DOCSLIB.ORG

Download Report (PDF)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Download Report (PDF) Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................2 Introduction ........................................................................................................3 Congressional Races............................................................................................4 State Senate Races .............................................................................................6 State House Races...............................................................................................8 Summary ..........................................................................................................10 Methodology......................................................................................................11 Appendices........................................................................................................11 1 Making Safe Seats Safer Executive Summary Large campaign contributions allow For Non-Competitive* Districts wealthy donors to unduly influence who Financial District # of Candidates can run for office and who wins elections Advantage Advantage who Overcame Both in Ohio. This analysis examines the role Disadvantages of campaign contributions in influencing Congressional 14/14 14/14 0 the outcome of Ohio elections. State Senate 13/13 13/13 0 State House 80/84 77/84 2 The candidate who raised the most money won 95% of the time. n Big money won 18 of 18 congressional This chart shows the number of times that a candidate prevailed who held either a financial advantage in campaign contributions or a district advantage due to running in a seat that was races, 16 of 16 state senate races, and 92 tilted toward their party. The final column is the number of candidates who prevailed against of 99 state house races. both of these disadvantages. Winning candidates significantly outraised their opponents. seven times as much as their opponents. n In 98% of these non-competitive districts, one or more of the dual n In congressional races, winners raised n In safe house seats, winners raised five advantages of campaign financing or five times as much as their opponents times as much as their opponents. In less district gerrymandering prevailed. and had a total cash advantage of $15 safe seats, winners raised 2.6 times as million. much as their opponents. n In state senate races, winners raised Dual disadvantages. twelve times as much as their opponents and had total a cash advantage of $9.7 Campaign fundraising and million. gerrymandering both tilt the playing field in favor of some candidates and against n In state house races, winners raised others. Our final analysis looked out how four times as much as their opponents these forces work in tandem. and had a total cash advantage of $11 million. n For 14 congressional and 13 state senate races, the dual advantages Slanted districts are even worse. predicted 100% of the results for non- competitive districts. Fundraising discrepancies are even larger in districts that are slanted heavily toward n In the 84 non-competitive state house one party as a result of gerrymandering districts, only seven candidates overcame in the redistricting process. Excluding the district advantage. Five of those uncontested races: seven did so by dramatically outspending their opponents. n In safe congressional seats, winners raised 11 times as much as their n In only 2 of 111 non-competitive opponents. In less safe seats, winners districts did a candidate beat the odds by raised 2.4 times as much. winning in a district where the partisan * Non-competitive seats are those that are either safe makeup disadvantaged them while also for one party or leaning toward one party as defined on page 6. n In safe state senate seats, winners raised facing an opponent who raised more 37 times as much as their opponents. In money. less safe senate seats, winners raised Research for the Rest of Us 2 Introduction Imagine that you decided to run for contributions into President George W. in 2004, the remaining 15 are state senate office in Ohio. Among other challenges, Bush’s 2004 presidential campaign. seats that will be elected in 2006. you would immediately confront two Other recent allegations have included While it is not necessarily powerful forces that would determine the charge that Attorney General Jim detrimental to democracy for like-minded the likelihood that you could win: 1) Petro gave out contracts to law firms who voters to safely elect representatives how much money you could raise in contributed heavily to his campaign and who share their values, when this comparison to your opponents, and 2) other Republican causes. happens as the intentional result of whether the district you are running in political gerrymandering it distorts the was drawn to favor your political party. The endless grind of scandals suggests to Ohio voters that their elected representative process to underrepresent Current campaign finance laws officials simply operate as a cash register moderates and other interests. in Ohio allow large donors to unduly – taking campaign contributions or gifts This analysis examines how determine which candidates run for in and giving out government favors and frequently these twin forces of campaign office, which of these candidates win, contracts. While there may be some contributions and gerrymandering what issues dominate political discourse, truth to this story, it ignores a larger compound each other to lock out and ultimately the disposition of those systemic problem: big donors are able meaningful challengers who might issues. This analysis examines the role to influence elections outcomes with otherwise truly represent the interests of campaign contributions in influencing large, legal contributions. This enables of Ohio’s communities. More often the outcome of Ohio elections. While them to avoid making explicit bribes or then not, campaign contributions big money plays a pernicious role at quid pro quo arrangements in exchange further tilt an already un-level playing the early stages of the election cycle, for political favors. Rather, big donors field by giving the candidate who is when potential candidates are deciding can ensure that politicians who are well advantaged by a gerrymandered district whether they can make a viable run for known to the donor community and an even greater advantage in campaign office and when party primaries narrow who share their self-serving politics can fundraising. Who, after all, wants to the field of candidates, this analysis defeat more civic-minded opponents waste their campaign contributions on a focuses solely on the role of money in who share the values and interests of candidate who is running in a district that general elections. Ohio’s families and ordinary citizens. was engineered to assure the success of Once in office, big money’s elected the opposing party? Political scandals have plagued officials know to scratch the backs of Ohio in recent years. In 2004, Speaker those private interests who put them In December 2004, Governor Larry Householder shelved his statewide into power and what is necessary to stay Taft called a special session of the political ambitions when consultants there. Ohio legislature to address campaign linked to Householder were caught financing. The legislature passed strong-arming lobbyists for campaign But money in politics is not the only HB1, championed by Rep. Dewine and contributions. In the spring of 2005, influence on election outcomes. Our Sen. Jacobson, which improved some federal investigators found that a coin- previous analysis, Safe Seats, Dangerous disclosure of campaign contributions collector named Thomas Noe had Democracy, found that politicians draw while dramatically increasing the squandered or stolen millions of dollars political boundaries in the redistricting amount that large donors can contribute from a state workers compensation fund. process that intentionally skew to candidates from $2,500 to $10,000. Noe was a prodigious campaign donor, representation by packing like-minded The data we analyzed in this report having contributed to most Republican voters into safe seats that are all but is from the 2004 election cycle, and officeholders in the state of Ohio and assured to elect a candidate of one represents contributions given before the some beyond Ohio. Governor Bob Taft party. Out of 150 congressional, state higher limits of HB1 were enacted. The pled no contest in August to charges senate, and state house races, we found disparity in fundraising between winning that he failed to report gifts he had that 126 of them were rigged to be safe candidates and their opponents will only received from lobbyists, including a golf or to lean heavily toward one party. Of grow larger should contribution limits outing paid for by Mr. Noe. In October those 126 seats, the party favored by the remain at the level prescribed in HB1. 2005, federal prosecutors indicted Mr. gerrymander won 117, or 93 percent. Of Noe for laundering illegal campaign those 126 seats. 111 were up for election 3 Making Safe Seats Safer Congressional Races while in less safe seats winners had a 2.4- n The average margin of victory was 33 In 2004, 18 candidates were elected to fold fundraising advantage. the U.S. House of Representatives from percentage points; Ohio. None of the races were particularly n In Democratic safe seats, winners n Overall, winners raised 4.7 times competitive: raised more than four times
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Women in the United States Congress: 1917-2012
    Women in the United States Congress: 1917-2012 Jennifer E. Manning Information Research Specialist Colleen J. Shogan Deputy Director and Senior Specialist November 26, 2012 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL30261 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Women in the United States Congress: 1917-2012 Summary Ninety-four women currently serve in the 112th Congress: 77 in the House (53 Democrats and 24 Republicans) and 17 in the Senate (12 Democrats and 5 Republicans). Ninety-two women were initially sworn in to the 112th Congress, two women Democratic House Members have since resigned, and four others have been elected. This number (94) is lower than the record number of 95 women who were initially elected to the 111th Congress. The first woman elected to Congress was Representative Jeannette Rankin (R-MT, 1917-1919, 1941-1943). The first woman to serve in the Senate was Rebecca Latimer Felton (D-GA). She was appointed in 1922 and served for only one day. A total of 278 women have served in Congress, 178 Democrats and 100 Republicans. Of these women, 239 (153 Democrats, 86 Republicans) have served only in the House of Representatives; 31 (19 Democrats, 12 Republicans) have served only in the Senate; and 8 (6 Democrats, 2 Republicans) have served in both houses. These figures include one non-voting Delegate each from Guam, Hawaii, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Currently serving Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) holds the record for length of service by a woman in Congress with 35 years (10 of which were spent in the House).
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio House of Representatives Standing Committees
    Ohio House of Representatives Standing Committees Agriculture & Conservation Commerce & Labor Kyle Koehler (R- Springfield) Chair 614-466-2038 Dick Stein (R - Norwalk) Chair 614-466-9628 Rodney Creech (R-West Alexandria) VC 614-466-2960 Mark Johnson (R- Chillicothe) VC 614-644-7928 Juanita Brent (D- Cleveland) RM 614-466-1408 Michelle Lepore-Hagan (D- Youngstown) RM 614-466-9435 Brian Baldridge (R- Winchester) 614-466-3780 Willis Blackshear (D- Dayton) 614-466-1607 Adam Bird (R-Cincinnati) 614-644-6034 Janine Boyd (D- Cleveland Heights) 614-644-5079 Sarah Fowler-Arthur (R- Rock Creek) 614-466-1405 Juanita Brent (D- Cleveland) 614-466-1408 Paula Hicks-Hudson (D- Toledo) 614-466-1401 Alessandro Cutrona (R- Canfield) 614-466-6107 Don Jones (R-Freeport) 614-644-8728 Mark Fraizer (R- Newark) 614-466-1482 Darrell Kick (R- Loudonville) 614-466-2994 Jim Hoops (R- Napoleon) 614-466-3760 Joe Miller (D- Amherst) 614-466-5141 Don Jones (R- Freeport) 614-644-8728 Michael O’Brien (D- Warren) 614-466-5358 Gayle Manning (R- North Ridgeville) 614-644-5076 Jenna Powell (R- Arcanum) 614-466-8114 Bill Roemer (R- Richfield) 614-644-5085 Michael Sheehy (D- Oregon) 614-466-1418 Monique Smith (D- Westlake) 614-466-0961 Armed Services & Veterans Affairs Criminal Justice Haraz Ghanbari (R- Perrysburg) Chair 614-466-8104 Jeff LaRe (R-Canal Winchester) Chair 614-466-8100 Mike Loychik (R- Cortland) VC 614-466-3488 D. J. Swearingen (R- Huron) VC 614-644-6011 Adam Miller (D- Columbus) RM 614-644-6005 David Leland (D- Columbus) RM 614-466-2473 Richard Brown (D- Canal
    [Show full text]
  • Building on Our Momentum ... Securing Our Future
    Building on Our Momentum ... Securing Our Future Capital University Law School 2006 - 2007 Dean's Annual Report The Strategic Plan for Capital University Law School “Building Our Culture Building on Our Momentum ... Securing Our Future Strategies 2010 of Philanthropy is the overarching goal of Our Mission our strategic plan.” We will strengthen society and our legal system by developing skilled lawyers who serve diverse communities well, by promoting professionalism and ethics, and by furthering discourse and knowledge. Our Core Values We are committed to: I the rule of law in a constitutional, democratic society; I excellent teaching and effective learning; I integrity, ethical conduct and service; I intellectual and scholarly engagement; I access to the profession for first-generation professionals, minorities and other underrepresented groups; I diversity in background and thinking; I mutual respect and support; I high standards of performance; and I innovation and resourcefulness. Throughout this publication, please note the major Key Result Areas of our strategic plan and major accomplishments achieved this past academic year. To view the entire strategic plan and our annual progress, please visit www.law.capital.edu/About/StrategicPlan.asp. © 2008 Capital University Table of Contents Published for alumni and friends of Capital University Law School All address changes should be sent to: Capital University Law School Student and Law School News . 2 c/o Office of Alumni Relations 303 E. Broad St., Columbus, OH 43215-3200 Faculty News . 16 (614) 236-6601; [email protected] Alumni News . 22 Cover Photos: President Emeritus & Professor Emeritus Josiah H. Endowment . 30 Blackmore II; Winnie Sim, L’08; Dean Jack A.
    [Show full text]
  • April 2021 Monthly Legislative Update
    Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission Monthly Legislative Update April 2021 Joseph Garrity Director of Government Affairs + Strategic Initiatives (614) 233-4127 [email protected] What’s Happening Governor Signs Transportation Budget Gov. Mike DeWine signed the more than $8 billion transportation budget bill last week. The governor highlighted $318 million included for highway safety projects, $2.4 billion for local roadway improvements and $8 million for electric vehicle charging station grants. Speaker Bob Cupp (R-Lima) called passage of the bill “a good day for the state of Ohio and people of Ohio,” adding that it was passed on time, within the available revenue, “and without a contentious conference committee.” The House action came one day after the Ohio Senate adopted an omnibus amendment to the bill and passed it on the floor in a 32-0 vote. The bill funds construction and maintenance of the state’s roadways and bridges, in addition to appropriating $70 million per year for public transit through a combination of General Revenue Fund and federal flex funds. However, Governor DeWine’s “Hands-Free Ohio” proposal to increase penalties for distracted driving was removed by the General Assembly upon final passage of the bill. This proposal may be brought forward as a standalone bill later this session. Transportation budgets generally must be passed by the end of March so the non-appropriations sections can become effective 90 days later, by July 1, the start of the new fiscal year. Biden Announces American Jobs Plan Last week, President Biden introduced his American Jobs Plan in Pittsburgh.
    [Show full text]
  • Gerrymandering and Malapportionment, Romanian Style
    EEPXXX10.1177/0888325417711222East European Politics and SocietiesGiugăl et al. / Gerrymandering and Malapportionment 711222research-article2017 East European Politics and Societies and Cultures Volume XX Number X Month 201X 1 –21 © 2017 SAGE Publications Gerrymandering and 10.1177/0888325417711222 http://eeps.sagepub.com hosted at Malapportionment, Romanian http://online.sagepub.com Style: The 2008 Electoral System Aurelian Giugăl University of Bucharest Ron Johnston University of Bristol Mihail Chiru Median Research Centre, Bucharest Ionut Ciobanu Independent Researcher Alexandru Gavriș Bucharest University of Economic Studies Varieties of gerrymandering and malapportionment can appear not only in electoral systems where all legislative seats are allocated to plurality winners in single-member districts but also in proportional Single-Member District (SMD)–based electoral sys- tems and in settings where multi-partisan committees draw the district boundaries. This article investigates such a case, in which the main parliamentary parties collaborated in order to minimize the uncertainty regarding intra-party allocation of seats. The 2008 electoral reform in Romania created such opportunities, and both the SMD maps and the electoral results at the parliamentary election held in the same year indicate that the parties collaborated to design a number of safe seats for each of them. We draw on a novel data set that measures the degree to which the newly created SMDs reflect natu- ral or artificial strongholds of concentrated partisan support in otherwise unfavorable political territories, and also assess the malapportionment of these districts. All three types of mechanisms were frequently used, and our logistic regression analyses indi- cate that nomination from the “right” type of SMD was the main factor deciding which of each party’s candidates got elected.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019-2020 PAC Contributions
    2019-2020 Election Cycle Contributions State Candidate or Committee Name Party -District Total Amount ALABAMA Sen. Candidate Thomas Tuberville R $5,000 Rep. Candidate Jerry Carl R-01 $2,500 Rep. Michael Rogers R-03 $1,500 Rep. Gary Palmer R-06 $1,500 Rep. Terri Sewell D-07 $10,000 ALASKA Sen. Dan Sullivan R $3,800 Rep. Donald Young R-At-Large $7,500 ARIZONA Sen. Martha McSally R $10,000 Rep. Andy Biggs R-05 $5,000 Rep. David Schweikert R-06 $6,500 ARKANSAS Sen. Thomas Cotton R $7,500 Rep. Rick Crawford R-01 $2,500 Rep. French Hill R-02 $9,000 Rep. Steve Womack R-03 $2,500 Rep. Bruce Westerman R-04 $7,500 St. Sen. Ben Hester R-01 $750 St. Sen. Jim Hendren R-02 $750 St. Sen. Lance Eads R-07 $750 St. Sen. Milton Hickey R-11 $1,500 St. Sen. Bruce Maloch D-12 $750 St. Sen. Alan Clark R-13 $750 St. Sen. Breanne Davis R-16 $500 St. Sen. John Cooper R-21 $750 St. Sen. David Wallace R-22 $500 St. Sen. Ronald Caldwell R-23 $750 St. Sen. Stephanie Flowers D-25 $750 St. Sen. Eddie Cheatham D-26 $750 St. Sen. Trent Garner R-27 $750 St. Sen. Ricky Hill R-29 $500 St. Sen. Jane English R-34 $1,500 St. Rep. Lane Jean R-02 $500 St. Rep. Danny Watson R-03 $500 St. Rep. DeAnn Vaught R-04 $500 St. Rep. David Fielding D-05 $500 St. Rep. Matthew Shepherd R-06 $1,000 St.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded in February 2011)
    Executive Summary 1 Voter Power under First Past the Post 2 The effect of moving to the Alternative Vote 2 The VPI website 2 1. The AV Referendum in context 3 The referendum options 3 First Past the Post in the 2010 General Election 4 The effects of marginal and safe seats 4 2. The Voter Power Index 6 How the Voter Power Index is calculated 6 Voter Power under FPtP and AV 7 Numbers of marginal and safe constituencies 8 Beyond the referendum 10 Conclusion 11 Appendix 1. Summary of electoral systems 12 Appendix 2. The Voter Power Index: the statistical basis 14 Calculating the VPI for First Past the Post 14 Calculating the VPI for the Alternative Vote 15 Endnotes 18 This report examines the distribution of electoral power amongst voters in the UK and the possible impact of a change in the electoral system. It compares the distribution under the current First Past the Post system (FPtP) with the Alternative Vote system (AV) which will be put before voters in the May 2011 referendum. Our aim is to help voters consider the impact of the choice on offer in the referendum. Our analysis shows that moving from FPtP to AV will mitigate some of the distortions of the current system, but that inequalities and inefficiencies in the distribution of voter power would remain. Our research builds on nef’s 2005 report Spoiled Ballot which developed the first Voter Power Index (VPI).1 The VPI measures the power of voters to change the outcome of the election. Voter power is measured for each constituency and is determined by the chance of it changing hands and the number of voters.
    [Show full text]
  • Seat Safety and Female (Under)Representation in the U.S. Congress
    Seat safety and female (under)representation in the U.S. Congress Akhil Rajan, Alexander Kustov, Maikol Cerda, Frances Rosenbluth, Ian Shapiro Yale University Draft: May 17, 2021 Abstract Women have made significant strides toward equal representation within the U.S. Congress, but their seat share has mostly increased within the Democratic—but not Republican—Party. We argue that one driver of women’s underrepresentation among Republicans is the proliferation of safe seats. Because safe seats encourage ideological extremism in candidates and because women are stereotyped as more liberal than men, we expect women candidates to outperform men in safer Democratic seats but underperform men in safer Republican seats (relative to more competitive seats). Based on a new dataset linking all candidates for the U.S. House and their districts’ partisan composition since 2000, we show women both enter and win elections in safer Republican (Democratic) seats at relatively lower (higher) rates than men. Our results strikingly suggest that, even conditional on running, a female Republican candidate has an overall better chance of winning in a competitive seat than in a safe Republican seat. Keywords: Congress, Gender, Representation, Inequality, Electoral Competition Word count: 3700 Introduction After a record number of women won election to the United States Congress, many commentators declared 2018 to be the “Year of the Woman.” But the use of a caveat is warranted: if 2018 was the year of the woman, it must have been the year of the Democratic woman. By contrast, Republican women lost a whopping ten seats, their largest decline in the history of the United States House of Representatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report Ohio History!
    FISCAL YEAR 2014 Annual Report Ohio History! Through the historic preservation of our communities, our critically acclaimed education programs, 1.9 million collected items and over 50 historic sites and museums, we are helping people connect with Ohio’s past to understand the present Across the state, the Ohio and create a better future. History Connection oversees historic sites counties, and museums which 58 located in 40 include: historic sites natural history sites 33 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS museums acres of land 11 5,000 A Message From the Executive Director & CEO .............................. 3 archaeological buildings built 10 sites 300 between 1788 A Message From the Board President ......... 4 and 2013 Ohio History at Work ............................... 5–10 canal major boats 7 locks 4 bridges 2 Numbers ...........................................................11 Our Historic Sites and Museums ................ 12 Annual Revenue and Expenses ................... 13 Annual Supporters .................................. 14–18 Watch the accompanying Leadership ....................................................... 19 videos to the Annual Report at ohiohistory.org/ar2014. A MESSAGE FROM THE Executive Director & CEO It has been a great year for those of us who • We are beginning to create and open new love Ohio and Ohio History. On May 24, 2014, and immersive exhibits and experiences we officially changed our name from the connecting our guests to the real stuff Ohio Historical Society to the Ohio History of history. Connection. This change reflects our continued • In the field of historic preservation, we added commitment to advancing Ohio History and 31 new listings on the National Register of our goal to invite more Ohioans to open the Historic Places last year, which brings the door to history and explore it with us.
    [Show full text]
  • Statewide Endorsements
    VOTE PRO-LIFE ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6! To download and print a personalized card, visit ohiovotesforlife.org. GOVERNOR/LT. GOVERNOR ATTORNEY GENERAL Mike DeWine/Jon Husted Dave Yost AUDITOR SECRETARY OF STATE TREASURER Keith Faber Frank LaRose Robert Sprague * OHIO SUPREME COURT (Recommended) Mary DeGenaro Craig Baldwin U.S. SENATE & U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Senate - Jim Renacci - R 6 - Bill Johnson - R 10 - Mike Turner - R 1 - Steve Chabot - R Preferred 12 - Troy Balderson - R 2 - Brad Wenstrup - R 7 - Bob Gibbs - R 13 - Chris DePizzo - R 4 - Jim Jordan - R 8 - Warren Davidson - R 14 - Dave Joyce - R 5 - Bob Latta - R 9 - Steven Kraus - R 16 - Anthony Gonzalez - R OHIO SENATE 1 - Robert McColley - R 7 - Steve Wilson - R * 27 - Kristina Roegner - R 3 - Anne Gonzales - R 17 - Bob Peterson - R 29 - Kirk Schuring - R 5 - Stephen Huffman - R 19 - Andy Brenner - R 31 - Jay Hottinger - R OHIO HOUSE 1 - Scott Wiggam - R * 36 - Tony DeVitis - R 62 - Scott Lipps - R 83 - Jon Cross - R 2 - Mark Romanchuk - R 37 - Mike Rasor - R 65 - John Becker - R 84 - Susan Manchester - R 3 - Theresa Gavarone - R 38 - Bill Roemer - R 66 - Doug Green - R 85 - Nino Vitale - R 4 - Robert Cupp - R 40 - Phil Plummer - R 67 - Kris Jordan - R 86 - Tracy Richardson - R 5 - Tim Ginter - R 41 - Jim Butler - R 68 - Rick Carfagna - R 87 - Riordan McClain - R 6 - Jim Trakas - R 42 - Niraj Antani - R * Preferred 89 - Steven Arndt - R 7 - Tom Patton - R 43 - Jeffrey Todd Smith - R 69 - Steve Hambley - R * Preferred 13 - Jay Carson - R 47 - Derek Merrin - R * 70 - Darrell
    [Show full text]
  • Extensions of Remarks E691 EXTENSIONS of REMARKS
    May 3, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E691 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS RECOGNIZING JONATHAN M. NEL- Congress needs to reinstate the assault weapons, and any new gun laws are seen as SON FOR ACHIEVING THE RANK weapons ban act of 1994 which sadly expired leading down a slippery slope to a total ban OF EAGLE SCOUT in September of 2004. Allowing this law to ex- on gun ownership. Supporters of gun regula- tions are always cast as metropolitan high- pire does not show our resolve on gun traf- brows lacking in respect for the way of life of HON. SAM GRAVES ficking and I believe that it renders us irrele- law-abiding country folks. OF MISSOURI vant. Mayor Bloomberg is a Republican and At a structural level, Congress has a deep IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES has teamed up with Democratic mayors in bias in favor of the rural point of view be- particular Mayor Menino of Boston and has in cause the Senate is stacked in favor of rural Wednesday, May 3, 2006 essence left the partisanship at the door for states. Idaho, Wyoming and Montana have Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I proudly pause the sake of the people they were elected to two senators each, and so do California, New to recognize Jonathan M. Nelson, a very spe- serve. York and Illinois. cial young man who has exemplified the finest Mayor Bloomberg and Mayor Thomas According to the latest Census Bureau es- qualities of citizenship and leadership by tak- Menino of Boston have made the case that timates, the six senators from those three ing an active part in the Boy Scouts of Amer- this is in no way an attack on the culture of rural states represent 2,874,060 people.
    [Show full text]
  • Democracy and Elections
    10 Democracy and Elections Key Terms Boundaries Commission (p. 406) A body that recommends changes to election boundaries. By-election (p. 422) A district-level election held between general elections. Campaign Finance regulations (p. 409) Laws that govern political fundraising and/or spending. Disclosure (p. 411) Revealing otherwise private information, such as campaign expenses. Election Platform (p. 414) A list of political pledges announced before or during an election campaign. Gerrymandering (p. 406) The purposeful manipulation of electoral districts to maximize one party’s chances of winning. GOTV (p. 420) Efforts to mobilize supporters to vote, such as telephone reminders. Government Subsidy (p. 410) Public funds used to support an individual, group, or cause. Incumbent (p. 421) An elected official who currently represents an electoral district. Leader’s tour (p. 414) A visit of various electoral districts by the party leader and an entourage of staffers and journalists. Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) System (p. 404) An electoral system that combines geographic and partisan representation by providing extra seats to parties whose share of seats is lower than their share of the popular vote. Party Nomination (p. 420) An internal contest to decide who should represent a party locally in an upcoming election. Inside Canadian Politics © Oxford University Press Canada, 2016 Permanent Campaign (p. 413) The practice of electioneering outside of an election period, especially by leveraging government resources. Plebiscite (p. 422) A citizen vote held to inform a decision by a representative body. Political Contribution (p. 410) Donations to a political candidate, group, or cause. Recall (p. 423) Legislated process by which electors of a given district may petition for a by-election.
    [Show full text]