Elections and Voting Behavior

How American elections work Three kinds of elections: 1. Primary elections: voters select party nominees 2. General elections: contested between nominees of each party 3. Elections on specific policy questions for legislation— recently become more common in some states Two ways for public to pass legislation directly: –Referendum — Whereby voters are given the opportunity to approve or disapprove some legislative act –Initiative Petition – Requires gaining signatures on a proposed law equal to 10% of the number of voters in the previous election (24 states do this: AZ, SD, CA, OR, CO, etc.)

Voter Qualifications Constitution does note give the Federal Government the power to set suffrage qualifications (left to the states) but does put four restrictions on how states use that power: 1.15 th Amendment: RACE 2.19 th Amendment: GENDER 3.24 th Amendment: MONEY 4.26 th Amendment: AGE

Qualifications continued…. Citizenship Residence Age Registration DENIED…. mental institutions (50 states), felonies (KY/VA)

Whether to Vote: A Citizen’s First Choice From Government in America, 13th edition.

Whether to Vote: A Citizen’s First Choice U.S. has low voter turnout –Downs Theory argues that it is rational not to vote: Those who see clear differences between parties are likely to vote. If indifferent, then one may rationally abstain from voting. –Political Efficacy: the belief that one’s political participation really matters –Civic Duty: the belief that in order to support democratic government, a citizen should always vote

Who Votes? Based on: Education –Age –Race –Gender (gender gap) –Marital status –Mobility –Union membership es/news/politics/how-the-race-was- won

Whether to Vote: A Citizen’s First Choice Who Votes? –Marital Status: Married = more likely to vote –Union Membership: Union member = more likely to vote –Traits are cumulative–possessing several adds up from-the-census-bureaus-voting-report/

How Americans Vote: Explaining Citizens’ Decisions Policy Voting –Basing your vote choice on issue preferences and where the candidates stand on policy issues –Policy voting may occur if : Voters know where they and the candidates stand on issues and see differences between candidates –Unlikely to occur because: Candidates can be ambiguous on the issues. Media tend to focus on the “horse race” not issues: who is winning not what the issues are –Today candidates are forced to take a clear stand in the party primaries increasing chances for policy voting.

How Americans Vote: Explaining Citizens’ Decisions Mandate theory of elections: The idea that the winning candidate has a mandate from the people to carry out his or her platform and politics Party identification How Americans see the candidates Policy voting: When people base their choices in an election on their own issue preferences

Whether to Vote: A Citizen’s First Choice

Changing Patterns in Voting Behavior: 1960 and 2008 compared

Nominations and Campaigns for presidential candidates Nomination: party’s official endorsement of a candidate for office (requires money, media attention, and momentum) Campaign strategy: Way in which candidates attempt to manipulate each of these elements to achieve nomination National Party Convention: Functions to select presidential and vice presidential candidate and write a party platform

The Nomination Game Competing for Delegates –Nomination game is an elimination contest –Goal is to win a majority of delegates’ support at the national party convention, or the supreme power within each of the parties The convention meets every four years to nominate the party’s presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Conventions are but a formality today.

The Nomination Game The Caucus Road Caucus: Meeting where they select their delegates to the national convention (Iowa 1 st ) –Although most states hold primaries, caucuses are another way political parties nominate candidates for election. –Caucuses are a series of meetings held across a state. At these meetings, party members discuss the candidates, and then openly vote for state delegates who represent the candidate they support. Those state delegates, in turn, choose delegates to attend the national convention, where they are expected to support the candidate whom they had pledged to support. –Organized like a pyramid from local precincts to the state’s convention The Iowa caucus is first and most important.

The Nomination Game –The Primary Road Primary: elections in which voters in a state vote for a nominee (or delegates pledged to the nominee) –Began at turn of 20 th century by progressive reformers –New Hampshire is the first primary –McGovern-Fraser Commission led to selection of delegates through primary elections –Most delegates are chosen through primaries. –Superdelegates: democratic leaders who automatically get a delegate slot Frontloading is the tendency of states to hold primaries early to capitalize on media attention. New Hampshire is first. Generally primaries serve as elimination contests.

The Nomination Game Competing for Delegates –Evaluating the Primary and Caucus System Disproportionate attention to early ones Prominent politicians do not run. Money plays too big a role. Participation in primaries and caucuses is low and unrepresentative; 20 percent vote in primaries. The system gives too much power to the media. ican_Party_presidential_primaries, _2012

Republican Primaries by month

The Nomination Game The Convention Send-off –National conventions once provided great drama, but now are a formality, which means less TV time. –Significant rallying point for parties –Key note speaker on first day of Convention –Party platform: statement of a party’s goals and policies for next four years Debated on the second day of the Convention –Formal nomination of president and vice-president candidates on third and fourth days

Superdelegates: Democratic Party Superdelegates: Politicians who are awarded convention seats on the basis of their position

Candidate (Party)Amount raisedAmount spentVotes Average spent per vote Barack Obama (D)D$778,642,962$760,370,19569,498,516$10.94 John McCain (R)R$379,006,485$346,666,42259,948,323$5.78 Ralph Nader (I)$4,496,180$4,187,628739,034$5.67 Bob Barr (L)L$1,383,681$1,345,202523,715$2.57 Chuck Baldwin (C)C$261,673$234,309199,750$1.17 Cynthia McKinney (G)G $240,130$238,968161,797$1.48 Excludes spending by independent expenditure concerns. Source: Federal Election Commission [176] [176]

The Maze of Campaign Finance Reforms –Soft Money: political contributions (not subject to contribution limits) earmarked for party-building expenses or generic party advertising –The McCain-Feingold Act (2002) banned soft money, increased amount of individual contributions, and limited “issue ads.” –527s: independent groups that seek to influence political process but are not subject to contribution restricts because they do not directly seek election of particular candidates

Money and Campaigning The Maze of Campaign Finance Reforms –Federal Election Campaign Act (1974) Created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to administer campaign finance laws for federal elections Created the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Provided partial public financing for presidential primaries –Matching funds: Contributions of up to $250 are matched for candidates who meet conditions, such as limiting spending. Provided full public financing for major party candidates in the general election Required full disclosure and limited contributions

Money and Campaigning The Proliferation of PACs –Political Action Committees (PACs): created by law in 1974 to allow corporations, labor unions and other interest groups to donate money to campaigns; PACs are registered with and monitored by the FEC. –As of 2006 there were 4,217 PACs. –PACs contributed over $372.1 million to congressional candidates in –PACs donate to candidates who support their issue. –PACs do not “buy” candidates, but give to candidates who support them in the first place.

Campaign Finance Reform Federal Election Campaign Act: –1. Tightened reporting requirements for contributions –2. Limited overall expenditures Challenged in 1976 in Buckley V. Valeo Supreme Court struck down as a violation of free speech, the portion of the act that limited the amount individuals could contribute to their own campaigns Soft Money: money raised for campaigns (not subject to any contribution limits)

McCain-Feingold Act 1.Banned soft money contributions 2.Increased amount that individuals could give to candidates from $1000 to $2000 and can rise with inflation 3.Barred groups from running “issue ads” within 60 days of a general election if they refer to a federal candidate and are not funded by a PAC

Money and Campaigning The Proliferation of PACs –Political Action Committees (PACs): created by law in 1974 to allow corporations, labor unions and other interest groups to donate money to campaigns; PACs are registered with and monitored by the FEC. –As of 2006 there were 4,217 PACs. –PACs contributed over $372.1 million to congressional candidates in –PACs donate to candidates who support their issue. –PACs do not “buy” candidates, but give to candidates who support them in the first place.

Political Action Committees Loopholes with PACs Any interest group can now get into the act by forming its own PAC to directly channel contributions of up to $5000 per candidate in both the primary and general election

SUPER PACs

Super PACs Super PACs are a new kind of political action committee created in July 2010 following the outcome of a federal court case known as SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission. Technically known as independent expenditure-only committees, Super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates. Super PACs must, however, report their donors to the Federal Election Commission on a monthly or quarterly basis -- the Super PAC's choice -- as a traditional PAC would. Unlike traditional PACs, Super PACs are prohibited from donating money directly to political candidates. As of April 09, 2014, 991 groups organized as Super PACs have reported total receipts of $149,876,153 and total independent expenditures of $31,418,312 in the 2014 cycle.

Money and Campaigning

Buckley V. Valeo Extends right of free speech to PACs and can now spend unlimited amounts indirectly, that is, if such activists are not coordinated with the campaign Plays a major role in paying for expensive campaigns

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission By a 5-to-4 vote along ideological lines, the majority held that under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited. The majority maintained that political speech is indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation.

McCutcheon V. F.E.C., 2013 No longer cap on spending limit….. The earlier decision threw out limits on what any individual can give to federal candidates over a two-year election cycle. Wednesday’s majority opinion, by Chief Justice John Roberts, said those caps infringe on free- speech rights and are not justified by a governmental interest in combating political corruption. Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissent, joined by the rest of the liberal wing, said the aggregate cap fights corruption. election-commission / election-commission /