DOCSLIB.ORG

PS 202 Summer 18 Week 5

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PS 202 Summer 18 Week 5 PolS 202: Intro to American Politics Stephanie Stanley Week 5: Elections Agenda • Primary Election • Party Nominations • General Election/ Electoral College • Money in Elections • Citizens United and SuperPACS Pre-Gaming • “Green Primary” – Look for donors and sponsors – Party Insiders • File paperwork • Establish campaign – Hire personnel – Work out initial strategies – Announce candidacy It’s a Numbers Game Super-delegates: Democratic party, 716 unpledged delegates, made up of elected officials and party leaders Primaries and Caucuses • 2 ways to get delegates – Primary: direct, statewide process of selecting candidates; voters cast secret ballots for candidates; run by the state • Open Primaries: all registered voters may participate • Closed Primaries: voters may only vote for candidates from the party with which they are registered – Caucus: allows participants to support candidates openly, typically by hand raising or breaking out into groups, run by the party Super Tuesday • About ½ of the GOP delegates and about a 1/3 of the Democratic delegates are up for grabs • Primaries – Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Virginia • Caucuses – Colorado, Minnesota, Alaska (GOP only), Wyoming (GOP only), American Samoa (Dems only) Winning Delegates • Proportional – Most states will award delegates proportionally • Winner take all – Some states give all their delegates to the winner • Bounded/pledged delegates – At least during the first round of voting at the party convention, these delegates must vote according to the primary or caucus results in their sates And Then They Drop Like Flies… • Early primaries, caucuses, and Super Tuesday test the viability of candidates • The more a candidate falls behind in the delegate count, the more funding dries up and the less momentum he/she has moving forward • When too much ground is lost (re: delegate count), candidates “suspend” their campaigns Party Conventions • Officially nominate presidential candidates – State by state, delegates cast votes – By the convention, we usually know who the candidate will be (at least since the mid 1970s) • Formalize party platforms The General Election • Nominees from each party (including minor parties) move onto the general election • Electoral College – Total of 538 electoral votes – Magic number needed to win: 270 Electoral College • Each state gets electors based on their representation in the House and Senate – Senators: 2 – House: 1-53 – Ex. WA- 2 Senators + 10 Reps= 12 electors • D.C. gets the minimal 3 electors • Most states are winner take all (Maine and Nebraska are special) • Total: 538 electoral votes (Senate + House +DC) Electoral College • Electors from each party are chosen by the parties at the state level – WA: 12 Democrats, 12 Republicans – 2016: 12 Democrats represented WA in DC • Depending on which candidate wins the state, a different slate of electors will head off to DC to officially elect the president and vice president – “Faithless Electors” are a rare occurrence. • House acts as a tie breaker Electoral College Record • Ties – 1824 (House reversed popular vote winner) • Electoral College Winner not Popular Vote Winner – 1876, 1888, 1960, 2000, 2016 Founders’ Intent Re: Electoral College • Electors would be selected by state legislatures • Electors would select the most qualified person to be president (no candidate-driven campaigns, “stand for office”) • The House of Representatives would act as the tie breaker • Most likely saw electors as the nominators, and the House as the selector Who Benefits? • Small States – People in small states are overrepresented • WY 1 per 160,000 voters vs. CA 1 per 600,000 voters • Large States – Winner-take-all advantages large states • Win WY by 1 vote, get 3 electoral votes • Win CA by 1 vote, get 55 electoral votes • Swing States – Candidates have an incentive to focus on competitive states and will cater to those states more than non- competitive states What are some arguments for and against the electoral college? Arguments For the Electoral College • Nationally representative president • Democratic elections in each state, where majority rules • Swing state voters have an incentive to be informed more than other voters • Ensures a definitive outcome and avoids run off elections • Weeds out minor candidates who could win with a plurality of votes Arguments Against Electoral College • Does not uphold majoritarianism • Favors swing states that are not representative • Discourages Republicans in blue states and Democrats in red states from voting • Uneven representation – 1 WY elector =160,000 voters vs. – 1 CA elector=600,000 voters • Elitist system that is a vestige of slavery Money in Elections Money as Speech • Buckley v. Valeo, 1976 – “Virtually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society requires the expenditure of money. The distribution of the humblest handbill or leaflet entails printing, paper, and circulation costs. Speeches and rallies generally necessitate hiring a hall and publicizing the event. The electorate’s increasing dependence on television, radio and other mass media for news and information has made these expensive modes of communication indispensable instruments of effective political speech.” Limits on Campaign Donations Citizens United v. FEC, 2010 • Facts: – Citizens United created Hillary the Movie, spending more than the allotted amount a PAC could spend • Question: – 4 questions – Did Citizens United violate campaign finance laws? • Decision: – Corruption: quid pro quo standard – Unlimited independent expenditures – No coordination • Effects: – Carved out space for the rise of SuperPACS Rise of SuperPACS • PAC: – Political action committee; organization that forms to make limited contributions to candidates and campaigns • SuperPAC: – Cannot donate unlimitedly (rules still apply) – Can have unlimited expenditures spent independently on behalf of/against a candidate or issue – Again, unlimited independent expenditures – No coordination between candidates, campaigns, and SuperPACs is permitted SuperPACs and Dark Money • SuperPACs, like PACs, must disclose their donors, but Non-profits do not need to disclose their donors • Dark Money – Create Non-Profit – Donate $ to Non-Profit – Follow Non-Profit rules – Non-profit gives $ to SuperPAC – SuperPAC spends money SuperPAC $$$ Isn’t the Magic Bullet Paper Prompt • Prompt: Do elections/ political parties/ interest groups/ the media (pick one) hinder or facilitate American democracy? – Identify one component of democracy and describe it. – Pick one linking mechanism and be specific on how it hinders or facilitates your element of democracy. – Successful papers will have a clear thesis that encompasses both of these elements of the prompt. • READ and FOLLOW Instructions! • Come see me if you have questions about topics, academic sources, organizing your paper, etc. Goldstein et al: Geeks are Polarized • Explain the differences between three possible drivers of election outcomes: persuasion, mobilization, and fundamentals. • Why do Goldstein, Dallek, and Rivlin think that we should pay careful attention to persuasion and mobilization even though fundamentals are the most important influence on national election outcomes? Bailey: Two Sides of Money • What are the benefits and drawbacks to having money in campaigns and politics? • Explain the Anticipated Reaction Principle and Indirect Competition Principle. Why do this principles matter? • What are the 4 fundamental aspects of money in politics? • What reforms does Bailey critique, and what reforms does he propose? Discussion • Does our current presidential nomination process produce the best results? Why/ why not? • What are the pros and cons of having money in elections? • Are SuperPACs good or bad for democracy? Thursday’s Class • Political Parties – Aldrich: Why Parties? – Rae: Be Careful What You Wish For – Two Party vs. Multi-Party System • Exams will be handed back at the end of class..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Six Months to Go: Where the Presidential Contest Stands As the General Election Begins
    May 10, 2012 Six Months To Go: Where the Presidential Contest Stands as the General Election Begins William A. Galston Table of Contents Summary 1 Where We Are Now and How We Got There 1 The Mood of the Country 3 The Issues 5 Ideology 7 What Kind of Election Will 2012 Be? 9 Referendum or Choice? 9 Persuasion or Mobilization? 13 It’s the Electoral College, Stupid 16 Conclusion: The Known Unknowns 22 Endnotes 23 SUMMARY arack Obama’s standing with the American people hit bottom in the late Bsummer and early fall of 2011. Since then, the president has recovered the political ground he lost during the debt ceiling fiasco and now enjoys a narrow edge over Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee. The standard political and economic indicators suggest that the 2012 election will be close. And the historic level of partisan polarization ensures that it will be hard-fought and divisive. William A. Galston is the Ezra K. Zilkha Since Vietnam and the Iranian hostage crisis, Republicans have effectively used the Chair in Governance issue of national security against Democrats. Barring unforeseen events, Romney Studies and senior will not be able to do so this year. Nor will a focus on hot-button social issues yield fellow at Brookings. significant gains for the challenger. Instead, to an extent that Americans have not seen for at least two decades, the election of 2012 will revolve around a single defining issue—the condition of the economy. In 2008, Barack Obama defeated John McCain in large measure because the people saw him as more able to manage the economy at a moment of frightening crisis.
    [Show full text]
  • President Trump and America's 2020 Presidential Election
    President Trump And America’s 2020 Presidential Election: An Analytical Framework March 6, 2019 © 2019 Beacon Policy Advisors LLC Trump 2020 Meets Trump 2016 ___________________________________________________________ Trump 2020 Is A Stronger Candidate Than Trump 2016… • Looking purely at Trump’s personal standing in 2016 vs. 2020, he is no worse for wear, with the greatest change in his ratings coming from the consolidation of support among Republicans after two years of providing wins for his GOP base (e.g., deregulation, conservative judges) and currently having a strong economy and jobs market …But Trump 2016 Was A Weak Candidate (Who Happened To Face Another Weak Candidate) • Trump vs. Clinton 2016 matchup had the two most unfavorable candidates in a 60-year span • According to the 2016 exit polls, 18 percent of voters who had an unfavorable view of both Clinton and Trump voted for Trump by a 17- point margin – those margins were even higher in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Florida • Trump was the “change” candidate, winning voters who wanted change by a 68-point margin • Still, Trump only garnered 46.1 percent of the popular vote © 2019 Beacon Policy Advisors LLC 1 Trump’s Base Not Enough To Win ___________________________________________________________ Trump Is A Strong Weak Incumbent Heading Into 2020 Election • Trump’s political base of support – “America First” nationalists, rural farmers, and evangelical Christians – was necessary but insufficient to win in 2016 – will still be insufficient to win in 2020 • Trump’s
    [Show full text]
  • Texas and Ohio: the End of the Beginning, but Not the Beginning of the End John C
    The End of the Beginning, But Not the Beginning of the End DGAPstandpunkt Washington Briefing Prof. Dr. Eberhard Sandschneider (Hrsg.) März 2008 N° 4 Otto Wolff-Direktor des Forschungsinstituts der DGAP e. V. ISSN 1864-3477 Texas and Ohio: The End of the Beginning, But Not the Beginning of the End John C. Hulsman Hillary Clinton hat sich mit den Vorwahlsiegen in Ohio und Texas einen Namen als Harry Houdini im ame- rikanischen Wahlkampf gemacht. Die scheinbar unaufhaltbare Nominierung von Barack Obama durch die Demokraten nach elf siegreichen Vorwahlen in Folge ist gestoppt. Für dieses Zauberkunststück hat Clinton sich nicht gescheut, eine Negativkampagne gegen den Konkurrenten aus dem eigenen Lager zu starten: Obama wird dabei immer wieder als unzuverlässiges Leichtgewicht in Fragen der nationalen Sicherheit hingestellt. Das fortge- setzte Kopf-an-Kopf-Rennen macht es für beide Kandidaten schwierig, die notwendige Anzahl von Delegierten für die Nominierung zu erringen. Diese Unentschiedenheit schadet den Demokraten enorm und spielt direkt in die Hände der Republikaner. Following supposedly pivotal Super Tuesday in early more often than Dracula). Stories appeared about the February, something rather surprising happened in disarray in her campaign, how they had blown through this roller-coaster of an election campaign: the Demo- $120 million dollars with precious little to show for it. crats seemed, at long last, to have decisively moved Why these folks had not even thought about a post- toward one of the party’s candidates. Barack Obama Super Tuesday strategy, so confident were they that won 11 straight contests, often by decisive margins. Hillary would lock up the nomination by then.
    [Show full text]
  • 2008 Democratic National Convention Brainroom Briefing Book
    2008 Democratic National Convention Brainroom Briefing Book 1 Table of Contents CONVENTION BASICS ........................................................................................................................................... 3 National Party Conventions .................................................................................................................................. 3 The Call................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Convention Scheduling......................................................................................................................................... 3 What Happens at the Convention......................................................................................................................... 3 DEMOCRATIC CONVENTIONS, 1832-2004........................................................................................................... 5 CONVENTION - DAY BY DAY................................................................................................................................. 6 DAY ONE (August 25) .......................................................................................................................................... 6 DAY TWO (August 26).......................................................................................................................................... 7 The Keynote Address.......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Swing States, the Winner-Take-All Electoral College, and Fiscal Federalism
    Munich Personal RePEc Archive Swing States, The Winner-Take-All Electoral College, and Fiscal Federalism Duquette, Christopher and Mixon, Franklin and Cebula, Richard The MITRE Corporation, Columbus State University, Jaclsonville University 9 February 2013 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/55423/ MPRA Paper No. 55423, posted 27 Apr 2014 01:16 UTC Swing States, the Winner-Take-All Electoral College, and Fiscal Federalism by Christopher M. Duquettea, Franklin G. Mixon, Jr.b, and Richard J. Cebulac a The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA 22102 – USA; b D. Abbott Turner College of Business, Columbus State University, Columbus, GA 31907 – USA; c Davis College of Business, Jacksonville University, Jacksonville, FL 32211 – U.SA. Corresponding Author: Richard J. Cebula, Davis College of Business, Jacksonville University, Jacksonville, FGL 32211 – USA. PH: 912-656-2997; FAX: 904-256-7467. E-mail: dr.richardcebula@gmailcom Abstract. There is a debate regarding the impact of swing or independent voters in American politics. While some argue that swing voters either do not swing or have a marginal impact on campaigns, the decline in voter partisan identification and the rise of independents means that they have a potential impact on elections, making them a desirable commodity to candidates. Additionally, presidential elections represent a unique case for swing voters. A robust literature notes that during the presidential primary and caucus process, voters in states such as Iowa or New Hampshire effectively have a greater voice in the election than those in other states. This is due to the number of voters in these states, and the strategic importance of having their primaries and caucuses positioned at the beginning of the presidential selection process.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Article (PDF)
    INTERMISSION ENDS The Rhodes Cook Letter February 2012 The Rhodes Cook Letter FEBRUARY 2012 / VOL. 13, NO. 1 (ISSN 1552-8189) Contents Intermission Ends ............................... .3 Chart & Map: 2012 Republican Primary, Caucus Results . 4 Chart & Map: The Road Ahead: The Remaining 2012 GOP Primary, Caucus Calendar . 5 Chart: Aggregate 2012 Republican Vote. 6 Chart & Line Graph: 2012 Republican Delegate Count. 7 Chart & Line Graph: Cumulative 2012 Republican Primary Vote . 8 Chart: The 2012 GOP ‘Medal’ Count. 8 Chart: The Dwindling GOP Field. 9 Results of Early Events ......................... 10 The Santorum Surge: ‘He Cares Enough to Come’. 10 Chart & Map: Iowa Republican Precinct Caucuses . 10 Chart & Map: New Hampshire Republican Primary. 11 Chart & Map: South Carolina Republican Primary. 12 Chart & Map: Florida Republican Primary. 13 Caucus Problems: The Iowa Reversal . 13 Chart & Map: 2012 Republican Primary, Caucus Turnout: A Mixed Bag. 14 Chart & Bar Graph: The Second Time Around: Romney and Paul . 15 On the Democratic Side ........................ 16 Chart & Bar Graph: ‘Unopposed’ Presidents in the New Hampshire Primary. 16 Chart: 2012 Democratic Primary, Caucus Results . 17 Chart & Bar Graph: How Obama Compares to Recent Presidents: The Economy and the Polls . 18 For the Record ............................. 19 Chart: 2012 Congressional Primary Calendar . 19 Chart: The Changing Composition of the 112th Congress . 20 Chart & Maps: What’s Up in 2012 . 21 Subscription Page .............................. .23 To reach Rhodes Cook: Office Phone: 703-658-8818 / E-mail: [email protected] / Web: www.rhodescook.com “The Rhodes Cook Letter” is published on a bimonthly basis. An individual subscription for six issues is $99. Make check payable to “The Rhodes Cook Letter” and mail it, along with your e-mail address, to P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Read Ebook {PDF EPUB} Swing State by Steve Milton
    Read Ebook {PDF EPUB} Swing State by Steve Milton Which Swing States Will Decide the Election? The 2020 presidential race is a seemingly inexhaustible source of emotional turmoil. But how much actual electoral turmoil is going on? The polling has made it clear that most of the contest is not really in doubt: Joe Biden is going to hold onto most of Hillary Clinton’s share of the map from 2016, and Donald Trump is going to hold onto the majority of the states he won. So the Slate Swing State Tracker is here to look at the smaller part of the big picture: How many of the genuinely contested states would each candidate have to win to hit 270 electoral votes, and what does this week’s polling say about their chances? For the purposes of this analysis, we’re assuming there are already 228 electoral votes locked into Biden’s column, and 163 in Trump’s. We’re setting aside the two single electoral votes up for grabs under Nebraska and Maine’s district system. That leaves 10 all-or-nothing battleground states in play. Where do the two campaigns stand? You only need a couple of good polls for Trump in a week to terrify every Democrat in the country. And so there were, exactly, a couple. Battleground polls from ABC News/The Washington Post showed Trump leading Biden by four points in Florida, which has tightened over the last month, and by one point in Arizona, the first lead Trump has posted in a nonpartisan poll of the state in months.
    [Show full text]
  • Election Outcomes You’Re Not Watching
    ACCESS A BROADER MARKET PERSPECTIVE ELECTION OUTCOMES YOU’RE NOT WATCHING BY DANIEL TENENGAUZER AND JOHN VELIS HIGHLY DIVIDED ELECTORATE AND WIDE POLICY DIVERSION between Republicans/Democrats, as well as within the Democrats themselves MARKETS ARE PRICING IN A TRUMP OR BIDEN WIN, but Biden may not get the nomination easily or early enough POSSIBILITY OF A BROKERED CONVENTION IN JULY if no Democrat has sufficient delegates THE EARLY PRIMARIES ARE KEY: first few races in the past have predicted the ultimate winner The next administration of either party could be A SOURCE OF POLICY RISK Divided government is NO GUARANTEE OF MARKET- FRIENDLY POLICIES COVER ILLUSTRATION: ROB DOBI INVESTOR CONFIDENCE IS HIGH AHEAD OF THIS NOVEMBER’S PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. BUT WITH A HIGHLY DIVIDED ELECTORATE AND PLENTY OF ROOM FOR AN UPSET, MARKETS SHOULD BE WARY OF COMPLACENCY BY DANIEL TENENGAUZER AND JOHN VELIS, BNY MELLON MARKETS ith the 2020 US These moves reflect solid US funda- Many of the Democratic policy plans primary election mentals, particularly compared with are meant to help address the income season soon upon the rest of the world; an elongation of gap and Trump as well is more populist W us, investors are the US economic recovery, in part due than previous Republican presidents. faced with potentially market-moving to Trump’s corporate tax cuts; and a This sets up the potential for a larger outcomes in the next 12 months. rebooted and accelerated US labor US deficit, the fallout from which could One thing is clear: despite Donald market. affect market confidence.
    [Show full text]
  • Swing State/Battleground State: in Presidential Elections, States That Do Not Consistently Vote for Either the Democratic Or Republican Presidential Candidate
    20th/Raffel The Electoral College (as of the 2010 Census) # # # STATE VOTES STATE VOTES STATE VOTES Alabama 9 Kentucky 8 North Dakota 3 Alaska 3 Louisiana 8 Ohio* 18 Arizona 11 Maine 4 Oklahoma 7 Arkansas 6 Maryland 10 Oregon 7 California 55 Massachusetts 11 Pennsylvania 20 Colorado* 9 Michigan 16 Rhode Island 4 Connecticut 7 Minnesota 10 South Carolina 9 Delaware 3 Mississippi 6 South Dakota 3 District of 3 Missouri 10 Tennessee 11 Columbia Florida* 29 Montana 3 Texas 38 Georgia 16 Nebraska 5 Utah 6 Hawaii 4 Nevada* 6 Vermont 3 Idaho 4 New 4 Virginia* 13 Hampshire* Illinois 20 New Jersey 14 Washington 12 Indiana* 11 New Mexico 5 West Virginia 5 Iowa* 6 New York 29 Wisconsin* 10 Kansas 6 North 15 Wyoming 3 Carolina* From the Chart: 1. Which state has the most electoral votes? How many? 2. Identify the states that have just three votes. 3. How many votes does Massachusetts have? From the Reading (use a separate sheet of paper): 4. What is the difference between the popular vote and the electoral vote? 5. How do most states award their electoral votes? 6. What is a major potential problem with the Electoral College? Swing State/Battleground State: In Presidential elections, states that do not consistently vote for either the Democratic or Republican Presidential candidate. In the 2012 election, likely swing states are noted in bold italic with an *. Florida Votes in 2000: • Gore: 2,912,253 votes; Bush: 2,912,790 votes • Bush wins Florida’s 27 electoral votes (and the Presidency), even though Gore had more than 540,000 popular votes.
    [Show full text]
  • Sung. “Identifying State Competitiveness with Pre-Existing
    Identifying State Competitiveness with Pre-Existing State Conditions for the U.S. Presidential Elections Jaeyun Sung Lyon College Identifying pre-existing components that influence the level of competitiveness in an individual state is a critical step in designing a campaign strategy. While most states are locked up by one party over time, recent presidential elections show inconsistency of state competitiveness. This study focused on non-campaign elements to determine a predisposition of being the competitive states in a presidential election. Using data from the prior seven presidential elections from 1992 to 2016, the regression results suggest that a state legislature’s partisan composition, a primary election schedule, state economy, and the previous election outcomes significantly influence the changes in the vote margin between two major candidates from one election to the next. As an extension to the findings, this study proposes the difference between actual and predicted values to be used as an alternative measure of campaign effects. Key Words: Presidential Elections, State Competitiveness, Non- Campaign Factors, Polarization, Frontloading, State Economy, Forecasting Introduction Red and blue coloring on the U.S. map on Election Day reflects the emphasis on individual states to project the winner of the long-term battle. From the campaign perspective, a state-by-state calculation of the chance of winning is critical in order to rationally allocate limited resources in the hunt to achieve more than 270 electoral votes (Shaw 2006; Edward 2004; Shaw 1996; Bartels 1985; Brams and Davis 1974). Thus, limited resources leave long-term Democratic and Republican stronghold states ignored by candidates, while competitive states receive significant attention as a stepping-stone for winning (Gimpel, Kaufmann, and Pearson-Merkowitz.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Pennsylvania a Swing State?
    A Keystone State of Mind: Is Pennsylvania a Swing State? Scott McLean G. Graybill Diehm Lecture, October 27, 2016 Scott McLean is Professor of Political Science at Quinnipiac University. am reluctant to present myself as an expert on voters in the Keystone State. I have spent time in a few I of the wonderful places of Pennsylvania: Bucks County, Hershey, the Amish country, and of course Philadelphia. I juggle multiple baseball loyalties, and I allowed myself to be in Veterans Stadium cheering the Phillies in Game Five of the 1993 World Series. But these experiences don’t give me sufficient insight to make sense of all the politics in Pennsylvania. Still, in a broader sense, what experiences would? Pennsylvania is so complex that it has a way of confounding even the top political analysts within the state. The moral: When it comes to presidential elections in Pennsylvania, don’t bet everything on the predictions of the experts. With that in mind, I hope you will be patient with me as I ask the question: Is Pennsylvania a swing state? My answer is that Pennsylvania is an important, perennial battleground state in presidential politics, but it is not a swing state. It does not belong in the “swing club” of very closely contested states that frequently shift between Republican and Democratic presidential candidates. There are other states that fit that bill better. Before tackling the question of whether Pennsylvania is a swing state, I need to clarify what a swing state is. When we hear about swing states these days in the news media, they are presented as quirky purple states—with quirky swing voters—amidst a patchwork of red and blue states.
    [Show full text]
  • A Swing-State Theorem, with Evidence
    ASwing-StateTheorem,withEvidence John McLaren and Xiangjun Ma⇤ April 2016 (Preliminary.) Abstract We study the e↵ects of local partisanship in a model of electoral competition. Voters care about policy, but they also care about the identity of the party in power. These party preferences vary from person to person, but they are also correlated within each state or congressional district. As a result, most districts are biassed toward one party or the other (in popular parlance, most states are either ‘red’ or ‘blue’). We show that, under a large portion of the parameter space, electoral competition leads to maximization of the welfare of citizens of the ‘swing district,’ or ‘swing state,’ as the case may be: the one that is not biassed toward either party. The rest of the country is ignored. We show empirically that the US tari↵structure is systematically biassed toward industries located in swing states, after controlling for other factors. Our best estimate is that the US political process treats a voter living in a non-swing state as being worth 70% as much as a voter in a swing state. This represents a policy bias orders of magnitude greater than the bias found in studies of protection for sale. ⇤University of Virginia and University of International Business and Economics (UIBE), Beijing, respec- tively. 1 1 Introduction Among the industries in the United States disadvantaged by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the US, Mexico and Canada, the Florida tomato industry has a prominent place. Following implementation of the agreement in the mid-1990’s, cheap winter tomatoes flooded in from Mexico that compared quite favorably with Florida winter tomatoes in quality.
    [Show full text]