Electoral College Compromise solution at Constitutional Convention Founders didn’t trust Congress (Parliamentary) Founders didn’t trust the people (demos = mob) Kept states involved in Presidential election (each state legislature decides how electors are chosen) Electors were intended to be independent thinkers

Electoral College Jefferson formed Republican party in 1796 to secure vote in Electoral College Number of electors equal to each state’s # Representatives + 2 Senators 12th Amendment required President & Vice President to run as team 23rd Amendment allowed D.C. to be represented in Electoral College with 3 electors

Presidential Elections Popular vote is for electors, not president, even though President’s name appears on ballot Popular vote may differ from vote in Electoral College (e.g. Jackson in 1820, Gore in 2000) 48 states send electors with commitment to popular will of statewide vote (general-ticket system) 2 states (Maine, Nebraska) commit electors to vote of Congressional district (similar to proportional representation--state may be split)

Electoral College Mathematical advantage either to very large or very small states Possible to win with 13 states: CA(54), NY(33), TX(32), FL(25), PA(23), IL(22), OH(21), MI(18), VA(13), GA(13), IN(12), TN(11), WI(11), MO(11), WA(11) Possible to win with small states (e.g. George W. Bush) because small states are guaranteed 3 electors In 2000, Gore won CA with 54 electors and 5.7 million votes; Bush won 13 of 19 smallest states with 54 electors but only 2.7 million votes

Electoral College Once party conventions meet, nominees have ten to fifteen weeks to persuade voters before November election Emphasis is on securing 270 Electoral College votes (triage strategy with limited time and money) Ignore states that one is guaranteed to win Ignore states one is guaranteed to lose Ignore states with few electors Focus on swing states and states with many electors Exceptions: As race got close, Gore pressured Bush in Florida Bush pressured Gore in Tennessee and won

Electoral College Critics charge that Electoral College system violates political equality principle (one person, one vote) 30 million people in California control only 54 electoral votes Several reform proposals but only direct popular election would address issue of political equality Electoral College proponents argue that system supports outcome in close popular elections when candidate receives only plurality of popular vote but clear majority in Electoral College (e.g. Clinton in 1992) -- enhances legitimacy It also gives power to states and idea of federalism

Political Campaigns Influenced by: office being sought status of candidate (incumbent or challenger) party affiliation and district preference demographics, SES, character & size of district financing & independent resources

Political Campaigns continued Strategies directed at persuading voters based on: party loyalty position on issues character or image of candidate Tactics focus on: message content (negative, comparative) mode of delivery (debate, q&a, etc.)

Federal Election Campaign Act Passed in 1971 but Nixon spent $65M in 1972 to get re-elected; some went to jail If raise $5K (<=$250 each) in 20 states, then government matches up to 1/2 spending limit Spending limit now $30.9M + $6.2M = $37.1M in primary $61.8M in main election (if Democrat or Republican; less for minor parties that received less than 25% popular vote in previous election) party can receive $12.4M for conventions

Congressional Elections Influenced by Congressional district demographics state legislatures determine districts Supreme Court has changed position on “racial redistricting” Also influenced by: first-past-the-post process voter preference for divided (weak) govt. Favors pluralist model of democracy

Congressional Elections Political equality and Congressional districts Constitution requires decennial census in order to calculate number of representatives In 1790, 105 representatives in House (1 for every 33,000 people--constitution stipulates no fewer than 30,000) In 1910, House of Representatives had 435 members (roughly 1 for every 200,000 people) In 1990, 1 House member represented 620,000 people (if evenly divided--or 647,000 after 2000)

Congressional Elections Reapportionment redistributes 435 House members among 50 states Redistricting changes boundaries of Congressional districts within states Single member district system allows winner-take-all format (not multi-member districts) Since Baker v. Carr (1962), U.S. Supreme Court requires districts of relatively equal size to ensure equal protection of the law (14th Amendment) or one person, one vote

Congressional Elections State legislatures are responsible for redistricting Political gerrymandering is acceptable Racial gerrymandering has been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court Uncomfortable resemblance to political apartheid.. Obligation is to represent constituency as a whole, not members of one race Antithetical to system of representative democracy

Financing Congressional Campaigns U.S. Supreme Court overturned spending limits in Congressional campaigns in Buckley v. Valeo (1976)...money is speech Upheld limits on contributions--same as in presidential campaigns ($1K individual, $5k PACs) Independent (nonaffiliated) PACs have no limit Finance rules favor incumbents, although some PACs “hedge bets” and contribute to both Rules decrease accountability & competition, and limit access by individuals