2.  Organizing the Election Process  Facilitating Voter Choice  Recruiting & Aiding Candidates  Organizing a Complex Government  Educating Citizens  Promoting Civic Participation

3. TimeframeDominantOpposing 1780-1828FederalistsDem-Reps. 1829-1856DemocratsWhigs 1857-1892RepublicansDemocrats 1893-1932RepublicansDemocrats 1933-1968DemocratsRepublicans 1969-now---Democrats/Republicans---

4.  Why two parties?  Why no dominance?

6.  Duverger’s Law ◦ Plurality voting systems  Fusion  Elimination

7.  Alternative? ◦ Proportional Representation

8.  PR allows small parties to win seats

9.  Can still influence elections

10.  Ralph Nader (2000, Green Party)  Results ◦ Bush47.9% (271 electoral votes) ◦ Gore48.4% (266 electoral votes) ◦ Nader2.7% (0 electoral votes) Was Nader a spoiler?

11.  97,000 votes in Florida ◦ Nader: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all.“  This is about 13,000 votes Gore would have gained

12.  97,000 votes in Florida ◦ Nader: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all.“  This is about 13,000 votes Gore would have gained ◦ Nader: blame the Supreme Court, Gore losing his home state, and the quarter-million democrats that voted for Bush

13.  97,000 votes in Florida ◦ Nader: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all.“  This is about 13,000 votes Gore would have gained ◦ Nader: blame the Supreme Court, Gore losing his home state, and the quarter-million democrats that voted for Bush ◦ Also…don’t forget uncounted military ballots!

14.  No recount in Gore victories in ◦ New Mexico (Gore won by.06%) ◦ Wisconsin (.22%) ◦ Iowa (.31%) ◦ Oregon (.44%)  Numerous irregularities reported in Wisconsin  State law guarantees right to recount if <.5%

15.  Ross Perot (1992, independent)  Results ◦ Clinton43% (370 electoral votes) ◦ Bush38% (168 electoral votes) ◦ Perot19% (0 electoral votes)

16.  1992 Outcome

17.  Perot voters…(without Perot running) ◦ 38% would have voted for Clinton ◦ 38% would have voted for Bush ◦ 24% wouldn’t have voted

18.  Perot voters…(without Perot running) ◦ 38% would have voted for Clinton ◦ 38% would have voted for Bush ◦ 24% wouldn’t have voted ◦ Or spoiled…  36% “would have voted for Perot” if they thought he had a chance

19.  End of the “New Deal Coalition”  Secret Ballot  Primaries  Merit System

20.  Ross Perot (1996, Reform Party)  Results ◦ Clinton 49% (379 electoral votes) ◦ Dole41% (159 electoral votes) ◦ Perot8% (0 electoral votes)

21.  Run-off elections

24.  Preference Voting

25.  Run-off elections  Preference Voting ◦ Ireland (1990 presidential election) First PreferenceFinal  Robinson 39%  Lenihan 44%  Currie 17%

26.  Run-off elections  Preference Voting ◦ Ireland (1990 presidential election) First PreferenceFinal  Robinson 39%52%  Lenihan 44%46%  Currie 17%

27.  Will these “more accurate” systems ever be adopted in the U.S.?