Brandi Lynn Martindale

A Structural Analysis of the New York State Election System

Dr. Gina Buontempo

Organizational Psychology Internship

Columbia University Teachers College

Summer 2013

blm2131 1

Introduction:

This paper will offer a three-point overview of the election system in New York State,

examining the system as a whole organization through the lens of Open Systems theory. Part one

will illustrate key structural barriers to democracy, pinpointing specific procedures and policies

that limit full voter participation in primary elections. In addition to New York State, part one

will offer national data, revealing the full impact of both closed primaries and gerrymandering -

demonstrating how this closed system encourages behavior congruent with both McClelland’s

“Need for Power”, and Kipnis’ “Pathway to Corruption”.

Section two will link Bion’s group relations theory of Basic Assumptions to potential

cultural contributors to low voter participation, as well as explore possible methods for

increasing voter participation through an analysis of Riker and Ordeshook’s (1968) “Expected

Voter Returns” theory - highlighting the complicated psychological processes of the voter, and

helping better understand where changes are needed (Short, 2007). Using Open Systems theory,

this section will also detail the importance of renewed inputs and the need to refresh the system

and create negative entropy, and lastly, explore the potential consequences of closing a system.

Section three will discuss political powerlessness experienced by American people, and

explore how this emotion can corrupt, as described by Rollo May (1972), and Roseabeth Kanter

(1997), resulting in madness and violence. It will also explore the potential link between

destructive behavior, and the infringement on the constitutional right to Suffrage. Lastly, section

three will discuss the “Overton Window” theory, and explain that action on the part of the

American people is needed to bring the issue of inclusive democracy to the forefront of the

congressional hearing agenda. Lastly, this paper will close with a call to increase democratic

blm2131 2

participation to create a more stable political and social system in the United States (Lehman,

2010).

Part One: Structural Barriers to Democracy

I. Closed primaries

The research which provided data for this paper was intended to identify and clarify

mechanisms within the election system that are shaping the behavior of elected officials - to

unwrap processes that create behavioral contingencies. There are well understood links between

organizational environment and behavior, and part one will explore two key mechanisms which

have become prominent contributors to both impeded voter access and political maneuvering that

encourage person gain over fair public representation.

The first mechanism shaping behavior in public service is party controlled primary

elections. These elections are the first round of selection - happening before the general election,

and receiving additional funding for candidate campaigning, special media attention, as well as

functioning as a filter for the general election (New York City Campaign Finance Board, 2013).

For unaffiliated candidates who chose to run in general election, state-matched funds are

provided only days before the general election - whereas funds to major party candidates during

the primary election process are available months before (New York City Campaign Finance

Board, 2013). These primary elections are currently accessible only to party affiliates in nineteen

states. It follows, if fewer American are granted access to the first round of voting, fewer needs

are considered, and fewer constituents must be appeased to win an election. At the time of this

writing, over thirteen million Americans are structurally prevented from exercising their right to

vote in state primary elections, over two million of them live here in New York State

blm2131 3

(Martindale, 2013). As more Americans reject the political party system, a growing number are

excluded from this initial selection process. This disadvantage for the American voters gives the

political parties advantage over the outcome of primary elections.

II. Gerrymandering

Another mechanism through which voter outcomes are manipulated is by drawing senate

and district lines into section that illogically group voters together to purposefully skew the

number of people within each district to or against one party or another. This technique for

manipulating district voting outcomes is called Gerrymandering, and while highly controversial,

is widely practiced (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2013). Political parties use redistricting consultants

to help choose where lines are drawn to best pool voters together to win districts. While the lines

must be drawn to ensure each district has roughly the same number of people in it, clusters of

either democrats or republicans are divided through a tactic called ‘packing’ - a technique that

creates voting majorities who’s votes are linked together, although they may be geographically

separated by great distance (USC Annenburg Center, 2013).

The approval process for district lines goes through a legal process - first to legislature,

then to the governor for signature, then is open to challenge in court. Political action groups can

challenge the ruling, citing contiguity, partisan influence, or compactness laws, sending

consultants back to the map to redraw the lines. While there are mechanisms in place to allow for

dissension, the bi-partisan nature of the system creates a process that is focused on a win-lose

end game that uses district lines to add power to party loyalists, rather than group neighborhoods

with common interests based on local geographies.

Need For Power - Stages

blm2131 4

Closed primaries and gerrymandering encourage corrupt behavior within our political

system that can be conceptualized by McClelland’s “Need for Power”, and Kipnis’ “Pathway to

Corruption”. Differing sources from which an individual derives a sense of power can be

characterized in four ‘stages’. Stage one describes an individual who derives a sense of power

through a connection to another person who has power. In the election arena, we can think of this

in terms of cronyism - the partiality to one’s friends within what should be a meritocracy. Closed

primaries limit voter participation to party loyalists, directly increasing the likelihood that a

candidate will be chosen by a minority of voters who have personal tries to the candidate.

The second stage for deriving power is via control over a person’s physical space, or the

objects around one’s self. This tool for power is also seen within the election system.

Gerrymandering is precisely this - political persons working to control the physical space of a

voting population by determining where district lines will be drawn to maximize the chances of

getting the desired political voting outcome from an area. Keeping the majority of the population

classified as either democrat or republican makes predicting voting behavior easier. This stage

also includes controlling one’s image - politicians work very hard to craft a persona they then

present to the public.

Stage three is a key political behavior - competitive actions that often manifest through

the role of a provider or caretaker. Competition and lending a helping hand may not, at first

glance, seem connected. But when used as a tool for gaining power, the two function together to

increase one’s sense of control of those around her. The person who wins the election becomes

the provider, and after securing the spoils, she can then distribute them as she sees fit. This

allows the winner to offer her constituents what they ask for in terms of policy creation or access

blm2131 5

to government resources, creating a sense of control over the people who an elected official

serves. Creating an election system that is not competitive directly increases this behavior by

allowing the elected official to retain her position without appeal to the majority vote.

Stage four is the act of deriving power from a system, and can be thought of in it’s

extreme as martyrdom. An individual feels powerful when the organization she serves has

control over resources, outcomes, and people. In political behavior, this can be seen in party

affiliation. One may feel power in identifying as a democrat, or as a republican. This concept can

easily extrapolated past the politician, to the voter. Voters also gain a sense of power from being

affiliated with a system that is larger than themselves. This sense of power from affiliation

creates a roadblock in uncoupling partisan politics from political solutions.

Pathway to Corruption - Steps

The development of power prevalent in the election system can be understood through

Kipnis’ “Pathway to Corruption”, which details how each ‘stage’, as described by McClellan,

can spiral into manipulative and destructive corrupt behavior. Though one in any stage of power

can spiral down the pathway, those who operate in stage three - holding power through acting as

the provider - are at particular risk for corruption, as they have already positioned themselves as

reward-holders.

The first step in the pathway to corruption is simply a high need for power. Each person

has varying needs for power, and it can be thought of as a spectrum. One may lie low, mid-range,

high, and anywhere in between on the ‘need for power’ spectrum. If one has a low need for

power, it is likely she will not be susceptible to corruption, and equally unlikely that she will find

blm2131 6

herself working in politics. The task itself self-selects for individuals who have high power

needs.

The second step in the pathway to corruption is to gain control of resources. This is not to

say that everyone with a high need for power and control over resources will become corrupt -

rather, this is the pathway that can lead there. Control over resources is a common topic in

election conversation. Who will get what bill passed, and who will subsequently benefit. It is fair

to say that high need for power, and control over resources are not just two attributes of serving

in public office, but are indeed the near entirety of the role.

The third step is to begin using acquired resources to manipulate the behavior of other

people for personal gain. Public service for personal gain is the bane of the American public

interest, and is the heart of corruption. Though, problematic as it is, to win an election is

inherently a personal gain. There is no way to remove the good of public service from the spoils

of winning an election. The win brings a paycheck, notoriety and access to more resources by

which one can influence the behavior of others.

The fourth step towards corruption involves the power-holder’s psychological processes

shifting from an understanding that the rewards influence the behavior of others, to believing

they themselves are personally responsible for the behaviors of those under her influence. This is

also characteristic of the political arena - a politician can easily begin to feel as if her followers

are not loyal to her work, or her products, but rather to her personally. She can begin to believe

there is an assumed loyalty among her constituents, and that she can count on their vote.

The fifth step is increasingly sinister - the power holder begins to feel that she holds

knowledge and understanding of problems that are beyond the comprehension of her followers,

blm2131 7

and she begins to devalue those who she rewards. In politics, this is common - politicians come

to believe the American public doesn’t understand the issues, and can’t comprehend the

complexity of the problems and decisions, so many simply stop explaining their actions to the

public.

Step six involves a psychological distancing from those under the power-holder’s

influence. These steps build on one another, and in this way, lead into one another unless

something counters the next step and stops the process. At this stage, the power-holder no longer

views herself as a member of the team. At a safe distance, she can begin to dehumanize the

follower. This is also seen in politics, though as the corrupt behavior increases, it also becomes

more subversive. This can be seen in the election process as a callous disregard for those injured

by poorly developed social programs, or by slanderous campaigns. A budget cut by the numbers

can be a death sentence for an American in need of medical treatment that cost above a dollar

limit, and cut from coverage. At this stage, corruption can cost lives.

The last step in the pathway to corruption is the power-holder viewing themselves more

favorably than those she serves. This is seen in politicians who are caught with a hot mic when

they think they’re offline, or quoted when they thought they were off record saying something

derogatory, but is more commonly a subversive an hard to detect behavior. When we see these

behaviors from those we elect, it is important not to write them off, but to seriously question the

process by which a person comes to such a place.

Part Two: The importance of participatory democracy

For many, it is psychologically safer to withdraw from a system that feels overwhelming

than to face the feelings of powerlessness (Short, 2007). In the New York state election system,

blm2131 8

twenty-two percent of voters who are independent cannot participate in the primary election

system (Martindale, 2013). Because these voters must then choose from candidates selected by

political parties via primary elections, some voters are choosing not to participate at all. Within

this construct, there is room to mention the responsibility of the American citizen. Democracy is

not a guarantee, and without full participation, decision making is put into the hands of the few.

Viewing this behavior through the lens of group dynamics, we can apply Bion’s Basic

Assumptions theory to help understand what may motivate a withdrawal from the election

process (Short, 2007).

Basic Assumption: Dependency (BaD) refers to the psychological process of relying on a

leader to make decisions for a group (Short, 2007). This behavior serves several key functions:

the follower can experience relief from the pressure to develop the ‘right’ answer, there is safety

in turning to the leader for answers - the follower feels cared for, and the follower can escape

blame when a leader’s solution fails. Dependency can provide psychological safety through the

abdication of responsibility (Short, 2007). In the election system, this takes the shape of political

blame-games. When a political leader fails, the American people can remind themselves and

others, “I didn’t vote him into office”. They effectively let themselves off the hook for being part

of the failed plan. By leaving the responsibility of decision making and problem solving to the

leader, the American public can then indulge in the media circus that tears them down in fiery

criticism. In Bion’s terms, this is the ‘kill the leader’, in which the leader has been scapegoated

as ‘all bad’, and to remove the problem, the people need only remove the problematic leader

(Short, 2007).

blm2131 9

Beyond structural barriers, and Basic Assumption, there are a number of other reasons

why Americans stay home on election day. One author has detailed a formula that takes into

account a number of variables that help predict whether a voter will show up to the polls. A voter

will weight the benefits he or she believes is gained form voting (B), the probability of breaking

a tie (P), the costs - travel, time, etc (C) and the voter’s perceptions of civic duty (D). This

behavior is summarized in the famous equation, V = P*B – C + D.5 (Riker & Ordeshook, 1968).

The probability of voting boils down to the probability of breaking a tie, multiplied by the

benefit of voting, minus the costs of voting, added to one and a half times the value of civic duty.

This theory shows us where we can focus to improve voter turnout - making voting easier,

glamorizing voting, eliminating difficulties, and drumming up patriotism. However, these

solutions do not account for a system that structurally locks voters out, nor does it give enough

consideration to the psychological cost of taking emotional stake in the possibility of failure.

Limited input has very grave implications in a democratic system. By applying open

systems theory to the election system, we can understand the components more clearly. There is

a need for energy - organizations must draw renewed resources from the external world - it is not

self-contained (Burke, 2011). In this way, the political system also needs input through the

exercising of votes to produce a quality product. The election system itself functions as a

throughput - it transforms energy using people, and creates a service (Burke, 2011). The political

systems also produce an output. The system produces a service to the voter that has, or creates

value, and determines the future viability of our nations economy and society. The election

systems are also cycles of events - the selection process is a repeatable event (Burke, 2011). Our

political systems must also maintain negative entropy - if the system does not evolve and change,

blm2131 10

it will stagnate and fail - information gathered from the public is essential to keep the system

evolving.

Organizations must understand their functioning in relation to the external environment

(Burke, 2011). The system also works to preserve homeostasis - or in politics is more aptly

labeled status quo. A factor like open primaries threatens to disrupt the system, is countered with

lawsuits to protect the power now held by these groups. Among states, there is also

differentiation among voting processes (Burke, 2011). Different processes are protected by

state’s rights. The federal government also works to create integration and coordination - to some

degree managing differentiation to bring the system together for unified functioning. Similar to

differentiation, the election process has equifinality - voting systems can reach the same final

state from differing initial conditions and by a variety of paths (Burke, 2011).

Part Three: Social Consequence

When inputs in any system are limited, the end product suffers. In the case of the election

system, the end product is service to the american people. Feelings of powerlessness can cause

withdrawal from the system, but they can also cause sabotage, subversive attacks, and violence

(Rollo, 1972). Powerlessness has caused riots in US history, as people feel their needs met less

and less. One very possible consequence of limiting voter participation is revolt and violence

(Kanter, 1997). As the end product less and less suits the needs of the public, the American

people grow increasingly restless. The occupy wall-street movement was a demonstration that

represented frustration with a regulatory system that appeared to move too slowly, and take too

little action against an entity that was perceived to have become abusive.

blm2131 11

Qualified Americans have the constitutional right to vote in every election (New York

State Constitution, 1777). This suffrage is written into article II, section 8, and guarantees that,

“Every citizen shall be entitled to vote at every election for all officers elected by

the people and upon all questions submitted to the vote of the people provided

that such citizen is eighteen years of age or over and shall have been a resident of

this state, and of the county, city, or village for thirty days next preceding an

election” (New York State constitution, 1777).

Closed primary elections strip Americans of their right to vote in every election, and the

method for selecting party-affiliated candidates for general election is now being challenged in

court. In New York State alone, over two million voters are locked out of the first round of

elections because of closed primaries (Martindale, 2013). This number amounts to more than

twenty percent of the total electorate - a number nearly as large as the republican party.

Arguments for closed primaries center around party’s rights to chose their candidate, as well as

siting a need to ensure properly vetted candidates make it to the general election. Primary

elections were born of the progressive movement to take control from the political parties and

restore it to the people (Smith, 2011). However, the end result of closed primaries is lower voter

participation, and is an unacceptable means to justify the end. For no reason must American

citizens who are otherwise qualified to vote be prevented from doing so in any election. In an

Open Systems model, the limited input has a negative effect on throughputs, and on the output.

To create a more open political system, activists must focus on shifting the Overton

window (Lehman, 2010). This window is the narrow scope of what is considered acceptable

political dialogue, and is not driven by politicians. Rather, this window is shifted by social

blm2131 12

movements. Policies that do not come from the ground up have little longevity, and often face

backlash (Lehman, 2010). Americans want greater access to the polls, they have to ask for it. The

Overton Window shifts as the conversation enters the mass media, and as American citizens

write and call their congress people to ask for hearings on the issue. Politicians do what they

think will get them elected, and any issue not brought to their attention is ignored.

Conclusion:

There is a general sentiment that the American public has lost faith in the democratic

process. In addition to public concerns with the election process itself, one cause may be

growing evidence that the process is not serving social needs. From issues like gay rights, to

women’s health, to marijuana prohibition, the public is significantly more progressive than the

nation leaders in terms of increasing personal freedoms, and increasing civil rights (Matthews,

2013). However, replacing the leaders of our nation is not the answer. The systemic mechanisms

that slow down policy change will continue to stifle growth, regardless who is elected into office.

As an open system, the election mechanism must remain open to it’s external environment so

that it can develop and change. Only by renewing procedures to increasing inclusive democracy

can the open system be renewed and evolve to meets the needs of a changing state, country, and

world.

blm2131 13

References

Burke, W.W. (2011). Organizational Change: Theory and Practice. (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks,

C.A.: SAGE Publications.

Encyclopedia Britannica. (2013). Gerrymandering. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/

EBchecked/topic/231865/gerrymandering.

Lehman, Joseph G. (2010). Overton Window Theory. Macinac Center. Retrieved from http://

www.mackinac.org/12481.

Martindale, Brandi L. (2013). Voter Registration Statistics. Data Collected on Behalf of

Independentvoting.org. Retrieved from http://share.pdfonline.com/

b5824875f0f4407ba3d4f858f38e0256/2013 Voter Registration Statistics.htm.

Matthews, Dylan (2013). One Study Explains Why It’s Tough to Pass Liberal Laws. Retrieved

from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/04/one-study-

explains-why-its-tough-to-pass-liberal-laws/.

May, Rollo. (1972). Power and Innocence: A Search for the Sources of Violence. New York, NY:

Norton.

New York City Campaign Finance Board. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.nyccfb.info.

New York State Constitution. (1777). Suffrage. Section II Article 1. Qualification of voters.

Retrieved from http://www.dos.ny.gov/info/constitution.htm.

New York State Constitution. (1777). Suffrage. Section II. Article 8. Bi-Partisan Election Board.

Retrieved from http://www.dos.ny.gov/info/constitution.htm.

Rees, Robert A. (2012). Power and Powerlessness: A Personal Perspective. Dialogue: A Journal

of Mormon Thought.

blm2131 14

Riker, William H. & Peter C. Ordeshook. (1968). A Theory of the Calculus of Voting. The

American Political Science Review. 62(1), 25-42.

Kanter, Rosabeth M. (1997). "Power Failure in Management Circuits”. Harvard Business

Review. President and Fellows of Harvard College. 57(4).

Short, Ellen L.. (2007), Race, Culture and Containment in the Formal and Informal Systems of

Group Relations Conferences. Organisational & Social Dynamics. 7(2). 156–171.

Smith, Kevin B. (2011). Governing States and Localities. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. 189–190.

USC Annenburg Center. (2013). The Redistricting Game. Retrieved from http://

www.redistrictinggame.org.

blm2131 15

Appendix A: Voter Registration Statistics

blm2131 16

Appendix B: Gerrymandering

blm2131 17