartRobert Rector

When the Electoral College “FAILED”

http://www.270towin.com/

1800 Election Facts During this election, Electors had 2 votes each for President, and all but one voted for both candidates in their party. Therefore, the map

shown is broken out by party, as opposed to candidate No candidate received a majority of electors, Jefferson elected by vote of House of Representatives Controversy over electoral tie vote led to passage of 12th Amendment (See: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf/con023.pdf) One Elector in Rhode Island cast one of his votes for John Jay Maryland Electors split their vote, with 5 each for the Federalist and D-R candidates North Carolina Electors split their vote, with 8 votes for the D-R and 4 for the Federalist candidates Pennsylvania Electors split their vote, with 8 votes for the D-R and 7 for the Federalist candidates Issues of the Day: Alien & Sedition Acts, XYZ Affair, Relations with France Federal Capital moved from Philadelphia to Washington, DC in 1800

1800

Thomas Jefferson (D-R)

    Electoral 73     Popular Unknown

Aaron Burr (D-R)

    Electoral 73     Popular Unknown

John Adams (F) (I)

    Electoral 65     Popular Unknown

Charles C. Pinckney (F)

    Electoral 64

1824 Election Facts Delaware moves from 4 back to 3 votes; and has maintained that number for 180 years No candidate received a majority of Electors, Adams elected by vote of House of Representatives 1st election where popular vote retained for history; eventual winner Adams received only about 32% Adams is the son of 2nd President, John Adams Delaware Electors split their vote: 2 for Crawford, 1 for Adams Illinois Electors split their vote: 2 for Jackson, 1 for Adams Louisiana Electors split their vote: 3 for Jackson, 2 for Adams Maryland Electors split their vote: 7 for Jackson, 3 for Adams, 1 for Crawford New York Electors split their vote: 26 for Adams, 5 for Crawford, 4 for Clay, 1 for Jackson One of only 4 elections (1824, 1876, 1888, 2000) where the popular vote winner was defeated Issues of the Day: Monroe Doctrine

1824

John Quincy Adams (D-R)

    Electoral 84     Popular 108,740

Andrew Jackson (D-R)

    Electoral 99     Popular 153,544

William H. Crawford (D-R)

    Electoral 41     Popular 40,856

Henry Clay (D-R)

    Electoral 37

1876 Election Facts Welcome: Colorado becomes a state during this election cycle One of most controversial elections ever; Electoral Commission awarded it to Hayes One of only 4 elections (1824, 1876, 1888, 2000) where the popular vote winner was defeated Issues of the Day: Corruption, Financial Panic of 1873

1876

Rutherford B. Hayes (R)

    Electoral 185     Popular 4,036,298

Samuel J. Tilden (D)

    Electoral 184     Popular 4,300,590 (R) = Republican(D) = Democratic

1888 Election Facts Harrison is grandson of 9th President, William Henry Harrison One of only 4 elections (1824, 1876, 1888, 2000) where the popular vote winner was defeated Issues of the Day: Free Trade vs. Protectionism

1888

Benjamin Harrison (R)

    Electoral 233     Popular 5,439,853

Grover Cleveland (D) (I)

    Electoral 168     Popular 5,540,309 (R) = Republican(D) = Democratic(I) = Incumbent1960 Election Facts

Welcome: Alaska and Hawaii become states during this election cycle Vice-Presidential Succession: Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963, replaced by Lyndon B. Johnson Nixon won Oklahoma; however one Elector cast a vote for Byrd Alabama Electors split their vote: 6 for Byrd, 5 for Kennedy Kennedy is first Catholic, and youngest person ever elected President Issues of the Day: Sputnik/space (keeping up with USSR technologically)

1960

John F. Kennedy (D)

    Electoral 303     Popular 34,227,096

Richard M. Nixon (R)

    Electoral 219     Popular 34,107,646

Harry F. Byrd (D)

    Electoral 15     Popular 116,248 (D) = Democratic(R) = Republican

***1912 Election Facts Welcome: Arizona and New Mexico become states during this election cycle Socialist Party candidate Eugene V. Debs received about 900,000 votes, but no Electoral Votes Taft's 8 Electoral Votes fewest ever for an incumbent Roosevelt won California; however two Electors cast votes for Wilson Issues of the Day: Trusts (Monopolies): The Standard Oil case of 1911; 16th Amendment (Federal Income Tax, ratified in

1913)

1912

Woodrow Wilson (D)

    Electoral 435     Popular 6,293,454

Theodore Roosevelt (P)

    Electoral 88     Popular 4,119,207

William H. Taft (R) (I)

    Electoral 8     Popular 3,483,922 (D) = Democratic(P) = Progressive

BATTLEGROUND STATES

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/politics/campaign2004/03%20battleground.pdf

Soft Money’s Impact at a Glance

  Soft $ Search Home The following charts show at a glance the impact that soft money has had on both parties’ political fundraising over the past decade. All the numbers are based on numbers compiled by the Federal Election Commission.

Since soft money fundraising first started being reported in 1991, both parties have collected increasing amounts of it. Historically, soft money has peaked in presidential election years, when it’s used to support each party’s presidential nominees. But it’s also been on the rise in mid-term elections, when only congressional seats are on the ballot. Since 1991-92, both parties have been roughly equal in their ability to raise soft money contributions. In 2001, with a popular GOP president in the White House, Republicans started edging ahead of the Democrats in soft money fundraising. That trend is likely to continue, and possibly intensify, in 2002. Click here to see the numbers

When it comes to “hard money” contributions -- money that can be used for any purpose, Republicans have historically held a strong lead in party fundraising. The GOP’s direct mail solicitations have raised hundreds of millions of dollars for the party each election cycle from relatively small donors. Democrats have long admired the Republicans’ ability to raise these funds, but they’ve never been able to match them. Click here to see the numbers

When both hard and soft money contributions are added together, the Republicans have enjoyed a consistent advantage in overall fundraising. This advantage grew even wider in 2001, and even more so after September 11. In 2002, Republicans will try to translate support for President Bush into money for the GOP. Click here to see the numbers

So who’s more dependent on soft money? Both parties have relied more and more heavily on soft money to fill their party’s coffers with each passing election cycle. But, as this chart shows, the Democrats have been more dependent on the unlimited soft money contributions than their Republican counterparts. By 2001, just over half the money the Democrats collected came from soft money. If that source of campaign funds is eliminated by reform legislation, and upheld in the courts, the impact on both parties’ fundraising will be enormous. Click here to see the numbers

McCain-Feingold Bill --banning soft money. Passed the U.S. Senate in 2001. The most visible advocate of reform is Arizona Senator John McCain, who ironically was part of a scandal involving campaign contributions. McCain made campaign finance reform a theme of his 2000 presidential campaign, forcing his rival, George W. Bush, to characterize himself as a “reformer with results.” Eventually, the McCain-Feingold-Cochran Bill, passed in the Senate by a vote of 59 to 41. Common Cause led the fight to ban soft money, the huge, unlimited campaign contributions that were undermining the federal system of public financing and contribution limits. In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was enacted and a year later an historic U.S. Supreme Court decision, McConnell v. FEC, upheld the law. Initial studies show that the law has effectively banned soft money and pushed political parties and candidates to seek small donations from a broad base of contributors, broadening the participation of average citizens in campaigns.

On January 30, 1976, the Supreme Court of the United States issued the infamous Buckley v. Valeo ruling that struck down campaign finance reforms intended to reduce the undue influence of wealthy interests on election outcomes.  By wrongly equating big money in politics with free speech, the Court has blocked reforms to our electoral process that would let ordinary Americans determine who runs for office, who wins elections, and what issues dominate the agenda.Buckley v. Valeo decision, which overturned several of its provisions on grounds that they violated the First Amendment. The Supreme Court made a distinction between campaign spending and campaign contributions, holding that the First Amendment protects spending and thus Congress had no control over how much one spent on their own campaign but only on the contributions to others.

Picking the President Jeff Elder &WM Pitzer/Staff

The Charlotte Observer 10/31/04

Most Americans believe that individuals elect the president. Actually, it’s not individuals, but rather “states” that have elected each of our 43 presidents.

Individuals vote for their candidate of choice, called the “popular vote.” But the votes that decide who sits in the Oval Office are the “electoral votes” assigned to each state. The votes are equal to each states’ combined number of U.S. congressional seats (senators plus representatives in the House). The Constitutional Convention of 1787 considered the election of presidents by direct popular vote but feared that without sufficient information from outside of the voters’ home areas, people would naturally vote for a “favorite son” from their region. At worst, no one would receive a popular majority. At best, the president would be chosen by the largest, most populous states. To solve the problem, they agreed on a method of indirect popular election, which become the Electoral College. With the exception of an amendment to accommodate emerging political parties in 1804, the workings of the Electoral College remain unchanged. The term “college” refers to a body of persons that act as a unit. Much like the Vatican’s “college of cardinals” who advise the Pope and vote in papal elections. First used in the early 1800s, “college of electors” was written into federal law in 1845.

HOW THE PROCESS WORKS:

1. Before the election, political parties in each state select electors who support their candidate.2. After the election the names of the electoral grops and how many votes they received (it’s winner-take-

all but in two states), are listed on seven documents called Certificates of Ascertainment, signed and sealed by the governor.

3. One certificate (along with two copies) is sent by registered mail to the National Archives and Records Administration in Washington, D.C. It is recorded and checked for accuracy.

4. On Dec.13, electors supporting the candidate who won the popular vote and cast their votes. They are recorded on six Certificates of Vote and mailed with the other six Certificates of Ascertainment to:

National Archives (2)Secretary of State (2)President of the U.S. Senate (1)Chief judge of federal district court (1)

5. On Jan. 6, electoral votes are counted before a joint session of Congress. The candidate receiving a majority of votes is officially declared president-elect. If no candidate receives at least 270 votes, the House of Representatives chooses from the three highest electoral vote getters with all representatives of a state combining to cast one vote.

Essay Questions2. “It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today’s decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know the complete certainty of the identity of the winner of this year’s presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.”

Justice John Paul StevensDissenting Opinion

Bush v. Gore, 2000

Using the quote above and your knowledge of United States politics, perform the following tasks:

a. What happened during the 2000 presidential election?b. What central point is Justice Stevens making about the effect of the Bush v. Gore decision on the

judicial system?

c. Explain one action by the judicial system during the Florida controversy after the 2000 presidential election that provoked criticism by Justice Stevens and others.

d. Explain one opposing argument to Justice Steven’s position that supports the Supreme Court’s majority decision in the case.