Chapter 13 Elections and Voting 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 election 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 general election. □ Closed primary: a primary election 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 Initiative, Referendum, 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 Electoral College □ 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 □ Apportionment 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 ■ Gerrymandering □ 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