11Elections

The Logic of ElectionsAmerican democracy is representativedemocracy.

Madison emphasized the main differencesbetween a democracy and a republic:

“The two great points of difference …are: first, the delegation of thegovernment, in the latter, to a smallnumber of citizens elected by the rest;secondly, the greater number of citizens,and greater sphere of the country, overwhich the latter may be extended.”

Delegation of authority raises the possibility of agency loss:

one solution is to hold regular, free,competitive elections

The Logic of ElectionsElections work to ameliorate this problem:

– they give ordinary citizens a say in who represents them

– the prospect of future elections gives officeholders who want to keep or improve their jobs a motive to be responsive agents

– elections provide powerful incentives for the small set of citizens who want to replace the current officeholders to keep a close eye on representatives and to provide critical evaluations of them to the public at large

Suffrage for White Men• The practice of selecting leaders by ballot arrived in North America with

the first English settlers.• They also brought with them the practice of limiting the franchise:

– every colony imposed property qualifications for voting, and many denied suffrage to Catholics, Jews, Native Americans, and freed black slaves

– no colony allowed women to vote• Only about half of the free adult male population was eligible to vote at

the time the Constitution was adopted.• The initial property requirements for voting in early American history

were a reflection of the social reality at the time:– most adults were poor, illiterate, and dependent– those in an advantaged position were not inclined to risk the social order,

which helped them maintain their position

Suffrage for White Men

However, the nature of the New Worldmade access to property somewhateasier:

– property requirements were not enforced strictly– the Revolutionary War itself exerted a powerful influence on the demands to

enlarge the franchise:

Universal suffrage for (white) men was not fully achieved until the 1840s in the wake of Jacksonian democracy.

The vote was not extended simultaneously (as it was left to individual states to decide who could vote), but as it was extended, opposition to extending it became a political liability:

- as the electorate expanded, it became political suicide to oppose more democracy

Suffrage for Women

• The women’s suffrage movement grew directly out of the antislavery movement:– shared its underlying ideas– shared many of its activists

• The resistance to women’s suffrage was gradually overcome by a combination of social change:– the expansion of education for both sexes– the entry of women into the workforce outside the home– political need

Suffrage for Women

• As women’s suffrage grew at the state and local levels, politicians competing for women’s votes naturally supported further expansion.

• Only southern Democrats held out to the end, fearing that inroads for women would reinforce federal support of suffrage for blacks.

• The Nineteenth Amendment, adopted in 1920, finally guaranteed women everywhere the right to vote.

The Right to Vote

“We are not afraid to maul ablack man over the head if hedares to vote, but we can't treatwomen, even black women, thatway. No, we'll allow no womansuffrage. It may be right, but wewon't have it.” - Sen. JohnSharp Williams (D-MS)

Suffrage for African Americans and Young Americans

Suffrage for African Americans was not universal until the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The most recent expansion of voting rights, the Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971),lowered the voting age to eighteen:

– this was also a political move– what motivated it?

• the Vietnam War• eighteen-year-olds were old enough to fight, therefore they were old enough to vote.

The Right to VoteThe propertyless did not despoil the propertied.

– the conformity cost most dreaded did not emerge

Women did not alter the nature of politics. Indeed,no distinctive pattern of women’s voting wasevident until the 1980s.

The only discernible consequence has been thedecline in voting that occurred when the rightwas extended to eighteen-, nineteen-, andtwenty-year-olds.

The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments did notprevent a century of racial discrimination at thepolls.

– only the Voting Rights Act quickly and effectively achieved its goals

Who Uses the Right to Vote?Voting is the essence of democracy.

Yet millions of Americans donot vote.

Is this irrational? Paradoxical?

Benefits are collective.

Makes sense to demand the right to vote.

But rational not to use it.

Who Uses the Right to Vote?

• How we measure turnout matters!

• What’s wrong with simply calculating voter turnout by dividing the total number of votes cast by the total number of voting age residents?

• What effect would this have?

Who Uses the Right to Vote?

• Turnout has varied widely over time– Important: sharp decline

in turnout between 1960 and 1972.

– Since then, an average of only 58% of eligible voters has registered and voted in presidential elections.

– 2004 race: only about 60%

• Factors that influence turnout:– Age, education, race,

region, community, internal and external efficacy, partisanship.

– Living in politically competitive areas with lower barriers to voting.

– Gender has no impact. Nor does trust in gov’t.

Who Uses the Right to Vote?

• Voting and other forms of political participation incur costs but produce benefits.

• Those with: Money, education, experience, free time, and self-confidence find it easier to meet the costs.

• Those with: A greater psychological stake receive greater benefits.

The Non-Representative Electorate• The assorted demographic and institutional influences on voting

produce an electorate (the voting public) in which:

– Wealthy, well-educated, older white people are overrepresented.– Poor, uneducated, young, and nonwhite people are

underrepresented.• People like this are more likely to be mobilized by parties,

interest groups, and campaigns:– they are targeted as the cheapest to reach and the easiest to mobilize– “the pressures that political leaders face to use their own resources most

effectively build a class bias into their efforts to mobilize.”—Rosenstone and Hansen

Variations in Turnout over TimeEarlier discussion focused on the factors thatexplain variations in participation amongindividuals, but what accounts for variations inturnout over time?

Puzzling: While voter registration laws have easedand educational attainment has increased, whyhas voter turnout declined over time? Thesechanges should have increased turnout.

While these two trends have had a positive effecton turnout, other factors have had the oppositeeffect:

– extending the vote to eighteen-to twenty year-olds– lessening of community roots (increased mobility), lessening of political efficacy, lessening of partisan attachment

Variations in Turnout over Time

• The major reasons for the decline, however, are institutional: a decline in the efforts of parties, interest groups, and campaigns to mobilize voters has resulted in fewer voters being mobilized

• Fewer people voting because fewer people are being mobilized:– most parties and candidates have replaced labor-intensive door-to-

door campaigns with money-intensive television and direct-mail campaigns

– focus scarce resources on tightest races– diminishment of Civil Rights movement to mobilize black voters– diminishment of labor union movement and their efforts to union

workers and their families

Variations in Turnout over Time

• When campaigns invest heavily in grass roots activities to get out the vote as they did in 2004 and 2008, turnout does rise significantly.

• When mobilization efforts are cut, those that are most dependent on outside stimulation are likely to be effected more:– bias in electorate tends toward upper-class– this bias increases with decreases in mobilization

efforts

Voter Turnout is Lower than a Century Ago

How do Voters Decide?Acquire information to reduce uncertainty.

Cues and shortcuts.

Opinion leadersPersonal characteristicsof the candidate.Party label.

Free information.

How Do Voters Decide?

Assessing past performance.Evaluating incumbents. “Are you better off now than you werefour years ago?”

Role of the economy.

Utilize direct experience/experience of others via the media.

How Do Voters Decide?

Comparing future policy options.

Focus on issues: but which onesdominate?

- Guns, abortion, tax cuts, civil rights, etc.

Depends (single-issue voters versusthose who make decisions based onbundles of issues).

How Do Voters Decide?

Voters may take cues from opinionleaders.

Voters also make predictions basedon the candidates’ personalcharacteristics:

– one set of personal considerations includes qualities such as competence, experience, honesty, knowledge, and leadership skills

How Do Voters Decide?

• However, the most important information shortcut voters use to make predictions is party label. The party label provides useful information for both: performance voting (voting for the party in control, or “in-party” when one thinks the government is performing well; voting for the outs when one thinks the government is performing poorly) and issue voting (the typical positions of Republicans and Democrats; the parties differ in predictable ways on many issues).

• Most voters simplify their electoral evaluations and decisions by developing a consistent bias in favor of the candidates of one of the major parties, making the party label the most influential “endorsement” of all.

Party Identification and the 2008 Presidential Election

Party Identification and the 2012 Presidential Election

Election CampaignsCommon features found throughout competitive campaigns:

– Candidate– Message:

“Why should I vote for you”-It’s the economy, stupid!

Way to inform voters about both of the above.

Role of public image.

Media scrutiny.

Importance of debates.

Going Negative

Why do candidates ``go negative?’’

Because it works.

They exploit uncertainty about agiven candidate.

Going Negative• Campaign messages emphasizing one candidate’s personal

suitability for the job invite rebuttals from the other side.• Negative campaigning, pointed personal criticism of the other

candidate, is thus a normal, if sometimes ugly, component of the electoral process:– generally thought to be effective– examples: George H. W. Bush ads against Dukakis in 1988

• branding the opposition as soft on crime

• – Clinton’s campaign employed a rapid response team:• Kerry in 2004 did not have a rapid response to ads run by the “Swift Boat Vets”

– negative or not, campaign ads are rarely subtle:• rely on simplicity, repetition, exaggeration, and symbolism

Campaign Money and its Regulation

A good candidate and a good message are not enough.– Without money, the voters do not see the candidate or hear the

message.

In contemporary, candidate-centered campaigns, candidates (as opposed to the party organizations) must assemble their own campaign teams, raise their own money, hire consultants and technical specialists, and design and execute their own individual campaign strategies.

Campaign Money and its Regulation

Contemporary elections arevery costly.

Funded primarily by private funds.

Regulation of campaign money.– Pursuit of money can subvert the very purpose of elections.– Prior to the 1970s campaign money

was basically unregulated.– Changes to the political environment. • Candidate-centered campaigns. Television.

Thune-Daschle: 36 million dollars in South Dakota in 2004.

Campaign Money and its Regulation

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971,extensively amended in 1974.

– Law provided partial public funding forpresidential campaigns and required fullpublic reporting of, and strict limits on,all contributions and expenditures infederal elections:

– established the Federal ElectionCommission to enforce the law and tocollect and publish detailed informationon campaign contributions andexpenditures

Campaign Money and its Regulation

• Buckley v. Valeo (1976)• Question(s): Does the FEC Act’s spending restrictions violate

the first amendment?• The SC ruled NO.

– It upheld reporting requirements and contribution limits to prevent “corruption or the appearance of corruption”

– Rejected spending limits: FREE SPEECH– Allowed candidates to spend as much of their own money as they

wanted

Campaign Money and its Regulation

Concerned that spending limits were choking offtraditional local party activity in federal elections, Congress liberalized FECA in 1979.

– this amendment of the act allowed unrestricted contributions and spending for state and local party-building and get out-the-vote activities– these monies are commonly called soft money– monies given directly to the candidate are known as hard money.

In March of 2002 Congress passed a lawprohibiting parties from raising and spendingsoft money for federal candidates:

– the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act

Campaign Money and its Regulation

• The flow of campaign money has continued to outpace inflation.– total funding from all sources for the general election campaigns for

president rose from $453 million in 1996 to $676 million in 2000, and to $1.262 billion in 2004

• Spending in House and Senate campaigns also has continued to grow, rising by an average of about 9 percent in the House and 12 percent in the Senate from one election year to the next:– average House campaign in 2006: $953,000– average Senate campaign in 2006: $7.9 million

• Both supply and demand have driven campaign spending up– supply grows because the stakes are so high.– candidates’ appetites for funds have grown as well, as they need money

because the cost of developing a message and getting it out to voters continues to climb

Campaign Money

• Congressional candidates tap four basic sources for funds:– Individuals.

• Tend to favor winners

– Political Action Committees

– Party organization• Coordinated expenditures• Independent

expenditures

• Coordinated expenditures are those on behalf of the candidate for activities such as polling, ads, and opposition research

• Independent expenditures go for campaign activities that are not supposed to be coordinated in any way with the candidate’s campaign.

Campaign Money• Contributors tend to favor winners:

– thus incumbents generally are favored and challengers have a more difficult time

• Candidates for open seats are usually in a much better position to raise funds:– contributors correctly see open contests as their best opportunity for taking a

seat from the other party.

• Money is not likely to win a presidential election for someone, but it does help the candidates get their message out. The more uncertain the election (the less information available about the candidates), the more likely money can matter:– this is certainly the case for presidential primaries.

• In House and Senate races, money (primarily the lack of it) is frequently the deciding factor.

How is Campaign Money Spent?• Generally, campaign money is used to reach voters with the

candidate’s message:– advertising is a key component:

• Only a small portion of funds is spent on traditional campaigning (direct candidate-voter interaction).

• Today’s campaigns are made-for-television productions:– best-funded campaigns for president or important Senate seats get the

most attention from the media; the poor get ignored

• Often as large as one quarter of a campaign’s money goes to overhead costs:– staff salaries, office and furniture rental, computers, telephones, travel,

legal, etc.

• .

How is Campaign Money Spent?

• Incumbents and non-incumbents have somewhat different spending patterns.– weak opposition leaves incumbents free to spend

relatively less on reaching voters or not to spend any money at all:• House incumbents (1992 data) gave away 6 percent of

their campaign money (to charities or other candidates)

– non-incumbents spend about two-thirds of their funds on activities designed to reach voters directly

How is Campaign Money Spent in Presidential Elections?

Presidential candidates spend money basedon their Electoral College strategy.

Since one needs to piece together enoughstate victories to win at least 270electoral voters, the strategy is asfollows:

1.Concentrate on states that polls indicate could go either way and that are populous enough to be worth winning (Ohio in 2004, for example).

2.Ignore states that are locked up by either side.

How is Campaign Money Spent in Presidential Elections?

Obama (2008) – $ 744,983,795

Media – $ 427,600,000Administration – $ 174,900,000Campaign Expenses – $ 72,900,000

McCain (2008) – $368,093,763

Media – $ 129,400,000Administration – $ 100,900,000Campaign Expenses – $ 35,300,000

The Electoral College in 2008

The Electoral College in 2012

Elections Revisited

• Does money contributed to elections provide benefits to those who give?– Access: yes.– Policy favoritism: no indisputable evidence.

• Suggested reforms:– Spending ceilings.– Limiting donations and eliminating PACs.– Public funding.

• Many have their own problems, trade-offs.• No consensus on what would be best reform.• Ultimate barrier: First Amendment.• Campaign Finance system is very pluralistic today, however.

Campaign Finance Regulation