Dr Simon Boucher ~ bouches@tcd.ie

Political Parties (contd) -----

US Elections

Government and Politics of the USAWeek 4 HT:

• Dr Andrew Glencross will take over lecturing from week 6 Hilary Term till week 1 of Trinity Term

• I’ll retains overall responsibility for the course, and will remain accessible via email

• I’ll return in week 2 of Trinity Term for the final few weeks of the year

Introducing Andrew Glencross

Lecturing handover

Hillary Term Essay

• What does this means for Obama?

• What does this means for Hillary?

• What does this means for Edwards?

• Deadline: 5pm, Monday 10th of March (Hillary term wk 10) • Submit essay online via www.turnitin.com and hard copy to

Jane Suiter

• Choose from 1 of 3 titles; strict 2,000 word limit…– “In practice, Congress functions not as a unified institution,

but as a collection of semi-autonomous committees that seldom act in unison“. Discuss this view, and explain your response.

– What are the consequences of pluralism and federalism for the policy-making process in the US? Evaluate these consequences with reference to at least two policy areas.

– Discuss the role played by money in US Presidential elections. Elaborate your response in the context of attempts at campaign finance reform since the 1970s and the 2008 Presidential election.

• Details on course website - http://uspoliticstcd.pbwiki.com/Course-assessment

Student Politics Society Event

Speakers…• Robert Faucher: US Deputy Ambassador to Ireland

• Dr Patrick Geoghan: Dept of History

• Dr Andrew Glencross: Dept of Political Science

• Me…

US Presidential Elections for DummiesTuesday 29th of January, 7.30pm Emmet Theatre

The Democrats this week

• A week dominated by Bill Clinton, Race, and the economy

• SC turnout was “enormous”• Obama “routed” Hillary in SC. Obama-

mania is back on track!• Hillary expected to lose SC, but not like this. Have the

Clintons overplayed hardball? She’s still ahead in big Super Tuesday states, but a week’s a long time in politics…

• Local boy Edwards was a distant 3rd… $’s running out?• Watch out for high-profile endorsements • Florida (Jan 29th) could provide some momentum ahead of

Super Tuesday, but no campaigning and no delegates

SouthCarolina

Obama 55Clinton 27Edwards 18

The Republicans this week

It’s the economy, stupid

• Maybe you can buy an election?... The return of Mitt Romney, innovative businessman

• Fred Thompson bows out, endorses nobody. Who benefits?

• Florida (Jan 29th) is the pivotal GOP primary. Will decide Rudy’s campaign, plus establish Super Tuesday front runner (although only half of Florida’s delegates are available in 2008)

Super Tuesday

• 52% of Democrat delegates, 41% of Republicans up for grabs

• Represents 1st genuine test of national electability• Organisation and money crucial• Media coverage over next 7 days hugely influential • A convincing win on either side would almost guarantee

nomination• If nominees become clear, longest Presidential

campaign in history will begin. If either race remains tight, could go all the way to the convention(s)

24 states hold caucuses or primaries on Feb 5th

American Elections

Required reading…• McKay: ch 6: “Elections and Political Participation”• Singh (ed) ch 6: “Elections”• McKay, Houghton, Wroe: ch 4: “Campaign Finance Reform”

Additional resources…• Edwin D Dover, The Disputed Presidential Election of 2000• Mark Halperin and John F Harris The Way to Win: Taking the White

House in 2008.• Gary C Jacobson, The Politics of Congressional Elections. Paul S

Hernson, Congressional Elections: Campaigning at Home and in Washington

• Walter Dean Burnham, Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics.

• David R Mayhew, Electoral Realignments • Thomas M Holbrook, Do Campaigns Matter?

Readings on US Elections

• Framers’ view of democracy extremely limited• Would be shocked by today: 530,000 Americans

hold elected offices• Americans vote to choose candidates, as well as

choose between candidates• “Direct democracy” devices increasingly popular

How Democratic is America?

But is a country with such low electoral turnout and so influenced by money truly democratic?

“A country’s claim being a democracy depends

almost entirely on the nature and extent

of public participation in political life”.

• Articles 1, 2 and various amendments loosely define federal election methods

• State law regulates most aspects of electoral law

• Financing a controversial subject, monitored by Federal Elections Commission

Constitutional and Legal Foundation

• Basic eligibility set by the Constitution

• State Legislatures set more detailed criteria

• Voter registration is the responsibility of citizens

• Most federal voting now done via optical scan computers

Voting in America

Why is turnout low?...• Number of elections• Voter registration laws• First-past-the-post, single-

member per district electoral system

• Congressional election turnout considerably lower; averaged 40% in same period

But…• Turnout is falling

everywhere• Turnout not bad amongst

those registered to vote

Presidential Election Turnout

50.1

55.2

48.4

53.8

57.5

42

44

46

48

50

52

54

56

58

1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008

?

Theoretical Explanations:• Public choice theory• Sociological explanation

Presidential Election Turnout

Presidential Election Process

PRE-PRIMARIESBegin 2-3 years out

Ends 1 year before election

PRIMARY SEASONBegins December before

the election, ends April of election year

THE NOMINATIONTypically decided by

primaries, confirmed at late summer Conventions

THE GENERAL ELECTIONFrom the Conventions

until November

A four-step process

Presidential Election Process

PRE-PRIMARIESBegin 2-3 years out

Ends 1 year before election

A four-step process

Key tasks are to… - Develop name recognition- Build organisation- Win support of key party (and implicitly, media)

personnel - “king makers”

…Incumbents already have all this – therefore they have huge advantages over challengers

Presidential Election Process

A four-step process

• Since 1960s, party nominees selected based on state-by-state series of “open or closed” primary elections and caucuses.

• The primary season has begun earlier and become more compressed over time

• Partial public funding is available – if candidates want it• Number of delegates available in each primary / caucus based on

state population• Early states are disproportionately influential; trends become clear

on “Super Tuesday”• In Democrat primaries, each candidate gets a number of delegates

proportional to their vote. Some GOP primaries are proportional, others are winner-takes-all

PRIMARY SEASONBegins December before

the election, ends April of election year

Presidential Election Process

A four-step process

• Conventions are held in late summer of election year; are week-long meetings of state delegates and party leaders. Late this year (Aug / Sept). Typically the opposition party goes first

• Formerly selected candidates (103 votes in Dem convention in 1924), now ratify primary decisions - so candidates almost always known beforehand

• Although conventions are now coronations they still set party rules, establish the party platform, serve as an opportunity for candidates to make their pitch to the nation, and motivate the party faithful

• Candidates seek a “post-convention bounce”

THE NOMINATIONTypically decided by

primaries, confirmed at late summer Conventions

Presidential Election Process

A four-step process

• Voting held nationwide on the first Tuesday in November

• Public funding is available for major candidates

• Is an indirect election – public votes state-by-state for 538 members of an “Electoral College”.

• Each state gets a number of electoral college votes equivalent its total number of senators and members of congress

• In the General election 48 of 50 states are “winner takes all” (Maine and Nebraska use PR)

• The system is criticised as candidates fight to win an electoral college majority rather than a nationwide majority of votes

THE GENERAL ELECTIONFrom the Conventions

until November

• Number of party identifiers declined in the 1960s and 1970s – “de-alignment” rather than “re-alignment”?

• Neither party re-captured centre stage in mid 1970s and phenomenon of “ticket-splitting” increased

• As voters became less partisan, they used criteria other than party to determine how to vote – e.g. the candidate / particular issues. Discernible electoral polarisation from early 1990s – voters increasingly labelled themselves liberal or conservative

• In response party policies became more coherently aligned, presenting voters with clearer ideological choices. However parties have had difficulty responding to issue voting, as it undermines attempts to be broad, loose coalitions.

• Result: issue-based and candidate-based voting have gained in importance independently of parties, often damaging their party’s broader fortunes

Partisanship and Ideology

Partisanship: Fervent support for a partyIdeology: A set of doctrines or beliefs

• Centrism re-emerged as a successful strategy in 1996 and 2000

• However since 9/11, US politics is far more ideologically charged and partisan. Rove’s “politics of the base”

• Most independents actually “partisan independents”?• The US electorate is now much more polarised on social

and war issues, including civil rights and liberties, the environment, family issues (e.g. childcare, abortion) and the role of the US abroad

• This results in a very confrontational and abrasive style of politics

Partisanship and Ideology

Partisanship: Fervent support for a partyIdeology: A set of doctrines or beliefs

• Disenfranchisement– Voter registration– Felons ineligible

• Technical problems– Insufficient voting places– Inefficient vote counting– Out of date / improperly drawn

electoral rolls

• “Gerrymandered” constituencies

Criticism of US Elections

• As with 2004, the 2008 race will be a "$1 billion election"

• To be "taken seriously“, candidates needed to raise at least $100m each by the end of 2007

• As per Bush in 2004, several 2007 candidates have foregone public funding during the primaries as it caps their potential spending power at $150m

• Nominees also very likely to forego public funding for the general election

The $1bn Election

• For most of US history, no spending limits on campaign contributions however CFR has long history - 1907 Tillman Act, 1947 Taft-Hartley Act

• Watergate revealed huge individual contributions, rewarded by Nixon

• 1972- FECA ratified. Introduced disclosure of funding

• 1974- FECA enhanced. Ceilings on individual ($1k) & PAC ($5k) contributions, public funding established, FEC created to enforce law

• 1976- SC ruled in Buckley vs Valeo that FECA too stringent. Limits on direct contributions to candidates, but “expenditures made independently of campaigns are a highly protected form of free speech”

• FECA also encouraged corporations and trade unions to set up own PACs; PACs multiplied exponentially

Campaign Finance Reform

The issue of CFR is centred around whether wealthy individuals & groups

should be limited in the amount of money they can spend in trying to influence politics

• FECA limited hard money, not soft money- limitless for parties and PACs- a significant loophole as soft money could still be channelled to particular candidates in particular elections- achieved same purpose as hard money

• Opponents of reform argued the 1st Amendment (right to free speech) allows them spend their money how they like in political debate

• Main use of soft money today is “issue advertisements”; fine provided don’t use non-exhaustive list of specific wording

Campaign Finance Reform

Hard money- financial donations given directly to a particular candidate’s official campaign organisation

Soft money- given to a political party at national / state / local for general usage. Wasn’t regulated by FEC

• 1st version passed House in 1999 but beaten in the Senate• Updated version proposed in 2001, passed in 2002

– Eliminated all soft money contributions to NC’s

– More than doubled the hard money contribution limit

• Upheld In 2003 by SC in McConnell v FEC, on a split decision with conservatives in the minority

• Corset analogy: whenever reform squeeze cash contributions in one place, they appear in another

Campaign Finance Reform

McCain-Feingold Bill: Co-sponsored & bipartisan.

Aimed to ban the use of soft money in campaigns &

ban issue-advocacy advertising

Red State, Blue State?

Electoral College vote in 2004

Wyoming:10th largest state

Population 490,000

New Jersey:3rd smallest state

Population 8,400,000

America by Night

Red State, Blue State?

Electoral College Split by Population

Red State, Blue State?

Wyoming:10th largest state

Population 490,000

New Jersey:3rd smallest state

Population 8,400,000

Voting by County, 2004

Red State, Blue State?

Voting by County, taking population into account

Red State, Blue State?

The Electoral College may produce a red state / blue state divide…

But the US is a far more differentiated place than this suggests

Red State, Blue State?

American electoral participation can be largely predicted by basic demographics:

• Race• Gender• Socio-economic status• Age• Geography• Community

American Electoral Participation

Who participates, and how, in US elections?

• Class, race, ethnic divisions etc are clearly powerful predictors of electoral preferences

• These statistics become more powerful when combined:– A white, old, protestant, male, rich, rural voter very

likely to vote for Bush– An Hispanic, young, atheist, female, poor, urban voter

was very likely to vote for Kerry

How America voted: 2004

How America voted: 2004

Cleavage: Race

BUSH KERRY

White men 62 37

White women 55 44

Non-white men 30 67

Non-white women 24 75

How America voted: 2004

Cleavage: Gender

BUSH KERRY

Male 55 44

Female 48 51

How America voted: 2004

Cleavage: Income

BUSH KERRY

Under $30k PA 39 61

$30-$50k PA 49 51

$50-75k PA 56 43

$75-$100k PA 55 45

$100-$200k PA 58 42

+$200k PA 63 35

How America voted: 2004

Cleavage: Age

BUSH KERRY

18 – 29 45 54

30 – 44 53 46

45 – 59 51 48

60 + 54 46

How America voted: 2004

Cleavage: Religion

BUSH KERRY

Protestant (54%) 59 40

Catholic (27%) 52 47

Jewish (3%) 25 74

Other (7%) 23 74

None (10%) 31 67

How America voted: 2004

Cleavage: Geography

BUSH KERRY

North East 43 56

Mid West 51 48

South 58 42

West 49 50

How America voted: 2004

Cleavage: Community

BUSH KERRY

Big cities (13%) 39 60

Small cities (19%) 49 49

Suburbs (45%) 52 47

Small towns (8%) 50 48

Rural (16%) 59 40