1. Politics and Elections

2. The Origins of Political Parties
Madison’s view of “faction”
First U.S. political parties: Federalists and Anti-Federalists
Battle began over a strong central government vs. states’ and individual rights
The American Heritage Dictionary defines a faction as “a group of persons forming a cohesive, usually contentious minority within a larger group.” The interaction between such groups constitutes factionalism, the foundation of American politics: groups of people, cohesive due to their shared beliefs, struggling to be heard and striving for control of government. It brings into question whether anything would get done if all members of the government constantly argued and schemed. James Madison characterized factions as “adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community” and felt that in a democracy, if a majority faction gained power it would pose a grave threat to individual rights and liberties. However, he also recognized the inevitability of factions in a diverse country whose citizens had freedoms of expression, assembly, and petition—as well as a voice in determining their elected officials. Madison argued that having representative democracy and encouraging the U.S. to develop as a large, diverse republic would prevent a “tyranny of the majority” from forming. Many of the Founders shared Madison’s opinions and held a deep distrust of “faction”; however, this did not prevent them forming what would essentially become America’s first political parties.
The first political parties to arise in the United States were the Federalists and the Anti- Federalists. The two groups emerged in the late 1780s during the battles over whether to ratify the new Constitution. Those who supported the Constitution came to be called “Federalists.” They sought a strong central government to help administer the entire nation. Those who opposed this plan became known as the “Anti-Federalists.” They saw the Constitution as giving too much power to the central government and felt it posed a danger to both states’ rights and individual rights.
“Congressional Pugilists,” a 1798 political cartoon

3. The Origin of Political Parties: Hamilton vs. Jefferson
Strong federal government
Jefferson
Limited national authority
Rule by elite
Believed in ability of farmers and common people to rule themselves
Loose interpretation of Constitution
Strict interpretation of Constitution
Favored national bank
During George Washington’s first term in office, the seeds of political faction emerged from his own cabinet when a philosophical feud developed between Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton favored a nation ruled by “elitists,” whom he considered better educated and therefore better suited to lead. Jefferson, on the other hand, believed that the “common man”—meaning farmers and tradesmen—were best suited to rule.
Part of this feud grew from Hamilton’s financial plans as Treasury secretary. In particular, the two men clashed over Hamilton’s plan to create a national bank, which he hoped would provide for a uniform currency, stabilize the nation’s weak economy, and encourage economic growth and development—especially the development of manufacturing. While Hamilton believed the national bank was constitutional under the so-called “elastic clause” (which allowed Congress to make any laws that were “necessary and proper” for the government to function effectively), Jefferson held a stricter interpretation of the clause and asserted that the only way to create a national bank was by constitutional amendment.
Hamilton and Jefferson’s feud laid the groundwork for what eventually became the nation’s first political parties: the Federalist Party arose around Hamilton and his followers, and the Democratic-Republican Party supported Jefferson and his followers. America’s relations with the two leading European superpowers at the time, France and Britain, added foreign policy to the breach between the two parties. Federalists supported strong relations with Britain to maintain and improve trade. Democratic-Republicans favored firm ties with France, due partly to Jefferson’s past experience with the French government as U.S. ambassador, as well as to a sense of loyalty to the country that had proven indispensable to America during the Revolution.
Favored paying state debts
Opposed national bank
Supported merchants, landowners, investors, wealthy
Favored payment of national debt, not state debts
Tended to support Britain in foreign affairs
Tended to support France in foreign affairs
Followers formed the Democratic-Republican Party, which eventually became the Democratic Party
Followers formed the Federalist Party, which eventually became the Republican Party

4. The Evolution of Political Parties
Federalist Party: first U.S. political party
Democratic-Republicans formed in opposition to the Federalists
Democratic Party developed from the Democratic-Republicans
Whig Party arose to counter the Democratic Party
Henry Clay
In time, the two political parties gained popular support and translated their visions for the nation’s future into policy. The Federalist Party withered away after John Adams’ failed attempt at winning a second term in 1800, and Democratic-Republicans won the presidency in every election from 1800 to With the election of Andrew Jackson in 1828, Democratic-Republicans became known simply as the Democratic Party. The Democrats opposed the commercial aristocracy of the New England states, as well as land ownership as a qualification to vote. A complex coalition of different factions, the Democrats included farmers and free laborers in both urban and rural areas; also, many Southern plantation owners supported the party because of its policies favoring farming and the “common man.”
In response to the Democratic Party’s dominance, a loose coalition of fiscal conservatives and Southern states’ rights proponents formed the Whig Party in 1834, taking their name from the British political party that opposed the monarchy. Among the American Whig Party’s more prominent members were Senators Henry Clay of Kentucky and Daniel Webster of Massachusetts (and for a time, a congressman from Illinois named Abraham Lincoln). During its existence, the party also enjoyed the participation of several war heroes, including Zachary Taylor, Winfield Scott, and William Henry Harrison. Harrison and Taylor won the elections of 1840 and 1848, respectively, but both died in office and their successors did not fare well as presidents. The Whigs favored internal improvements and economic development, and appealed to the professional and business classes of society in towns and cities. Protestant fundamentalist elements introduced a moralistic tone to the party’s philosophy, calling both for schools to teach moral values and for the national prohibition of alcohol.
Andrew Jackson
Daniel Webster

5. The Evolution of Political Parties (continued)
The Republican Party rose from the ashes of the Whig Party
The Democratic Party lost influence from its association with the Southern states during the Civil War
The Republican Party became the dominant party in the second half of the 19th century
The Democratic Party regained support via the reform movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries
The Whig Party met its demise because of the issue of expansion of slavery into the territories. Deep cracks in the party among pro- and anti-slavery factions emerged along regional lines. For the 1852 election, Whig Party leaders denied the incumbent Millard Fillmore the nomination and instead ran General Winfield Scott, thinking that another war hero could come in to save the day. He lost decisively to Democratic nominee Franklin Pierce. Within four years, the Whigs had disintegrated into several smaller parties.
The Republican Party emerged in the 1850s as a coalition of former Whigs, Northern Democrats, and “Free Soilers” (those opposed to extending slavery into the territories). The party’s early political philosophy combined the Whig-style economic policies with a strong antislavery focus. At its formation, the party’s drew most of its support from the Northwest and Midwest. Many in 1856 considered the party’s stand against slavery too radical in a decade where politicians had compromised numerous times in order to avoid conflict between the North and the South. However, Republican Abraham Lincoln won the presidency in 1860 with only a minority of the popular vote (he didn’t even appear on many ballots in the South), civil war became all but a certainty. The Republicans controlled the government through the Civil War and dominated during Reconstruction; Democrats, on the other hand, became identified with the defeated South and saw their national influence greatly reduced once the war had ended. After Reconstruction, the Democrats began to rebuild their reputation and gather support, and during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Democrats forged a new identity as the party of reform. Incorporating the ideals of the Progressive Party (a “third party,” to be discussed later), Democrats pushed for better working conditions for factory workers as well as for social services for the urban poor.
An 1860 campaign poster for Abraham Lincoln

6. The Role of Political Parties
Parties organize individuals with similar ideas who work to effect political change
Citizens may freely choose their party affiliation, or opt to have none at all
Parties can represent a wide variety of interests
Parties aim to elect people to government who will help pass laws in their favor
Political parties are organizations made up of individuals with similar views on public issues who work to put their ideas into effect through governmental action. In the United States, involvement with a political party is voluntary, and citizens can join any political party they choose.
A political party tries to shape government based on the party’s political philosophy and the principles for which it stands. For instance, some parties favor helping the poor or disadvantaged and want to provide health and education benefits to all Americans. Others want to implement policies that help businesses grow and protect the country with a strong military. Others may look for better ways to protect the environment, keep the United States out of foreign conflicts, or simply lessen the government’s role in citizens’ lives. These parties not only seek to influence governmental decision making, they also strive to elect the very people who make policy decisions and pass laws.

7. Third Parties in a Two-Party System
Usually form in opposition to one or both major parties
Have had great influence without ever winning the presidency
Bring attention to important public issues ignored by the major parties
Complaints about third parties:
They take votes away from major candidates with similar positions
Supporting a third-party candidate “wastes” one’s vote
Besides the two major parties, third parties have formed throughout the nation’s history. They usually come into being in the same way the Democratic-Republican, Whig, and Republican parties did: out of opposition to one (or both) of the major parties. While no third-party candidate has ever won the presidency, many third-party politicians have been elected to local, state, and (occasionally) to national office. Third parties have had great influence on American elections, sometimes forcing the major political parties to take stronger stands on issues they had previously ignored.
Third parties occasionally face accusations of causing problems with the electoral process. One such allegation is that third parties “take votes away” from one of the major parties by promoting similar issues. While it’s difficult to know why a voter chooses a candidate from a third party instead of a major party, in some cases third parties have contributed to the defeat of major-party candidates. Most third-party advocates contend that the major parties are never entitled to anyone’s vote and that people may vote freely and independently for the candidate of their choice. People often vote for third-party candidates, they say, because that candidate delivered his or her message more passionately or effectively. Another criticism of third parties claims that voting for third-party candidates “wastes” a vote because these politicians don’t have a realistic chance of winning. Some political experts counter this criticism by contending that many third- party voters likely wouldn’t have voted at all if the third party didn’t exist, and that third parties therefore can help increase participation in the political process.
Historically, the more votes a third party receives, the more the major parties pay attention to the issues that it advocates. Often a third party’s success lies in bringing the public’s attention to an issue previously ignored or deemed insignificant. Seeing a third party confront an issue and get its message across to voters, a major party may find reason to adopt the issue and make it fit to its philosophy, or else adjust its philosophy to incorporate the issue.
Third-party poster from the 1912 presidential campaign

8. Discussion Questions
What are factions, and why did James Madison and many of the other Founders distrust them?
Trace the development of the first political parties in the United States. What were these parties, when did they arise, who led them, and who were their major supporters?
What is the role of a political party? How do third parties usually form? Do you think they are good for the American political system? Why or why not?
A faction can be defined as “a group of persons forming a cohesive, usually contentious minority within a larger group.” Madison and many of the other Founders believed that factions worked against the best interest of the community as a whole. He also felt that if a majority faction gained power, it would threaten individual rights and liberties.
Political parties emerged early in the republic as two competing factions envisioning two different directions for the government. The Federalists supported Alexander Hamilton, who believed that the country would be best served by a powerful central government, and found its base of support in the wealthy, people in business, and those living close to commercial centers. The Democratic-Republicans coalesced around the views of Thomas Jefferson and appealed largely to people involved in agriculture.
A political party’s main function consists of attracting individuals with similar ideas and interests to an organization that can both help pass legislation and elect leaders favorable to their interests. Third parties form when the two main parties fail to meet the needs of individuals, usually on specific issues of interest. (Students’ answers on the value of third parties will vary, but those who argue in favor of them should mention that such parties offer alternatives and bring issues to the fore that the two major parties may later adopt. Students who argue against third parties should mention that such parties divert votes away from “real” candidates, and that individuals who support a third-party candidate essentially “waste” their votes.)

9. The Constitutional Basis for Presidential Elections
The Constitution’s Framers doubted the public’s ability to directly elect its leaders
Article II: Electors from each state vote directly for president
1804: The 12th Amendment changed the electoral process to a presidential/vice-presidential ticket
American voters often overlook the fact that they don’t directly elect the president. The Framers of the Constitution knew they needed a executive branch to lead the country and administer the operation of government, but most believed that the general public would make poor choices for president and base their votes on emotion rather than reason. While it may seem odd for democratic revolutionaries to reject the concept of directly electing their leaders, the Framers understood that a wide disparity existed between the educated and the common people, and that most people did not have access to information about the candidates. The Framers thus came up with a system for electing the president: the Electoral College.
Article II of the Constitution states that the presidential election process will occur every four years through a system of electors. When citizens cast their vote for president, they are really voting for the group of electors in their state that represents that candidate. State party officials choose these electors from loyal party members to vote for their respective candidate. In the original version of Article II, the electors would cast two votes each, both for the office of president. The individual with the most votes would become president, with the runner-up serving as his vice president. During the presidency of John Adams, the flaws in this arrangement became apparent, since the two candidates who received the most votes (Adams and Thomas Jefferson) held vastly different views on the direction for the government. People realized this wouldn’t make for a good working relationship between president and vice president, and so in 1804 the nation ratified the 12th Amendment, which provided that citizens would cast a single vote for a presidential and vice-presidential candidate running together. Therefore, instead of serving as vice president, the candidate with the second-most votes would lose the election.
Verifying the Electoral College vote in the House of Representatives, 1913

10. The Presidential Election Process
The public votes for president in November every four years
The members of the Electoral College cast the official votes for president the next month, in December
The general election for the presidency is held on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November in years evenly divisible by four. When citizens vote for president, they are in reality voting for the members of the Electoral College from their state, who will then later cast the actual votes for the candidate. The Electoral College vote is traditionally held on the Monday following the second Wednesday in December of the same year of the election. Though it holds the ultimate responsibility for voting for president, the Electoral College’s meeting in December is little more than a formality. Computers now allow for the outcome of nearly all presidential elections to be determined the day of or the day following the election.

11. The Presidential Election Process (continued)
Each state has a designated number of electors
In most states, electoral votes are awarded on a “winner take all” basis; Nebraska and Maine use proportional distribution
Out of 538 electoral votes, candidates need 270 to win election
Each state has a designated number of electors, based on its number of representatives plus its two senators. The most heavily populated state, California (which has 53 representatives and two senators), has 55 electoral votes; many a less-populated states, like Montana (which has a single representative and two senators), have only three electoral votes.
Every state but Nebraska and Maine awards its electoral votes on a “winner take all” basis, in which the winner of each state’s popular vote receives all of the state’s electoral votes. In Nebraska and Maine, electoral votes are distributed to the highest vote-getter in each congressional district, and the two “senatorial” electoral votes go to the winner of the statewide election. Winning candidates don’t necessarily receive all of the electoral votes in either of these states, but they do get a majority of the available electoral votes.
Tallying every state’s electoral votes, plus the District of Columbia’s three votes, results in a total of 538. A candidate must receive 270 electoral votes to win the election. If no candidate reaches this number, the election is then decided by a vote in the House of Representatives. Since most states operate on a “winner take all” system, if the popular vote is close in most states, the possibility exists for a candidate to win the popular vote without receiving a majority of electoral votes. This has happened in 1824, 1876, 1888, and most recently in the 2000 election between George W. Bush and Al Gore.
Electoral College votes by state

12. The Road to the White House
“Throwing one’s hat in the ring”
On the campaign trail:
Campaigning
Caucuses and primaries
Nominating conventions
People who intend to run for the presidency usually announce their candidacy with fanfare and a great deal of media attention in order to get their campaign off to a quick and public start. People still commonly refer to a candidate “throwing his hat in the ring”; most credit Theodore Roosevelt as being the first to use this saying in a political sense when he ran for president in The term originated in the 19th century from the sport of boxing, when matches were open to practically anyone; a challenger would toss his hat into the boxing ring to let everyone know he wanted to fight.
In most presidential races, several people from both of the leading parties seek election. If constitutionally eligible and interested in holding office again, the current president usually (though not always) runs for his party’s nomination unopposed. Challengers from other parties announce their own candidacies, and each organizes a campaign committee to help get their message out to the public before and during the different state primaries and caucuses. Third parties usually selects their candidates internally rather than holding statewide primaries because third-party candidates generally don’t receive the same level of publicity and news coverage as the major-party candidates.
In recent years, candidates have begun to announce their intention to run for the presidency nearly two years before the election so as to garner as much media attention as possible and therefore build momentum—and raise funds. After declaring that they plan to run for president, candidates go though a series of state primary elections and caucuses. Such elections resemble the playoffs in sporting events, allowing the candidates to maximize their exposure to the voting public and serving as sort of a run-off for the nominating conventions. States see the primaries as an opportunity for their citizens to get to know the candidates better and also to let the candidates know what political concerns the citizens of that state have. Participation in the primaries helps candidates gauge the strength of their campaigns and how well their ideas and arguments “play” before an audience. The candidate who wins the most primaries goes into the national convention with an advantage and will likely receive the party’s official nomination as its candidate for president.

13. The Road to the White House (continued)
On the campaign trail:
Nominating conventions
Campaigning and more campaigning
Presidential “debates”
General election
Nominating conventions are national meetings of a political party, usually held in a major city in the summer before the general election in November. The conventions serve several purposes: they allow party officials to discuss and revise the party’s stated positions on important issues (known as the platform), officially determine the party’s presidential candidate, and select the candidate’s running mate. Each state’s party apparatus sends delegates to attend the convention to (hopefully) meet with the candidates and their campaign officials, and to explain to them what they would like the candidates to do for them if elected. The delegates in turn offer to campaign for the candidate before the general election. During the convention, party members make many speeches, the party announces its platform, and the delegates take several votes to decide on the party’s nominee for president. In the period between the nominating conventions and the general election, candidates criss-cross the country to get their message across to voters as well as to counter the message of the opposing candidate. Third-party candidates also participate in this process.
Since 1960, debates have been a main feature of presidential elections, with both presidential and vice- presidential candidates engaging in separate debates with their respective opponents. Debates today have a much different structure than ones in the past, such as the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates, which focused primarily on issues. Nowadays, the candidates’ campaign organizations establish the rules and screen the topics—and even the questions themselves—beforehand. These exchanges may have the appearance of a debate (including a moderator), but unlike debate competitions in which points are given for how well each side presents their argument, televised presidential debates serve more as vehicles for candidates to state their policy positions on chosen topics. In recent years, presidential debates have been criticized as being nothing more than extended “campaign infomercials.” However, others see them as a good way for the American public to hear the candidates respond to questions about important subjects in a “live” setting.
The final months of campaigning are filled with speeches, public appearances, door-to-door campaigning, opinion polls, “get out the vote” rallies, and endless media advertising. A frenzy of activity in the final days of a presidential campaign leads up to election day, when the voters make their choice for president.

14. Opinion Polls and Their Influence
Questions designed to measure the views or attitudes of a certain population
Use in the political sphere
Effectiveness
Margin of error
Factors affecting accuracy
Opinion polls are sets of questions designed to measure the views of various segments of the population on a range of issues. Most opinion polls reflect the views of a cross-section of society, thereby providing a sampling of what the general public thinks.
In the political sphere, opinion polls can measure the public’s attitude toward a candidate or a particular issue. Sometimes these polls focus on a specific segment of the population (e.g., gender, age groups, or ethnic groups or races). Other times, they represent how people feel at a specific moment, such as after a vote in Congress, an important event in the news, or an action by a foreign country.
While most polls try to field opinions representative of the entire population, they usually only ask questions of 1500–5000 people and may contain errors. Pollsters record this “margin of error” as plus or minus “x” percentage points. For example, if a poll with a 3% margin of error says that 60% of people feel favorable toward a certain candidate, then the possibility exists that as few as 57% or as many as 63% feel that way. Generally speaking, the larger the sample of people polled, the lower the sampling error. Pollsters try to keep the margin of error low, but sampling a larger number of people makes conducting the poll more expensive. Other factors that may affect a poll’s accuracy include people in the sample’s refusal to participate (meaning that replacements must be found) or give honest responses, or if poll respondents don’t really have any interest in the issue or subject of the poll. If the wording of a question causes confusion or if the question was written with a specific answer in mind, it may also skew how respondents answer a poll.

15. Opinion Polls and Their Influence (continued)
Controversy surrounding opinion polls:
Tendency to sway voters
The “bandwagon effect”
The “underdog effect”
How much should candidates or elected officials react to polls?
Some regard opinion polls as controversial because they may influence voters in ways that might not have occurred had the poll not been conducted. Consistently conducted polls whose results are released periodically during a political campaign may affect how people eventually vote in the election. Pollsters call one common scenario the “bandwagon effect”: when voters see opinion polls showing a certain candidate or popular position leading in the polls, they become more likely to vote for that candidate or position. The opposite situation—when people vote out of sympathy for a candidate perceived to be losing in the polls or having suffered a loss unrelated to the election—is known as the “underdog effect.” This may also occur if a series of polls shows the underdog catching up with the frontrunner. Either of these voting patterns occurs more often when voters don’t strongly support any of the candidates running for office.
Some political analysts claim that opinion polls actively distort the political process. Critics contend that poll results may influence susceptible political leaders to change or modify their delivery or even their position on certain subjects. Some elected officials have been accused of making foreign or domestic policy decisions based on the results of an opinion poll. Much debate exists as to how much opinion polls actually do—or even whether they should—influence public-policy making. Elected officials have to take into account a wide range of factors in making their decisions, including (but not limited to) public opinion.

16. Discussion Questions
How did the 12th Amendment change the way in which presidents and vice presidents are elected?
Why did the Constitution’s Framers develop the Electoral College? What determines the number of each state’s electoral votes? Do you feel this is an effective system, or should voters have the ability to directly elect the president?
Originally, under Article II, voters would vote for the electors, who would each cast two votes for the office of president only. The individual with the most votes became president, and the runner-up became the vice president. The 12th Amendment changed this process so that each elector casts one vote for a president and vice president running together.
The Electoral College was developed because the Framers of the Constitution had little confidence that ordinary citizens could be trusted to make the right decision as to who should lead the country. Consequently, the Framers set up a system of electors, chosen by state officials, who would directly vote for the president. The number of electors in each state is determined by the state’s total number of senators and representatives in Congress. (Answers to the opinion question will vary.)

17. Discussion Questions
What does “throwing one’s hat in the ring” mean? Describe the steps of a candidate’s run for the presidency.
How do political officials use opinion polls? What are some controversial effects that such polls have on the political process? Do you think opinion polls serve a valid purpose for political officials and the public?
“Throwing one’s hat in the ring” means that a candidate is announcing his or her intention to run for office. The different steps leading up to a presidential election resemble the playoffs in sports and serve as a run-up to the nominating conventions. Candidates go through state primaries and caucuses to win delegates for the nominating conventions and to get their name and policies known to the public. Primaries and caucuses also help the public gauge the strength of a candidate for the eventual general election. Candidates who win the most primaries go into their party’s nominating convention with a strong likelihood of becoming the party’s official nominee for president in the general election.
Public officials use opinion polls to measure the views of various segments of the population on a range of issues. One controversial effect of opinion polls is how they can influence voters to support someone already leading in the polls simply because lots of other people plan to vote for them (the “bandwagon effect”). On the other hand, sometimes polls influence people to support someone behind in the polls who seems to be closing the gap on the leader (the “underdog effect”). These scenarios usually occur when voters don’t strongly support any particular candidate. Another controversy concerns the extent to which politicians are sensitive to polls and base their statements or their decisions on what the results say. (Answers to the opinion question will vary.)

18. The Media as Political Tools
The inexpensive “penny press” made newspapers available to everyone
Early political parties sponsored newspapers to promote their message
Radio as a tool for political communication
President Franklin Roosevelt’s “fireside chats”
The media have been part of politics since the early days of the republic. During the first presidential administrations, political cartoons and pamphlets attacked politicians in the press. By the 1830s, new developments in printing technology, inexpensive paper, and (most importantly) support from advertisers allowed publishers to sell their newspapers for a penny each. The “penny press” made newspapers widely available, and political parties took advantage of this inexpensive form of mass communication. Stories favorable to their candidates or to the party were often presented as actual “news” items. When newspapers wouldn’t cooperate, the parties started their own newspapers to promote their message. Such papers were easy to start up, requiring only a few hundred dollars’ investment in presses and supplies and usually needing only a master printer and an apprentice to operate.
By the turn of the 20th century, the media’s influence extended beyond print into radio broadcasting and movie newsreels. In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson used traditional print media and newsreels to campaign for reelection. Eight years later, President Calvin Coolidge spoke on radio to more than one million listeners during his election campaign. President Franklin Roosevelt understood the true power of broadcast media, and during the darkest days of the Depression and World War II he conducted a series of evening “fireside chats” on the radio. With a plainspoken manner and a forceful, confident delivery, Roosevelt was able to sway the American public toward supporting his New Deal legislation and keep people’s spirits up as the war progressed. Radio provided a great boost for political officials by allowing them to get their message to a wide audience; also, because listeners could hear the person’s voice the message as a whole seemed more personal and intimate.
FDR just after giving a “fireside chat”

19. Television as a Political Tool
Advertisers discover the power of television as a political tool
“Eisenhower Answers America”: Political ads created during the 1952 election
New techniques developed to portray political candidates as “larger than life”
By the 1950s, television had surpassed radio as the dominant media outlet. Advertisers and government officials experimented with the new medium to develop a powerful tool for political communication. During the 1952 presidential election, Republican candidate Dwight Eisenhower’s campaign produced a series of political commercials titled, “Eisenhower Answers America.” In these advertisements, voters would ask Eisenhower predetermined questions phrased so that he could deliver a prewritten answer. The questioners were average-looking people, and both segments (the questions and Eisenhower’s responses to them) were filmed independently and then spliced together. The ad’s producers had Eisenhower filmed from a somewhat low angle, giving the viewer the impression of looking up at him. In addition, they shot the questioners as if they too were looking up and addressing someone of enormous stature. The ads aired multiple times beginning three weeks before the elections. They received much attention and generated some controversy: Eisenhower’s opponent Adlai Stevenson criticized them as insulting to the American public. Nonetheless, they proved effective, and Eisenhower won the election.
Opening shot of a television ad for presidential candidate Dwight Eisenhower

20. Television as a Political Tool (continued)
President Kennedy and his use of television
Facing his doubters
Presidential press conferences
President Reagan: “The Great Communicator”
Projected a presidential image and his values
Staged appearances
By the 1960 election, candidates at all levels of political office were advertising in all forms of media to get their message across. President John Kennedy made effective use of the television during both his campaign and presidency. When concerns over his religious affiliation surfaced, Kennedy, a Roman Catholic, squarely addressed the issue in a televised speech. Boldly but respectfully facing a group of Protestant ministers in Houston, Kennedy affirmed his strong belief in the separation of church and state, vowing that his presidency would know no other allegiance except to the U.S. Constitution. The image of a president professing his personal and political beliefs to sway an audience set an influential precedent. Kennedy also made great use of the televised press conference. His sense of humor and self- deprecating answers often blunted criticism and built respect among the White House press corps.
Ronald Reagan was known as the “Great Communicator” because of his ability to express political ideology at a personal level. With his Hollywood acting experience, a keen sense of humor, and a dedication to his principles, he used the media to his advantage. Reagan projected an image of what many Americans wanted to see in themselves. Television proved to be his best medium, and people on his communications staff made sure to exploit its focus on visuals to the fullest. They always set the backdrops for Reagan’s speeches to reflect the ideals he represented: for example, his podium was frequently placed before American flags or other American symbols, such as the Statue of Liberty.

21. Political Advertising
Attack advertising
“Daisy Girl”: Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 presidential campaign
By the 1960s, presidential election campaigns had begun to employ negative ads—known as “attack ads”—with great effectiveness. They first ran during the 1964 election between President Lyndon Johnson and Barry Goldwater. The most famous—or infamous—spot, known as the “Daisy Girl” ad, opened up with a young girl sitting in a field of daisies, innocently counting the petals she picked from one of the flowers. The audio track then gradually replaced her voice with an ominous countdown, the scene froze, and the camera zoomed in to an extreme close-up of her eye. When the countdown reached zero, the entire screen erupted into a nuclear explosion while a voiceover from President Johnson warned of the horrific consequences of nuclear war. After that, another voice encouraged people to vote for Johnson. The ad aired only once but proved very effective in convincing voters that Goldwater’s more aggressive approach to foreign policy would result in nuclear war.
A shot of the “Daisy Girl” from LBJ’s 1964 ad

22. Political Advertising (continued)
Attack advertising
Willie Horton: George H.W. Bush’s 1988 presidential campaign
The “infomercial”
Ross Perot’s 1992 presidential campaign
Bush’s “Willie Horton” ad
During the 1988 election campaign, George H.W. Bush’s campaign committee created advertisements that questioned the leadership abilities and judgment of his opponent, Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis. Bush’s ad showing Dukakis riding awkwardly in a tank came from news footage and implied to many viewers that Dukakis would not be as adept a military leader as Bush, a war hero whose fighter plane had been shot down in World War II. The second spot, known as the “Willie Horton” ad, showed prisoners going in and out of jail through a revolving door. The message criticized Governor Dukakis’s decision to grant furloughs to prisoners. One such furloughed prisoner, Willie Horton, had committed several violent crimes while out of prison. Because Horton was African American, many people criticized the ad for appealing to racial prejudices.
In 1992, independent presidential candidate Ross Perot bought half-hour blocks of network television time to talk to voters directly about his economic policy. Although Perot ultimately lost the election, the ads improved his standing in the polls soon after the infomercial aired, placing him ahead of the other two candidates for a brief time.
Perot campaigning on television

23. Political Advertising (continued)
Attack ads stir strong emotions—positive in supporters, negative in opponents
Contain some basis in truth
Criticized for being unfair and emphasizing the trivial
Becoming informed is the best defense against manipulation
A poster from the 1800s attacking Whig presidential candidate Zachary Taylor
Negative advertising (and attack ads in particular) stirs strong emotions in voters and tend to discourage reasonable discussion. Attack ads manipulate or slant small pieces of truthful information to imply that the entire ad’s message—that candidate X is better than candidate Y—is true. Research has found that negative ads mainly appeal to people who already support a candidate, solidifying that appeal as the election draws nearer.
Some people see negative ads as unfair or as going too far with personal attacks. Others feel they overemphasize trivialities and ignore the important issues. However, negative advertising usually has some basis in truth. Sometimes the true aspects of the ad are relatively small or unimportant, and the overall point made may be false or distorted (or “mistaken,” as its defenders would say). However, the same can be said for ads that promote a candidate.
Negative advertising has been a staple of politics from the very beginning, and at times such advertising has been much more vehement than the ads of today. Voters need to realize that attack ads try to get people to make choices based on emotion instead of reason. Becoming more informed about the issues and candidates’ positions can help voters make better decisions and improve the overall political process.

24. New Media in Politics and Government
The potential of “new media”
Web sites, , and blogs promote better communication between the government and the public
Virtual political campaigns
The digital age has provided politicians with new ways to convey their message, as well as avenues for the public to respond to and act on these messages. Nearly all departments of government at the national, state, and local levels have set up Web sites and accounts to inform and interact with the public. Many offer helpful information about their services. Most members of Congress and state legislatures have Web sites that provide updates on politicians’ activities and invite constituents to communicate through and “blogs” (diary-like pages that promote two- and multi-way communication between government officials and the public). Video streaming allows politicians to deliver speeches and hold press conferences so that anyone can watch them at any time.
The use of this new technology creates a new type of relationship between politicians and the public. Unlike before, when political figures primarily produced information for the public to consume, now both sides produce and consume information. Voters and organizations can set up their own Web sites to inform the public about their views on candidates and specific issues.
Furthermore, the Internet provides opportunities for politicians and the public to organize and mobilize without having to meet in person. This has dramatically changed the ways in which political campaigns structure and operate their organizations. Campaigns can solicit volunteer support inexpensively via their Web sites, keeping supporters and interested parties constantly informed and instantly reacting to events as they transpire. Supporters can also organize themselves simultaneously and obtain more information than they ever could before.
The home page of the U.S. House of Representatives

25. New Media in Politics and Government (continued)
Virtual political campaigns have also made raising money much easier
The impact of new media on politicians, policy, and the public
The use of the Internet has affected fundraising as well. In the past, political campaigns depended on “deep pocket” donors who could write their $2000 checks while attending the political rallies and dinners. Now a campaign can post a request on their website for $50 to $75 dollar donations, and within days nearly 10,000 donors will have contributed over half a million dollars, with the campaign having spent virtually nothing for the fund drive.
Though still in its early stages, the Internet has made dramatic changes in the ways in which campaigns are run and in how the public participates in the political process. Both the public and politicians have had to learn a new set of skills in order to be effective participants. With information more readily available, politicians and the public have greater access to details of breaking events and can communicate faster and to a wider audience than ever before. Campaigns have to be much quicker on their feet and respond before stories before get out of control. Both the campaigns and the public now have to wade through increasing amounts of information and formulate questions, responses, and conclusions more expediently and in more detail. The public in turn has to further sharpen its critical thinking skills to discern the truth.
At these still-early stages, the lasting impact of the Internet on politics and elections seems difficult to measure. In addition to the changes that have already transpired, new methods and strategies incorporating the Internet and its new technology are continually being developed. The public and the politicians will have to adapt and adjust to these changes so that this new technology enhances rather than diminishes the democratic process.
Barack Obama’s Web site during his 2008 presidential campaign

26. Discussion Questions
How did 19th-century political parties get their messages to the public when the established papers wouldn’t carry them? What factors made this possible?
How did radio give FDR an advantage over past presidents in promoting his policies?
How were the visual techniques in the political advertisements entitled “Eisenhower Answers America” as effective in promoting Dwight Eisenhower as the answers he gave?
How did Presidents Kennedy and Reagan use television as an effective tool for promoting their policies?
When they couldn’t work through the major newspapers, political parties started their own publications. The falling costs of printing and paper meant that newspapers could be sold for as cheap as a penny.
By using the radio, Roosevelt could get his message across to a larger audience in a quicker amount of time. He could speak directly to people listening in their homes, giving them the impression that he was there talking to them personally.
In the commercials, the camera was positioned to look up at Eisenhower, subtly giving the impression that he was a man of great stature and speaking from a position of authority. The shots of the questioners showed them looking up at the camera, completing the illusion that Eisenhower was a towering figure.
John Kennedy appeared youthful, vigorous, and athletic on television. In press conferences, Kennedy would use wit and humor to blunt criticism and build respect among the White House press corps. Ronald Reagan drew from his experience as a Hollywood actor to help him get his message across. He would speak to Americans as if on a personal level and employed humor and optimism to bolster his agenda. Organizers of his public appearances made sure that the backdrops for his speeches depicted images and symbols in line with Reagan’s political philosophy.

27. Discussion Questions
What are attack ads? Do you think they are an effective means of campaigning? Do you think they are fair?
How has the Internet-based new media created a different relationship between political officials and voters?
How has the Internet changed the ways in which political campaigns operate?
Why must politicians and citizens effectively learn a new set of skills to utilize new media?
Attack ads are negative advertisements attacking the record or questioning the abilities of a political candidate. Most experts believe that attack ads are effective in political campaigns, at least on a short-term basis. (Answers will vary on the opinion questions.)
The Internet allows both political officials and voters to become creators of information; previously, communication ran in one direction, from officials to voters. The Internet therefore allows voters to interact with the politicians and staff members and to set up their own Web sites about candidates or issues.
Political campaigns can be run through computers—holding meetings, presenting candidates, and conducting fundraisers—all without anyone actually having to meet face to face.
Since the Internet makes information more readily available, politicians and the public have greater access to details of breaking events and can communicate faster to a wider audience than ever before. Campaigns must react much more quickly and respond before stories get out of control. Campaigns and citizens now have to wade through larger amounts of information and formulate questions, responses, and conclusions more expediently and in more detail. The public must also sharpen its critical thinking skills to distinguish truth from spin or misinformation.

28. Direct Legislation
Initiative: Citizens vote on new laws or amendments to a state’s constitution
Referendum: Citizens vote to keep or reject legislation already passed
Recall: Citizens decide whether to remove a public official from office before that official’s term expires
According to the Constitution, the legislative and executive branches work together to create laws that—in theory—address citizens’ concerns. Citizens themselves can play a direct role in public policymaking through the processes of initiative, referendum, and recall. Though no provisions for these procedures exist in the U.S. Constitution, several states have amended their own constitutions to allow citizens these avenues for directly affecting public policy.
The initiative process allows any citizen or group of citizens to draft legislation or constitutional amendments in order to change state law. To do this, they need to gather enough signatures from state residents in order to prove that sufficient interest in the change exists. The number of signatures required is usually based on a predetermined percentage of the voters in the state. At election time, citizens vote directly on the issue. Referendum works in much the same way, but focuses on earlier established laws, “referring” them back to voters for acceptance or rejection. This usually occurs when the legislature has passed a law with which many citizens disagree or whose importance warrants more voter input. Issues brought to the public using either of these methods often relate to taxes, government procedures, or social issues. Following the same petition procedures for initiatives and referenda, citizens may begin a recall, which gives the public a vote on whether to remove a state or local official from office prior to the expiration of their term.
These three methods of direct citizen participation often require valid petition signatures from different percentages of the population and operate on specific timelines that organizers must follow, all of which may differ from state to state. These procedures give citizens greater opportunities to have an impact on public policy beyond elections that may occur but once or twice a year.
Arnold Schwarzenegger first became governor of California through a recall election

29. Direct Legislation (continued)
Advantages of direct legislation:
Strengthens popular sovereignty
Counterbalances the influence of special-interest groups
Serves to better inform the public about important issues
Disadvantages of direct legislation:
Undermines the system of representative government
Forces legislators to take the “safe route” on controversial issues
May be influenced by special-interest groups
The use of direct democracy to influence public policy has its supporters and detractors. Advocates see these procedures as strengthening popular sovereignty or the people’s control over their government at times when the legislative process does not seem to adequately address their concerns. These procedures are not intended to serve as a substitute for traditional legislative action, but as a way to complement it. Supporters also say that these procedures help counterbalance the influence of powerful special-interest groups over state and local legislative bodies. Such procedures can help state legislatures know how strongly the public feels about certain issues, and put pressure on them to take action. Moreover, giving citizens a greater opportunity to participate in the political process stimulates their interest in public issues; they become more likely to better educate themselves about issues on which they vote, and thus ultimately make better decisions.
Opponents of direct democracy feel it can impair representative government by undermining the laws and policies that public officials have established. Critics note that the initiative and referendum procedures don’t encourage state legislatures to take bold stands on issues, but instead, politicians rely on individual citizens or organizations to take controversial issues directly to the voters, leaving the legislature to deal with less important matters. Another concern is that these procedures sometimes allow for minority factions and special-interest groups to dominate the legislative process by appealing to voters’ emotions rather than to reason. Special-interest groups have had occasion to use all three procedures to inflame the passions of the voters on issues that have been previously studied, debated, and voted on by legislators who, in all probability, were better informed on the subjects.

30. Election Reform Instances of U.S. election reforms: The secret ballot
Also called the “Australian ballot”
Became widespread in the U.S. after 1884 election
Direct election of senators
Began in the state of Oregon
Became federal law with the 17th Amendment
The concept of the secret ballot dates back to ancient Greece and Rome. In modern history, the secret ballot first appeared in the mid-1800s in Australia, then a colony of the United Kingdom. The ballot was intended to allow voters to make their choices freely, without influence, intimidation, or bribery. The United States uniformly employed the system, which became known as the “Australian ballot,” soon after the presidential election of 1884.
U.S. senators weren’t always elected by the people. Originally, the Constitution provided that members of the House of Representatives would be directly elected by the people while senators would be elected by the state legislatures. In the mid-19th century, as tensions increased over slavery and states’ rights, political factions in state legislatures battled for control of selecting senators, sometimes resulting temporarily in no senator being elected. Also, intimidation and bribery occurred in some state legislatures’ selection of senators.
Members of Congress proposed several times to have the people directly elect U.S. senators, but for decades the Senate resisted change. Then at the beginning of the 20th century, a number of states adopted the “Oregon system,” in which state voters selected senatorial candidates in referenda in conjunction with the general election. By 1912, 29 states selected their senators in some similar fashion (including senatorial primaries), but changing the process on a national level required a constitutional amendment. The 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913, allowing for the direct election of senators by popular vote.

31. Reforming the Electoral College
Eliminate the Electoral College altogether:
The candidate with the popular majority (and at least 40 percent of the total vote) wins the election
A runoff election or congressional vote needed if no candidate reaches 40 percent
Proposals to reform the Electoral College:
Winner of each congressional district receives its electoral vote; winner of the most districts gets state’s two “senatorial” votes (as currently done in Maine and Nebraska)
Distribute electoral votes proportionally by percentage of popular vote
Since its inception, the Electoral College has at times confused and frustrated the American public. Criticism surrounds its detached system of electing the president and the perceived unfairness of the winner-take-all provision. Opponents contend that the Electoral College could allow a small number of heavily populated states to determine an entire presidential election. Discussion about reform has gone on for decades, and the proposals usually fall into two categories: those that want to eliminate the Electoral College and replace it with direct popular election, and those that want to repair the perceived defects of the existing system.
The proposal to directly elect the president by popular vote sets a minimum percentage to win at 40% (needed in case more than two major candidates are running). If no candidate receives more than 40% of the vote, either a runoff election would take place or Congress would settle the matter.
Measures to reform the Electoral College vary. One suggests adopting the system used in Maine and Nebraska, in which the electoral votes are split and distributed to the winning candidate in each congressional district, with the winner of the statewide election receiving the two “senatorial” votes. Another suggests a proportional plan, in which votes are distributed proportionally according to the percentage of the popular vote a candidate receives statewide. For example, if a candidate received 60 percent of a state’s popular vote, that candidate would receive 60% of that state’s electoral votes.

32. Reforming the Electoral College (continued)
Arguments for reform:
The simplicity of a proportional system
Every vote carries equal weight
Presidents have been elected without winning the popular vote
Arguments for keeping the current system:
Promotes political stability by encouraging ideologically broad-based campaigns
Provides for a “majority rule” rather than a minority of 40 percent
Close elections in several states could prolong the final results and cause bitter disputes and/or lawsuits
Those who advocate reforming the Electoral College emphasize the simplicity of a proportional system and claim that such a system would place the election for president in line with those of other political offices: by popular vote. Every vote would have equal weight, no matter where in the nation it was cast. Proponents of reform also point out that because people are now better informed than in the 18th century, and because almost all members of society have the right to vote, the Electoral College is obsolete. They also maintain that the winner-take-all system essentially disenfranchises everyone who voted for candidates other than the victor. Finally, reform advocates point out that the Electoral College system can potentially elect a president who received a majority of the electoral vote but a minority of the popular vote. This in fact has happened in 1824, 1876, 1888, and
Defenders of the Electoral College counter that it follows democratic principles in that the electors are chosen by voters in free elections. The current system promotes political stability because parties and candidates must conduct ideologically broad-based campaigns in hopes of gaining a majority of the electoral votes and not try to appeal to different voters’ interests in each state. Furthermore, the Constitution’s authors purposely intended for the election of the president to take place at the federal level, where the candidate winning the vote in a state would gain all the electoral votes of that state. Supporters of the current system point out that it provides most often for “majority rule,” rather than the 40% minority proposed by reformers. Finally, defenders point to inaccuracies and the relative slowness of tallying the popular vote, arguing that close elections in many states could prolong the final outcome of a presidential election, potentially leading to bitter disputes and even lawsuits.

33. Campaign Finance Reform
In the U.S., a mixture of public and private money funds presidential elections.
Private funding of elections:
Pro: Any individual or entity can contribute to a campaign
Con: Contributions often carry an expectation of something in return, promoting corruption
Public funding of elections
Pro: Levels the financial playing field
Con: Takes away people’s ability to exercise free speech by giving money to a candidate they support
Though political campaigns benefit from the work of many volunteers, they can still be very expensive to operate—especially at the national level. Expenses include not just advertising but staff salaries, food, and transportation. As a result, candidates often end up having to spend a great deal of their time raising money. Candidates running for local offices may only need to raise a few thousand dollars; national candidates may have to raise hundreds of millions of dollars.
In the United States, private funding fuels most candidate and issue elections. Since 1976, presidential candidates and their political parties have been able to tap into public matching funds to operate their campaigns during their primary and general elections. Pros and cons exist for financing political campaigns with both public or private funding.
Regarding private funding:
Pro: Any individual or entity can contribute to a campaign, thus allowing them to voice their support for a candidate or cause.
Con: Contributions often come with an expectation of something in return, which can lead to corruption.
Regarding public funding:
Pro: Government funding levels the playing field since each candidate gets the same amount.
Con: Having the government fund political campaigns takes away the opportunity for people to exercise free speech by giving money to a candidate they support.

34. Campaign Finance Reform (continued)
In U.S., private funding makes up the largest percentage of political campaign financing
Two categories of private funding:
“Hard money”—Contributed by individuals or organizations to support candidates or promote issues
“Soft money”—Raised and distributed by political action committees to promote a candidate or issue
Concern raised over the large amounts of money, especially “soft money”
Buckley v. Valeo (1976) limited campaign contributions but not spending
The primary source for campaign funds (known as “hard money”) comes from private individuals. Though they contribute substantially less, political action committees (organizations formed to elect candidates or promote legislation of particular issues) also play an important role; the money they raise is called “soft money.” The law requires that political parties and candidates disclose information on all donations (including the name and address of the donor and the amount of the contribution) and sets limits on the amount that individual and corporations may donate to a political campaign or party. This allows government officials to police for undue influence exerted by donors on a candidate or party.
During the second half of the 20th century, much concern arose over campaign financing— especially the increasing amounts of funds acquired by political campaigns and parties and the growing influence of money in the electoral process. In the 1976 case Buckley v. Valeo, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that limitations on political donations to candidates in order to prevent corruption are constitutional, but limitations on campaign spending violated the First Amendment’s free speech clause; moreover, only speech that expressly advocated the defeat of a candidate could be regulated. While this ruling helped define the constitutional parameters, it neither addressed concerns over the huge amounts of money spent on election campaigns, nor the potential for corruption.

35. Campaign Finance Reform (continued)
Efforts at campaign finance reform:
Ross Perot and the Reform Party (1992 and 1996)
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (the “McCain-Feingold Act” 2002)
Banned “soft money” donations to political parties
Limited advertising by private and nonprofit entities
Restricted parties’ use of funds for “issue ads”
Survived Supreme Court scrutiny in McConnell v. FEC (2003)
Campaign finance reform has been debated ever since, with few changes made in campaign finance laws. The Reform Party and one of its founders, Ross Perot, made it a central issue in both the 1992 and 1996 presidential campaigns. Campaign finance reform also received major attention during the 2000 presidential election campaigns of Senator John McCain and Ralph Nader. In addition, the amount of soft money underwent unprecedented growth, with the combined total for both leading parties climbing from $239 million in 1996 to $449 million in 2000.
In 2002, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (also known as the “McCain-Feingold Act”) with key provisions that (1) placed a ban on “soft money” donations (often made by unions, corporations, and wealthy individuals) given directly to political parties, (2) placed limits on the advertising that private entities and nonprofit organizations could engage in up to 60 days prior to an election, and (3) restricted political parties’ use of funds for advertising on behalf of candidates in the form of “issue ads.”
Most of the legislation’s provisions survived Supreme Court scrutiny in the case of McConnell v. FEC (2003), in which the court upheld the ban on soft money and ruled that the regulations on the source, content, and timing of political advertising did not violate the right to free speech.

36. Election Controversies: Gerrymandering
First used in 1812 Massachusetts election
Named for Governor Elbridge Gerry
Newly drawn districts resembled a salamander
Done to create an advantage in upcoming senatorial election
In 1812, the Jeffersonian Democrats who controlled the Massachusetts state legislature submitted a bill to redraw the boundary lines for the state’s congressional districts. Governor Elbridge Gerry reluctantly signed the bill and forever etched his name in political history. The term “gerrymander” comes from a blending of his name with the word “salamander,” which was used to describe the appearance of the redrawn districts. The legislature did this in order to gain an advantage in the upcoming senatorial election by re- creating districts with as many of their party’s majorities as possible. This process of redrawing districts for political advantage is also referred to as “redistricting” or “reapportionment.”

37. Election Controversies: Modern Redistricting
State legislatures can change district boundaries every ten years
Majority parties redraw legislative districts to create an electoral advantage
Tends to discourage political competition and increases voter apathy
Proposals for discouraging the process
State legislatures have a prerogative to establish legislative districts within their states, which are usually drawn along county lines and conducted every ten years, following the U.S. Census. However, by redrawing the districts to include as many of their party members as possible, a state legislature’s controlling party can engineer majorities in many of the legislative districts, and thus get their candidates elected to represent those districts. The diagram above shows how this can be accomplished: In both charts, the red and blue dots represent the residents of the “red” and “blue” party. The left side of the chart has an equal number of red and blue dots in each of the four districts (eight in each). By redrawing the boundary lines around the blue dots, a majority can be obtained in three of the four districts for the blue party.
Redistricting has been criticized for having a negative effect on the political process. Critics claim that it reduces both competition and voter turnout, since if one party solidly controls the district, candidates of the opposite party tend to put in less effort to compete. This is especially true when the incumbent belongs to the majority party. Consequently, voters tend to be more apathetic, since redistricting has virtually predetermined the election’s outcome.
Critics of redistricting have offered proposals to discourage its use. One involves having an independent commission (rather than a politically charged legislature) draw the districts. Another proposal involves drawing the districts mathematically to ensure even numbers of people per district. Some have also suggested using fixed districts to avoid redistricting at all. Many states have implemented measures like these to some degree, but effecting change becomes difficult when the majority party enjoys the advantage of the last redistricting.
Diagram illustrating how gerrymandering works

38. Election Controversies: Electronic Voting Machines
Interest has grown in electronic voting since 2000 election
Proponents say more reliable, less expensive, and more flexible than punch card machines
Critics say unreliable, susceptible to fraud, and no accurate paper trail
Another issue that has generated controversy in recent years is the use of electronic voting machines. Their official name is direct recording electronic systems (DREs), which include hardware, software, and firmware used to determine ballot design, cast and count votes, report or display election results, and maintain and produce an auditable trail of information. These machines were first introduced in the 1970s to capture votes electronically (i.e., without the use of paper ballots) and come in either push-button or touch-screen models. Since the election of 2000’s close voting results (especially in Florida, where the challenges of improperly marked ballots made recounts difficult), interest in electronic voting systems has increased.
Proponents of electronic voting machines contend that these systems are more reliable than paper-punch systems, make it less expensive for states to conduct elections, and provide a better interface for the voter because the machine’s ballot display can accommodate people with impaired sight and can easily be changed for different elections. Critics contend that the electronic voting machines are not much more reliable than home computers—if at all. Experts worry that hackers, software bugs, power outages, poorly trained poll workers, and users unfamiliar with the technology or procedures could intentionally or accidentally erase or alter voting data captured by the new machines.
One of the biggest criticisms has been that in most models of voting machines, the record of the voter’s choices is stored on a computer chip and cannot be retrieved in the event that a recount is needed or to detect incidences of fraud. Numerous tests, studies, and recommendations have been conducted to alleviate some of these problems, but so far electronic voting is still a work in progress.

39. Discussion Questions
What are the three methods of direct legislation? After reviewing their advantages and disadvantages, do you think they have a positive or negative effect on the legislative process?
What political and election reforms have been implemented or proposed in the United States since the mid-1800s? Which do you think is the most important, and why?
What is “gerrymandering”? Do you think it has a positive or negative effect on the political process?
Why have voting machines generated such controversy in recent years?
The three methods are initiative, referendum, and recall. (Answers to the opinion question will vary.)
The past reforms are the secret ballot, the direct election of senators, Electoral College reform, and campaign finance reform. (Answers to the opinion question will vary.)
Gerrymandering is a process used to redraw legislative districts to favor one political party. It allows the majority party to keep or increase its majority in state legislative districts. Negative effects of gerrymandering include a reduction in political competition and voter turnout. With one party controlling the district, candidates of the opposite party tend to put in less effort to compete, which proves especially true when the incumbent is from the majority party. Consequently, voters tend to be more apathetic, since the outcome of an election appears virtually predetermined.
The primary concern surrounding voting machines is most models’ inability to produce a “paper trail” that provides a hard copy of an individual’s votes. Criticisms also include poor reliability, increased user difficulty, and vulnerability to those who could hack into the system and change the results.