Chapter 13 and Behavior

American Government 2006 Edition (to accompany Comprehensive, Alternate, Texas, and Essentials Editions) O’Connor and Sabato Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 What is the Purpose of Elections?

Accountability - regularly held elections make politicians accountable to the electorate

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 Purposes of Elections

□ Regular free elections ■ guarantee mass political action ■ enable citizens to influence the actions of their government □ Popular confers on a government the legitimacy that it can achieve no other way. □ Regular elections also ensure that government is accountable to the people it serves.

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 Purposes of Elections

□ Electorate ■ Citizens eligible to vote □ Mandate: ■ A command, indicated by an electorate’s voters, for the elected officials to carry out their platforms. ■ Sometimes the claim of a mandate is suspect because voters are not so much endorsing one candidate as rejecting the other.

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 Purposes of Elections

□ Retrospective judgment ■ A voter’s evaluation of the performance of the party in power □ Prospective judgment ■ A voter’s evaluation of a candidate based on what he or she pledges to do about an issue if elected ■ Three requirements for prospective voting: □ Voters must have an opinion on an issue □ Voters must have an idea of what action, if any, the government is taking on the issue □ Voters must see a difference between the two parties on the issue.

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 Kinds of Elections

□ Primary Elections: ■ Election in which voters decide which of the candidates within a party will represent the party in the . □ Closed primary: a in which only a party’s registered voters are eligible to vote. □ Open primary: a primary in which party members, independents, and sometimes members of the other party are allowed to vote. □ Crossover voting: participation in the primary of a party with which the voter is not affiliated. □ Raiding: An organized attempt by voters of one party to influence the primary results of the other party.

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 General Elections

□ General elections are those in which voters decide which candidates will actually fill elective public offices. □ In presidential elections voters look for: ■ Leadership and character. ■ Base their judgments on foreign policy and defense issues that do not arise in state and local elections.

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 , , and Recall

□ Initiative ■ An election that allows citizens to propose legislation and submit it to the state electorate for popular vote ■ 24 states and D.C. use the initiative □ Referendum ■ An election whereby the state legislature submits proposed legislation to the state’s voters for approval □ Recall ■ Voters can remove an incumbent from office by popular vote. ■ Are very rare

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 Presidential Elections

□ Primary elections or caucuses are used to elect national convention delegates which choose the nominee. ■ Winner-take-all primary ■ Proportional representation primary ■ Proportional representation with bonus delegates primary; beauty contest with separate delegate selection; delegate selection with no beauty contest ■ Caucus

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 Primaries v. Caucuses

□ Over years, trend has been to use primaries rather than caucuses to choose delegates. □ Caucus is the oldest, most party-oriented method of choosing delegates to the national conventions. □ Arguments for primaries ■ More democratic ■ More representative ■ A rigorous test for the candidate □ Arguments for caucuses ■ Caucus participants more informed; more interactive and informative ■ Frontloading (being first) gives some primary states an advantage □ Frontloading is the tendency to choose an early date on the primary schedule

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 The Party Conventions

□ Out-of-power party holds its convention first, in late July, followed in mid-August by party holding the presidency. □ Conventions were decision-making body in the 19th century. □ Today the convention is fundamentally different. Nominations settled well in advance of the convention.

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 Historic Moments for Women at the Conventions

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 National Convention: Delegate Selections

□ Unit Rule ■ A traditional party practice under which the majority of a state delegation can fore the minority to vote for its candidate □ Abolished by the Democrats ■ New Democratic party rule decrees that state’s delegates be chosen in proportion to the voters cast in its primary or caucus. (30% of votes = 30% delegates from that state) – proportional allocation ■ Superdelegates □ Delegate slot to the Democratic Party’s national convention that is reserved for an elected party official ■ Some rules originating in Democratic Party have been enacted as state laws thus applying them to the Republican Party as well.

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 National Convention: National Candidates and Issues

□ Political perceptions and loyalties of voters are not influenced largely by national candidates and issues. ■ Diminished the power of state and local party leaders at the convention. □ Issues are more important to the new, issue-oriented party activists than to the party professionals. □ Party professionals no longer have monopoly on managing party affairs.

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 National Conventions: The News Media

□ Changing nature of coverage ■ No prime time coverage on some days ■ Extending coverage on the final day of each convention ■ Reflects change in political culture □ More interest in the candidates themselves ■ Convention still generates much coverage for the party

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 The National Convention: Who are the Delegates?

□ Parties draw delegates from an elite group ■ Higher income and educational levels □ Differences between parties ■ 40% Democratic delegates were minorities; 50% women (1980 rule requires half state delegation be female) ■ Only 17% Republican delegates were minorities. Up from 9% in 2000.

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 Figure 13.1

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 The

□ Representatives of each state who cast the final ballots that actually elect a president □ Total number of electors for each state equal to the number of senators and representatives that a state has in the U.S. Congress □ District of Columbia is given 3 electoral votes.

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 Figure 13.2

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 The Electoral College

□ Result of compromise ■ Selection by Congress versus direct popular election □ Three essentials to understanding the design of the Electoral College: ■ Constructed to work without political parties. ■ Constructed to cover both the nominating and electing phases of presidential selection. ■ Constructed to produce a nonpartisan president.

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 The Electoral College in the 19th Century

□ 12th Amendment (1804) ■ Attempt to remedy the confusion between the selection of vice presidents and presidents that emerged in the election 1800 ■ Provided for separate elections for each office, with each elector having only one vote to cast for each ■ In event of a tie, the election still went to the House. ■ Top three candidates go to House. Each state House delegation casts one vote.

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 The Electoral College Today

matters. □ Representation of states in the Electoral College is altered every ten years to reflect population shifts. □ Recent apportionment has favored the Republicans. □ With the exception of California, George W. Bush carried all of the states that gained seats in 2000.

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 The Electoral College: Three Major Reform Ideas

□ Abolition □ Congressional District Plan □ Keep the College, Abolish the Electors

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 Patterns of Presidential Elections

□ Party Realignments ■ A shifting of party coalition groupings in the electorate that remains in place for several elections ■ Critical elections □ An election that signals a party realignment through voter polarization ■ Six party realignments in U.S. history; three associated with tumultuous elections □ 1860 □ 1890s □ 1928-1936 □ Secular Realignments ■ The gradual rearrangement of party coalitions, based more on demographic shifts than on shocks to the political system

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 Electoral College Results for Three Realigning Presidential Contests

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 Congressional Elections

□ Very different from presidential elections ■ Lesser known candidates, more difficulty getting media attention □ Incumbency Advantage ■ When incumbents lose it is generally due to: □ Redistricting ■ □ Scandals □ Coattails

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 Figure 13.4

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 Results of Selected Elections, 2004

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 Midterm Congressional Elections

□ Election takes place in the middle of a presidential term ■ President’s party usually loses seats in midterms ■ Tendency for voters to punish the president’s party more severely in the sixth year of an eight year presidency □ Retrospective voting □ Senate elections less inclined to the 6th year itch ■ 2002 midterm elections were an exception □ Bush picked up seats in the House and Senate

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 Voting Behavior

□ Patterns in Voter Turnout ■ Turnout: the proportion of the voting-age public that votes ■ 40% of the eligible adult population votes ■ 25% are occasional voters □ Voters tend to be more educated □ More voters have higher incomes □ Younger people vote less □ Whites vote more regularly than African Americans – related to income and educational differences in the two groups □ Hispanics vote less than African Americans ■ Have potential to wield much influence given their increasing size □ Those interested in politics vote more

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 The South Versus the Non-South for Presidential Voter Turnout

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 Why Is Voter Turnout So Low?

□ Too Busy □ Difficulty of Registration □ Difficulty of Absentee Voting □ Number of Elections □ Voter Attitudes □ Weak Political Parties

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 Why People Don’t Vote

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 How Can the United States Improve Voter Turnout?

□ Easier Registration and Absentee Voting □ Make Election Day a Holiday □ Strengthen Parties

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 How America Votes

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 Does Low Turnout Matter?

□ Some argue it is a not a critical problem ■ Based on belief that preferences of nonvoters are not much different from those who do vote ■ So…results would be the same regardless ■ Nonvoting is voluntary ■ Nonvoting driven by acceptance of the status quo □ Others believe it is a problem ■ Voters do not represent nonvoters ■ Social make-up and attitudes of nonvoters today are significantly different from those of voters ■ Tend to be low income, younger, blue collar, less educated and more heavily minority

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 Patterns in Vote Choice

□ Race and Ethnicity ■ Whites tend to vote Republican ■ African Americans vote overwhelmingly for Democrats ■ Hispanics also tend to identify with and vote for Democrats □ Kerry 53 percent; Bush 44 percent ■ Women today more likely to support Democratic candidates ■ Poor vote less often and more for Democrats ■ Well-to-do vote more often and for Republicans ■ Ideology related closely to vote choice □ Conservatives for Republicans □ Liberals for Democrats

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 Ticket-Splitting

□ Voting for candidates of different parties for various offices in the same election □ From 1960 to 1992 almost 40% of states holding simultaneous presidential and gubernatorial elections recorded split results. □ 1992 and 1996 went to average of 26% split ticket voting

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006 Reforming the Electoral Process

□ Focus on the Electoral College □ Other areas ■ Nomination □ Regional primaries ■ Campaign Finance ■ Internet Voting ■ Standardizing Recounts ■ Ballot Reform

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2006