PoliticalCampaignsandElectionsII 101 introduction

Does any one persons vote real! matter? Some

people do not think so. ‘I hey contend that a single

vote can hardly make a diikrence in an election that

involves millions of voters. Even at the local level, a

single vote is unlikely to have much impact.

In the presidential election of 2000, however, a

relatively small number of votes did matter. That year,

Democratic nominee Al Gore ran against Republican

candidate George W. Bush. More than 100 million

people voted in that election. \Vhen the votes were

tallied, Gore had won the popular vote by a little

more than 500,000 votes. Although a margin of half

a million votes sounds like a lot, it represented only

about one—halt of 1 percent of the total.

Despite Gore’s slim lead, Bush became president

by winning the Electoral College vote, This was only

the third time in U.S. history that a candidate had

won in the Electoral College without receiving a

plurality of the popular vote.

Not surprisingly, Bush’s victory in 2000 was con

troversial. The election was so close that, in the end,

it came down to a few contested votes in a single

state—Florida. There, George Bush won by a mere

537 votes. Under our winner$ake-all system, that

slim margin of victory gave Bush all, rather than half,

of the state’s 25 electoral votes—and the presidency.

Republican presidential candidate George W. Bushversus Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore in 2000

plurality

The largest number of votes in anelection. In elections with more thantwo candidates, the winner by aplurality may receive fewer than

50 percent of the votes cast.

winner-take-all system

An electoral system that awardsoffices to the highest vote-getterswithout ensuring representation forvoters in the minority. Under thissystem a slim majority of voters cancontrol 100 percent of elected offices.

primary election

An election in which voters determinetheir political party’s nominee for anelective office.

general election

An election in which voters chooseamong candidates from differentparties to fill an elective office.

caucus

A meeting of party members tochoose party officials or nomineesfor elective office.

party base

Political activists who embrace thecore values of their party and aremore likely to vote in primary electionsman are centrist vuiers.

stump speech

A candidate’s “standard” speech,which is repeated throughout his orher campaign.

coattail effectThe influence that a popular politicianmay have on voters, making themmore likely to choose other candidatesfrom his or her party.

171

Of course, 53 votes the number that effctivelyput Hush in the \\ bite 1 louse, is more than I vote. Ifiust 2(9 mi re ire npporters had gone to the polkthat day, and the same number of Bush supportershaci sta ed home instead of voting, the result mighthave been very dii k’rent.

11w Ilorida tally was not the ommlv close count inthe 2000 elections. In New Mexico, Gore beat Bushby just 366 votes An even tighter race unioldedin MiLhigan, where congressional candidate MikeRogers won a seat in the I louse by a mere S votes.

The 2000 elect ions show that a ftw votes can,and often do, mat icr. The importance of voting,however, goes well beyond the vote tally in any oneelection, ‘voting is one of the main ways that Americans take part in the political process. An informedvoter is likely te be an engaged citizen, and an activecitizenry is essential to a healths’ democracy. In thatsense, every American who votes is helping to keepour democratic system alive and well.

102 The Right to Vote

Elections are a regular Cature of this nations politicalsystem. [n fact, Americans hold more elections toelect more officeholders than any other nation in theworld. This emphasis on elections stems from theconstitutional principle of popular sovereignty. If

political authority comes from the people, whatbetter way to exercise that authority than by vi it inin a 2003 opinion survey, the maloritv of responJen t sagreed that voting was a necessary aspect of being agood citizen.

Yet despite this widespread view, a sizabic pcrcentage of Americans do not vote re nlarfv, Furthermore, throughout our history, many Americans havebeen denied voting rights. In many cases, the right tovole has been won only after ears of struggle.

Who Voted Then: The Gradua’ Expansion of SuffrageWhen the U.S. Constitution was written in 1 78”, itsaid very little about elections. The Constitution didestabltsh a procedure Gr electing the president andvice president. But it left most other details aboutelections and voting rights to the states.

At that time, suffrage, or the right to vote, washmi ted in the United States, In I 759, only about6 percent of the population was allowed to vote.Most states restricted suffrage to white males whoowned substantial property. John Jay, one of theauthors of The Fedeiulist Pupers, expressed a viewcommon to many of the nation’s founders whenhe said, “those who own the country ought togovern it.”

Over time, however, suffrage was graduallyextended. During the 1820s, a political movementto eliminate property qualifications for voting swept

amendments haveexpanded sufferagefor Americans.

former slaves.

1913Seventeenth Amendmentprovides for direct electionof senators by voters ratherthan by state legistatures

w

to women.I

ship Act grantscitizenship andvoting rights toAmerican Indians.

178 (iii! .‘ [5iIiIsiI l—’tii’ficipii(itni (ilill Bc/mcii’ior

the coimtrv, P pellcd by Andrew Jackson, the Fist

common man to become president, states opened

their voting rolls to all white males. This political

movement also pioneered the use of political parties

to niobilite voters and et iheill to the polls.

After the Civil \Var. the adoption ot the Fifteenth

:\mendineiit advanced the principle of universal

male 511111-age. lliis ameiidiueiit, ratified in I 870,

granted voting rights to all male citizens, ncludmg

African Americans.

Early in the 20th century, other measures ex

panded votint rights even more. The Seventeenth

Amendment, i-at fled in 1915. provided for the direct

election ot senators. Previously, senators had been

elected by state legislatures. I lie \ineteenth Amend

ment, approved in 1920, gave women in all states the

right to vote, The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924

helped extend sullrage to American Indians by

granting them ci titenship.

The Civil Rights Movement and Suffragel ir some African Americans, the expansion of

suffrage after the Civil War proved short--lived. For

nearly a century after the war, many st-a tes—espe

ciallv in the South—found ways to den suffrage

to blacks, despite the Fifteenth Amendment. They

erected legal barriers, such as literacy tests and poi1

taxes, to keep African Americans from the polls.

In the I 950s and 1 960s, leaders of the civil rights

inovr’ment made expansion of voting rights one of

their key goals. They organized mass protests, calliiv

on the federal government to ensure that African

Americans could exercise their voting rights, no

matter where the\ lived. They achieved their first

victory with the ratitication t the lwentv-Emrth

Amendment in I 96-I. 1 his amendment banned poll

taxes, which had kept man’. poor Atrican Americans

from voting.

A second major advance came with the passage

of the \‘oting Rights Act of 1965, which banned liter-

acv tests. In some parts of the South, this law placed

voter registration, or the of signing up to

vote, under frderal authority. In the past, local elec

tion ott icials in these areas had prevented African

Americans from registering to vote, Asa result of the

Voting Rights Act, the number of African American

voters increased dramatically in the South.

Voting Today: Easy Registration and Low Turnout

‘I’he next major expansion of suffrage occurred with

ratification of the Tsventv-sixth Amendment in 1971.

This amendment lowered the voting age to 18. Previ

ously, most states had required voters to be at least

21 years old. This amendment was adopted during

national debates over the Vietnam War. At the time,

many people argued that if 1 8—vear—olds were old

enough to he drafted and sent into battle, then they

were old enough to vote.

(Jiij9cr 10 Püiilic,i/ (‘iiilpaiz1is in1 HcctIt’,!s 179

Many voters believe thattheir vote does not matter.However, the cumulativeeffect of nOnvOtriq can

be substantiaL It nest

Americans tail to vote,

then election results donot represent the will ntthe nanrity

lodav, there are ftur basic requirements to beeligible to vote in the United States. In most states,von must be

a U.S. citizen.at least 8 years old.a resident of the state.a legally registered voter.lo register to vote, von must OIl out a form that

asks for such basic information as sour address anddate of birth. You may also he required to providethe registrar of voters with proof of your identity.In general, voter registration closes a month or sohefnre an plpehnn Hwe’er, North Dakota doesnot require residents to register before voting. A fewother states allow voters to register at their pollingplace on Election Day.

To encourage more people to vote, Congress hastried to make the voter-registration process easier.In 1993, for example, it passed the National VoterRegistration Act, better known as the Motor VoterAct. This law requires that states allow residents toregister to vote while applying for a drivers license.It also requires states to provide voter-registrationforms at social service offices and by mail.

The Motor Voter Act has been quite successful inpromoting voter registration. By the 1996 presidential election, 18 million new voters had registered.

‘l’hat upward trend has continued. By 2004, about79 percent of voting-age Americans were registeredto vote, compared with iust over 70 percent beforethe law was passed.

Increased voter registration, however, has nottranslated into high voter turnout on Election Day.Voter turnout is the proportion of the voting-agepopulation that actually votes. Today, the UnitedStates has one of the lowest voter turnouts amongthe world’s established democracies. Between 50 and60 percent of American voters turn out to vote inpresidential elections. In contrast, figures for most

11L.

Political scientists point to a number of factorsthat might explain this difference in voter turnout. For example, ballots in some countries may besimpler, with fewer candidates and issues to vote onthan in a typical American election. U.S. electionstake place on workdays, which means that manyvoters must take time off from their jobs to go to thepoils. In many other countries, elections are held onweekends or official Election Day holidays.

In some European countries, such as Belgiumand Italy, voting is compulsory, not voluntary as inthe United States. Voters who do not participate inelections in those countries may face fines or havetheir right to vote revoked,

UNFORTUNATEL’,) TuEVAREMAIKIOG

L ttmFFEREnf,,J}

180 tTnit .3 Pnljticul Purticipittnn aiol J3eha’ter

TOW U.S. I urnotit ales flay also i’etlect the tact

that a majoril v ut SI ales deny convicted felons voting

rirht’ while in jnl, on parole, or on probation. Such

restrictions deny about I adult in 50 the right to vote.

low voter -tn flout rates have tueled concern

that \ mericans are becoming less connected to their

communities and see less reason to get involved in

politics. \evertheless, the 2004 presidential election

showed an increase in voter turnout compared with

the 2000 election,

I? 1O3 Choosing Candidates for PublicOffice: The Nomination Process

ApproNimately haIfa million people hold elective

ollice in the United Slates. Candidates for nonparti

san offices, such as county sheriff, typically lace one

another in a single election. ‘l’he candidate with the

highest vote totals wins. For most national or state

ot tices, however, candidates in ust compete for their

party’s nomination in a primarY election. If they win

this election, they go on to tace the nommnees of other

parties in the general election, held later that year.

Primary Elections: Closed, Open, Blanket,

and Nonpartisan

Primary elections, though common in the U ii ited

States, are rare in the rest ot the world. The idea of

holding elect ions to choose a party’s nominees was

popularized during the Progressive Era in the early

I 900s. Before then, nominees were often selected by

party leaders who met behind closed doors. Primary

elections brought the selection process out into the

open and allowed part\ members to participate.

l’oda, primary elections take several forms.

(%oseI primaries. States with a closed primary

limit voting to registered party members. Inclepen

dents are not allowed to participate. In some states,

voters may declare their party affiliation on Election

[)ay and vote in that party’s primary. In general,

party leaders prefer a closed primary, because it

limits voting to the party faithful.

Open pri iiaries. States with an open primary

allow all voters to vote in primary elections. In this

system, also known as pick-a-party primaries, voters

decide which party primary to vote in on Election I)ay,

Independent voters like this system because it allows

them to participate in the primary of their choice.

Presidential Primaries and Caucuses, 2008

‘NAMF

Mt NDMN

VTNH 1A

ID‘Ni NY

Mi

IAPA CT

NVat

IL INOH MD ..

UT coWV VA DC

CA KS MO KYNC

TN

AZ NMOK AR

SC

AL GA

i.AFL

AK

Boforo Febrmory 52D08

III On Fi’hrtmiry 5, 2003

After Fehiuary , 2003

ito tats for floinoci ,Uic

it r tie ‘ 0tioh’’ 2fl01— not RpuhIic tin Ptjrtios

In 2004 tust nine states held

presidential primaries orcaucuses on or before the firstTuesday in February In 2008nearly two dozen states heldtheir primaries on Feoiudiy 5also known as SupeuDuperTuesday.

Chapter 10 Political Campaigns and Elections 181

I i. u.iiy’’tt/ Hiiii, P ni’:i l.r,i:ni. Ihi! tint fliii’iiiciiti: piUsIitilllil;ii I’Dilltlit to nioiiiuihui ewididacyI U lou In said, “and tin in to wan.” In contrast, Ropubliran hopeful Mitt

ii ‘it nil i’i ,i’ip.wII ii spunib ;iI thu I—turn’,’ Void Museum iii Dciariiu ii, Micliiijm 1iikiiiq lip aII ‘ii’u ii’ uplIin’m i t’.I. hiIIii 0 thU POST da’/S iI this coiii’tfv are ahead ot us

However, party leaders worry about “raiding” inopen primaries. Raiding occurs when voters crossparty lines to vote in the other party’s primary.Usually their purpose is to help nominate a weakcandidate that their own party nominee can theneasily defeat in the general election.

Blanket prinh(IriL’s. In a blanket primary, voterscan pick and choose one candidate for each officefrom any party’s primarY list. loday this system isused in only a few states.

Nonpartisan primaries. Primaries are sometimesused to narrow the field in nonpartisan contests,such as for school board or city council elections.If one candidate wins a majority in a nonpartisanprimary, that person takes office. If not, the two topvote-getters face each other in the general election.

Joining the Race: Self-Announcement,Exploratory Committees, and DraftsTo participate in a primary, the person running foroffice must become a declared candidate. This canhappen in several ways. The most common is self-announcement, also known as throwing your hat intothe ring. Candidates simply declare their interest inseeking election to a public oflice. Self-announcementis usually done at a press conference or other publicevent, in 2007, Hillary Clinton chose to self-announceher candidacy for president on her Web site.

Before making a formal announcement, however,the candidate may form an exploratory committee.This is a group of advisers who evaluate the candidate’s chances for election. Exploratory committeesoften take several weeks to test the waters and determine the level of public support for their candidate.If the committee decides that circumstances arefavorable, the candidate makes a formal announcement of candidacy.

For presidential candidates, announcements aresometimes made as early as two years before theelection. By announcing early, candidates give themselves extra time to raise the funds and the supportthey Wtii need foi We hard primary campaign ahead.

In some cases, candidates do not self-announce.Instead, they wait for a groundswell of public support for their candidacy. In effect, they allow theirsupporters to draft them into the race.

Establishing a Campaign OrganizationTo win elective office, candidates must run a well-organized campaign. In most cases, this requires acampaign organization. These organizations vary insize and complexity, depending on the race.

Running for a city council seat might require avery small, local campaign organization. This groupmight consist of no more than a volunteer campaignmanager and a treasurer. The candidate works with

“i,,,

t1’

S

182 Ui I I Palit ical Pail icipa tion and Bchavion

this small team to write speeches, print posters andtlyers, and manage other details of the campaign.

Running br president, on the other hand, demandsa large, complex organization. A presidential racerequires the services of hundreds of wuple, I rom

unpaid volunteers to highly paid campaign professionals. Included in this staff would be a campaign man—ager, a public opinion piillster. a media consultant, atundraisuig specialist, accoun Ian ts, lawyers, and apress seretar . A presidential campaign Organizationwould alNo have otlices in every stale. UI course, toset up and run such an organi/alion rerlui res money.

Building a War Chest by Dialing for DollarsJesse U nrtili, a California politician, once observed,Money is the mother’s milk of politics. X%’ithout

money, a political campaign cannot survive for long.1 his is true at all levels, whether a candidate is runningliar a local office or Rr president of the United States.

At the start of a campaign, candidates typicallyspend a great deal of time and energy raising money

he old-fashioned way. Ihey “dial for dollars, getting on the phone to ask associates and supportersfor money, The hold fundraisers, such as $1,000—a—plate dinners, to solicit contributions from majordonors, They also organize direct - mail campaignsand set up Web sites designed to attract funds fromlarge numbers of small donors. If a candidates fund

raising efforts are successful, the campaign will buildrip a war chest, or funds that can be used to move

the campaign forward.During presidential primary cam paigns, the can

didate with the largest war chest is often hailed as thefront-runner, During the 2000 election, for example,George W. Bush raised a record amount of money

early in the campaign and became the leading Repnblican candidate. A year befnre the first presidential

primaries in 2008, II illarv (liii ton and Barack ( )bama

were declared front runners in the race for the I )emo

cratic nomination, based on their early stiect.ss at

raising record amounts of campaign In nds.

Developing Campaign Strategies and ThemesIn most states. the road to nomination in partisanraces is the primary election. But some states use adifferent method: the party caucus. A caucus is a

closed mneetingJ o people from one polttical part\who will select candidates or delerates.

In a caucus state, small groups of party membersmeet in their communities to discuss the variouscandidates. Each caucus then chooses delegates torepresent its views at the party’s state convention.Approximately a dozen states hold caucuses. ‘Flie

best known are the Iowa caucuses, which take place

early in presidential election years. The Iowa caucuses are watched closely, because they provid1e the

0

C

In choosing a campaign theme andmessage, candidates often consultpolls and pollsters. This cartoontakes aim at the kind of advicepollsters may give.

‘IS’S, like 1OU (iS (I c{mSerr(itil’L’, 15”, like iou li/vial, aiitl 71)5, dwz’I care - -

uI1’ a,Ii’,ce is Ia iota vent i’uursclj is tIn’ .1 ,Io,i I ‘are candidate.

(2zapt’r 1 () Po1itiiI Cai,ip,ii;is anI LIe, Ii, ‘as 183

first dtc,ttioits ut how vull uach indidate is dointat winnhtil’ the support ot ;tVeiare voters.

l’o prepare fur caucuses and primaries, candidates

ni List develop a cam paigil si rategv. If this plan ofaction works well and the candiditle wins the nomi

nation, sonic of that st rate’v may carry over to the

general election. Key elements of a strategy includetone, theme, and targeting.

IonL’. Candidates must decide whether to adopt apositive or a negative tone for their campaigns. Thismeans determi iii ng how much time and money tospend stressing the positive things about their candidacy

and how much to spend criticizing their opponents.Theme. Every candidate needs a theme—a simple,

appealing idea that gets repeated over and over. A

theme helps dish nguish a candidate from his or her

opponents in the primaries. It is also critical in the

general election, when candidates from ditlerent parties compete. When running br reelection in 1984.

Ronald Reagan emphasized optini ism, as expressedin his slogan, Its morning again in America,” In1992, Bill Clinton organized his campaign around

the theme ol change. 1--us campaign ads began, “I’mBill Clinton, and I think you deserve a change.”

Tar’tim. Candidates must also decide whether

to target specific groups of voters. Is there anygroup-—blue-collar workers, women, the middleclass, the elderly—that is pai’ticularly unhappy with

the status quo? If so, that group is a likely target forspecially designed appeals from candidates.

office, candidautial candidates. Pre

Accept thenominationat the nationalcoflventi0n

.s is similar tot both congressional]t the national convention.

Make theannouncement.

Run in primariesand caucuses.

Develop a strategy. Form a campaignorganization.

-I

3uild a war chm

184 Unit 3 Political Participation and Behavior

Another aspect oF campaign strategy is how topresent the candidate’s political views during theprimaries as opposed to during the general election.For the primaries, candidates tend to couch theirmessage in terms that will appeal to the party base.The party base consists (31 party activists, who aremore likely to vote in primary elections than areless-committed centrists. This base also holds moreextreme views than the average middle-of-the-roadvoter. As a result, candidates often emphasize morehbera! or scrvativcvws ii thc pi1nauics thajithey would in a general election campaign.

Reaching the Voters: Retail Politics, WholesalePolitics, and MicrotargetingCandidates for public office try to reach voters invarious ways, both during the primaries and in therun-up to the general election. Political scientistshave identified three general approaches: retailpolitics, wholesale politics, and microtargeting.

Retail politics. This meet-and-greet style ofcampaigning relies on direct, personal contact withvoters. Candidates take part in parades, dinners,and other local events. They stand outside factoriesand shopping malls to shake hands and kiss babies.

During these face-to-face encounters with voters,candidates try to present themselves as leaders whoare in touch with ordinary people.

Wholesale politics. Many voters can be reachedonly by large—scale mail or media campaigns. Candidates may develop direct-mail campaigns, in whichthousands of letters are sent to voters asking for theirsupport. Even more common is the use of both paidand free media. Candidates and their staff preparetelevision ads and take part in televised town hallmeetings and debates. These broadcasts can reachmillions of people at a time. The Internet is alsobeing used to reach voters on a large scale.

Micro targeting. This campaign approach usesdatabases to target narrow groups of voters and thenreach them with carefull crafted messages. According to the Washington Post, candidates who adoptthis technique “use the latest data-mining technologyto vacuum every last scrap of information aboutvoters.’ Armed with that data, they’ “churn outcustom-tailored messages designed to herd theirsupporters to the polls.” These messages presentthe candidate’s position on issues of importance toeach targeted group. For example, a candidate mighttarget a message on social security to senior citizens.

Early in the primary season, presidential candidates, like Democratic hopeful Barack Obama, have timeto ment and grPet voters individually As the season wears on retail politics gives way to wholesale

.

hmt

Chapter 10 Political (arnpaiglJs and Elections 185

National conventions are heldafter the primary season ends

They nsed to he part of the

nominating piricess I nday,

party gatherings are occasions

for raising party spirIt andcheenog the party’s nominee

[.ocking Up the NominationA kw months before the presidential elect ion, the

l)emocratic and Republican parties each hold a

national convention in a major American city. In

the past, party conventions were a critical step in the

nomination process. Party delegates would artrie

over the candidates, sometimes goIng through several

ballots before picking a nommee. On occasion, an

underdog would emerge from the pack to challenge.

and even overtake, the leading candidate.

‘l’odav, however, president al nominees are chosen

through the primary and caucus process. The winner

then announces his or her choice for vice president.

‘l’he national convention has, as a result, evolved in to

a ritual to formally announce the party nominees and

present them to the nation. The nominees also work

with party leaders to frame a platform, laying out the

party’s position on major issues. In addition, the con-

vention helps unite the party and excite the party base.

The Other Way to Run for Office:

Nomination by PetitionNot all candidates for public ollice go through the

usual nomination process. For independent or third--

party candidates, there is another way to get Ofl the

ballot: by petition. The petition process involves

collecting signatures of a specific nu mber of qualified

voters in support of one’s candidacy. The number of

signatures needed depends on the office being sought.

The laws governing nomination by petition diffr’r

fi’om state to state In 2001, a candidate running hr

president needed just 200 valid signatures to be put.

on the ballot in Washington state. In contrast, North

Carolina required a candidate to gather the number

of signatures equal to 2 percent of the votes cast in

the previous presidential elect ion, or approximately

I 00,000 signatures.

These variations can make it difficult for indepen—

dent and third -party candidates to get on the ballot in

all 50 states. In 2000, for example, Ralph Nader, the

presidential nominee bar the Green Party, appeared

on the ballot in 43 states. Four years later, Nader was

able to qualify bar the ballot in only 34 states.

104 Campaigning in General Elections

Once the primary season ends, the candidates who

have won their party’s nomination shift gears to

campaign in the general election. Although the

Constitution calls for regularly scheduled elections,

it does not speciI’ when they should be held. Con -

gress has set the date for presidential and midterm

elections as the first Tuesday after the first Monday

in November of even—numbered years. This is

different from parliamentary systems, in which

the prime minister can call a national election at

any time.

186 t1,it 3 ])1iI,, (I! Jrrt!sfuiirrIr i,iI BeJI,Il!()r

Presidential, Midterm, and OtlYear ElectionsIhere are three types of general elections in the

nited States: presidential, midterm, and otlvear.Presidential elections are held every four yearson even numbered years. Midterm elections occur

in the even -numbered years between presidentialelect ions. Off—year elections are held in odd-numbered years.

llected othcials in the United States hold ofikefor fixed terms. Ihe Constitution sets the terms of thepresident and members ot Congress. 1 he only lederal official affected by term limits is the president.

1 he Fw entv-second Amendment. ratilled in I 951,limits the president to two terms in office. The termsfor state olhceholders are set by state constitutions.

Building a Winning Coalition: Motivatingthe Base While Moving Toward the Middle( andidates gearing up ffr a general election mustmake a number of changes in their campaign strategy. One i.s to shift their attention from winning overfellow party members to taking on the nominee ofthe other maJor party.

‘lo appeal to a larger cross-section of voters,many candidates also decide to modify their politicalmessage. In the primaries, the ideas and promises thatappealed to the party base, with its more extreme

views, mae need to he moderated to attract centristsand independents. Ideally, however, this move to the

Type of Election Who Gets Elected

Presidential Election President and vice presidentOccurs every four years One-third of the Senatein even-numbered yeais All members of the House

Some state and local officials

Midtenn Election One-third ot the SenateOccurs in even- All members ci the House

numbered years between Most state governorspresidential elections Some state and local officials

Off-Year Election county supervisorsOccurs in odd• City mayorsnumbered years councils

Most boards of specialdistricts

middle should bC d inc in a w a ih.i I does not ii

or alienate the base.l)enti —:11 (liii lserr lattl iln lelitalc lil.ii to

aLt during the 2ut-l deL lion. I )innig the primaiseason kurre presented himsell to Hrh \ oh rs js inardent L nt c of the war in I Faq. I Ic did this. TI part. 0

di tin support a’ av mm his I )emoL rat IL it let I

I loward I 1ean. I )eans strong antiwar \ iews had litedii the p1rl I ase.

1990 1992 1994 1996 1ma 1000 1001 1UiJi 2006

Ye r

PresIdential election Midterm electiontACO L1 £nu ur u

‘vinci itO loin ictitis to en lower in midterm elertions than in oresiileitial elections,as the qiiph below indictitis. T:tinout in off yl-tar i-ilnclions is usually own still.

Voter Turnout, 1990 -2006111 -.

—,fl 55C

42- 425 41-.

C/iaphi it) Political Canipaigits an] Plcctioiis 187

II I II I “ FL FF F I iF IF I IFF\\ c , I

IFFI,’FF\’FF FFF1ILF ‘IIi,TFIIF 11,111, LIII

FL ‘FL IF F FF FL IF’ k I I F F Ft IL ILl S IL F FL FF”

SF’ ‘ 1 0 I IF IF .11 pF FL FF1 F ‘‘F IF .Flt FILF IF IF

‘FL FF IF F I Fl F F , I F F\\ F\ F I F F F 111FF I I ‘,FF I’ III F F I IIFF

IlLS IFIFLFIFIFL ILL FFIIFFIFL’FII (‘F FFI”F’ \\ BFFSIF., FF1 ILSF’FI

Ii F F F Fl 1FF II Ii III) I IF Fj 11FF F FF1 ii IF I’ ,F I’,F IF IS’ IF’

sI II’ l 1FF IF IS LI IF Fl F Fl Fl F F l I” ‘F IF FF1 IF FL I L IF ‘1 F Ft 1FF

IF’ IF”,! hF’ FI,,IIFFILIFFIIFFIl

Issues Versus Iniqe: Stiuiiip Speeches.

Photo Ops, and Televised Debates

Ill IIFF \VF I,s IF’,LF iLL’ III I 1FF IIFF ‘‘F F 1,1,11 F’lc F 1FF FL F, MI

FIFF 1,11 F” F F FL LI F F F ILL’ 1FF III FILL 11FF IF IF 1,5,121 II Id P1 FI sI I

FL LI FF.F’ IF FL S FILL I IFS SI1F’L 1(1 ILL’ F LI II IF Li F

FF1 F I h1 F ,i FF1 p1 LLL F IL ,F ii. IL FL IF FL ibl IF I FL Fl F F IL F S

,FFFFI ‘,‘IVLIU’ 5,11 L,FILFFIIS FF1 IIFF’LI sl,FIIFI,FrFI ,U.FF’,F

I IFS FF111 11.11 I(’Ils l IF 1FF IIFF Fl,I\’, \\IlL’FF F ,FLLLIIFI,IIF

5SF FF1 ILl sI Lild F FF1 1 lF F sIll Ill I’ IF) (IF’l FL 1 luFF r ,j)L FL Ii .

I )I III Ill’ IFS ILL II 55FF I F IF FF1 LII IF S F F IL I F F 5 F F

IF FrI 1FF IF’IUFLI1 III IlL’ Ill-Fl IF F’ I )IFF 55 ,F S 1FF hF F

S 1FF I 1FF pl F Fl F F FL1 F F F ILL III1F, S F F F li F F! F F F Fl’S, 1FF

the LUF’hl 1.1. I iF I IF FflL’ F 111,11 F ILL IF, S FF1 I ILF’ F S LI LI

55111 F pp .11 F F FL Ill F’ Il F 11115 FF0 S 11FF1 Ill I hF’ Il I

I Ill Full I FF1. s Ill 55’SII -

IF LFFFitIF’SSLFFI1,II F FFLLIFd,FIF’S, 1 I,L5FFIFIF’ IFhFFIF) FFIF

Ill S FF1 S L’S 11)1111 LI Fj1F’L 1,11 IF F’S 551111 I lIe 1FF L’SLdL’FL I F FL 551111

I Il F F parts S p1 esFdL 1111,11 III FLU Lice II IL’ 1 IU I IFIFII

iF FIlL’S I ho b’jIH SF, ‘Fl In pUIFI Ic 5511 h ‘sILl II ,F p10 rI III

IS J F Fi ‘‘‘FL FF’F’F Fl” SFFI, IFIF, ‘F’’ I,lI,/,FFF I,,,, III

‘F F ,IF F 1’’! 1 FF f” F! Ill ‘.,‘i F I’ll ,,FIF I ‘ ‘F

tigure svill tIVL’ Ii Is OF heI’ campaign an extra boosl

This boost, known as the coatlail erfeci, Lnay help a

struggling candidate ride into oihce on the coattails

of the next president.

The coattail died does not always work as hoped.

In I 992, DF.’mncrat Bill Clinton svon the presidential

election, but his coattails were too short to help fellow

party members The Democrats lOst 10 seats LU

Congress that year. Four years later, however, ClintoLl

won reelection with longer coattails. In the I 99o

election, the Democrats won 8 seats in Congress.

The coattail effect remanis unpredictable. workIng

for some candidates in some campaigns while having

little eftect in others.

Another way for candidates to boost their exposure

is to take part in televised debates, In presidential

elections, these debates oHer many voters their first

opportunitY to see and hear the candidates discuss the

issues in any depth However, the image that candi

dates project in debates may be just as important as

what they have to sav-\ candidate who is attractive,

well-spoken, and relaxed during a debate will probably

tare better than one who appears stiff and ill at ease

on screen.

The impact of televised debates on voters is hard

to assess, What candidates do in debates max’ sway

some voters, while simply confirming for others the

choice they have already made, Nonetheless, can

didates prepare carefully for these televised events,

knowing that even though a good performance may

not win them that many votes, a poor showing could

lose them the election,

Geltüay Out the Vote

In the last days before the election, campaign workers

focus on getling out the vote, This means making

sure that all voters who are likely to support their

candidate actually cast their ballots,

In the past, almost all votes were cast at a desig

nated polling place within each precinct. Today, the

majority of Americans still go to the polls to vote on

Election Day. However, a growing number of voters

now cast absentee ballots, or mail-rn ballots that

voters can use instead of going to the polls. Since 2000,

for example, the state of Oregon has conducted all

of its elections by mail. A few states also allow early

voting at designated voting places in the month

before Election Day.

This cartoon is comment!Flg on the role of the media in elections.

Americans today get most of their information about candidates

from television rather than face-to-face meetings

188 LFF II 3 lFFllfIFFFl PF1I1CqFFItIFFFl (FFFFI BL’IIFI)’IFFF

Election woikets ti fondacheck ballot during tb 000presid ntial election Poorlymarked baiols cit the ieultsof the election in doubt lotweek

(;ainpaign orgamzations use various tactics to getout the Vott before and on Election Day. Before theelect]on, volunteers talk with voters by phone or bywalking through precincts and ringing doorbells toOnd out who is likely to support their candidate. OnFiection Day, they set U phone banks staffed by volunteers who call supporters and urge them to vote.The organizations may also oflr free rides to voterswho have no other way of getting to the polls.

Campaigns ma also send poll watchers to polling places on Election l)ay. Poll watchers are volunteers who monitor the voting process. Their mainjob is to prevent voter fraud or efTorts to intimidatevoters. Poll watchers may also observe the tallying ofballots to ensure that all votes are properly counted.

Because most voting regulations are set by statesand counties, votinu im-thodc and types of ballotshave varied from one community to the next. In thepast, most voters used some form of paper ballots orlever-controlled voting machines. Some paper ballotsare relatively easy to use and count, while others arenot, The infamous huttertlv ballot used in Florida inthe 2000 general election confused many voters. As aresult, many voted for the wrong candidate by mistake.

Florida also had trouble with punch -card ballotsin the 2000 election. Voters mark these ballots bypunching out small hits of paper, called chads, besidetheir choices. Sometimes, however, the chad does notfully detach from the ballot. These “hanging chads”make it almost impossible for the machines used tocount ballots to complete an accurate tally, Every

time such ballots are fed through the vote-countingmachine, it comes up with a different count.

Florida was not alone in having problems. Acrossthe country in the 2000 elections, almost 2 millionvotes were not properly counted by vote-countingmachines. To solve this problem, Congress enactedthe Help America Vote Act of 2002. The goal of thisact is to help states replace their old voting machinesand punch-card ballots with more accurate votingtechnology, such as optical scanners and touch -screenmachines. Progress, however, has been slow, in partbecause of questions raised about the accuracy andreliability of the newer electronic voting systems.

Who Wins?Once the votes are counted, the winners are declared.In most presidentai eicctioiv, die winnei teceivesa majority of the popular vote. That was the case in2004, when George W. Bush received 51 percent ofthe votes cast.

When three or more candidates are competing,the winner sometimes receives less than 50 percent ofthe vote. This occurred in both the 1992 and the 1996elections, when Bill Clinton won the presidency with43 percent and 49 percent of the popular vote, respec-tively. In both cases, a third-party candidate, RossPerot, captured enough votes to prevent either of themajor party candidates from winning a majority.

Our nation’s winner-take-all system has a majoreffect on presidential elections. In most states, thecandidate winning the popular vote captures-all of

I

(Jiiptcr 1(1 Iulific,il (ii ipaii.iis titi1 IJL’CiiO/iS 189

that states I ecloral Colluge otes. ebraska and

Maine, however, use a different system. ‘I hey allot

Electoral olleee volus based on the popular vote in

each ol the slates c ngressioiial districts.

Critics point out that the Electoral College system

enu(,Inaees candidaies to bacns on populous status

with the lamest number ot electors. In theory, a

candidate can win the presidency b capturing the

I I lamest states and losing the other 39.

In general. however, candidates pay the ninst

attention to a lew battleground stales, where the

vote is likely to be close, while ignoring slates where

the outcome is more predictable. For example, a

Republican presidential candidate can easily expect

to win Texas and other conservative southern states.

Similarly, a Democratic candidate can expect to win

Massachusetts and other liberal New England slates.

For that reason, both sides target their time and mcney

on states such as t )hio, Florida, and New Mexico,

which can he o on by either candidate,

Our winner-take-all-system tends to reinlorce

the nations two party svsteni. Most pnblic offices o

to candidates of the two major parties, because one

or the other is likely to win the popular vote, ‘Ihird

parties, which usually have a narrower appeal, have

much less hope 01 winning seats in (orgress or state

legislalures Although the winner take all svstenm

promotes stability in government, it tends to exclude

less-mainstream candidates from public oftice.

In contrast, many European democracies have

adopted a proportional representation system.

In these count ries, citizens usually vote for Irt ies

rather than br individual candidates. ,\ party wins

seats in parliament based on its proportion of the

popular vote. For example, ii a party wins one-tb ird

ol the vote in an election, it is awarded approximately

one third of the seats in parliament. Proportional

representation thus gives smaller parties a chance to

take part in government.

The Electoral College Debate

As nnportant as the popular vote may seem, it is the

Electoral College vote that decides presidential elec

tions. ‘l’he framers of the Constitution devised the

Electoral College system because they did not trust

votei’s who were spread out over 1$ states to choose

the head of the executive branch. instead, they gave

that responsibility to a group of electcrs who might

better know who was best suited bar that iob.

At first, each state legislature chose its own electors,

In 1 789, all 69 electors who had been chosen this way

cast their ballots h)r (Jeorge Washington as president.

This map highlights the sevenbattleground states targetedby both major candidates in

the 2004 presidential election,These states are so evenlydivided between Democraticand Republican voters that theycould swing either way, therebyadding crucial electoral votes

to the winner’s tally. Presidential campaigns spend tar moretime and money in battlegroundstates than in states that already appear committed to onecandidate or the other.

Source: Darns R. Shaw, The Race to 270:

The Electoral College and the Campaign

Strategies of 2000 and 2004, Chicago:

Univers:ty of Chicago Press, 2006.

Battleground States. 2004

WA M

MT VMN NH MA

Oil wi NY “

ID SD MiWY PA CT

IA NJN 014 MO

NV ti. IN 0

utCO

VA

GA KS MO KYNC

TN

AZOK AR Sc

NM AL GAMS

TX LAt

AK

HI

190 Un it Political P t rt ic’iJnl lion ntd lichaviot’

A majority cast their votes for John Adams as vicepresident .After ISO)), stales began allowing voters toc000se electors. When you vote fhr president in thenext election, you will act uallv be voting for electorswho haVe promised to support your candidate.

‘l’he number of electors from each state equals thenumber of that state’s representatives in Congress.For example. Virginia has 2 senators and II Housemembers. giving it a total of 13 electoral votes.\ashiigton, D.C., has 3 electoral votes. Ihere are 538elector s in all, ss hich means that a candidate mustwin at least 270 electoral voles to become president.If no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, theH (.fli5 01 Representatives selects the president, witheach state casting one vole.

Not surprisingly, the Electoral College system hasprovoked controversy over the years. The chief criticism is that it is undemocratic. Critics point to threeelections in U.S. history—- in 1876, 1888, and 2000—-in which the candidate who won the l)oPdar vote kuledto win in the Electoral College. The most recentexample was Al Gore’s loss to George V. Bush in 2000,

I-or years, critics have called for a reform ofthe Electoral College. Most advocate electing thepresident by direct popular vote. This change wouldrequire a constitutional amendment. I lowever, manystates, especially smaller ones, are likely to opposesuch a change. fearing that it would reduce theirinfluence in presidential elections,

Another option is the congressional districtmethod, which is an alternative to the winner-take-all system. Under this method, now used in Maineand Nebraska, the candidate who wins the popularvole m each congressjonal dLsiiict gels that district’selectoral vote. ‘I-he overall winner in the state receivesthe two additional electoral votes that represent thestate’s senators.

A third option is called the national popular vote.Under this plan, states would agree to cast theirelectoral votes for the winner of the national popularvote, rather than for the victor in their own state.‘I-his change can be implemented by state legislatures, thereby avoiding the need for a constitutionalamendment. In 2007, Maryland became the first stateto adopt this Electoral College reform. The reformwill not go into effect, however, unless approvedby enough states to constitute a majority of theElectoral College vote.

Many Americans tind the Electoral College system confusing atbest—and at worst, undemocratic, Some would like to replace itwith a system based on the popular vote. However, because theElectoral College is written into the Constitution, getting rid of itwould require a constitutional amendment.

1U5 Financing Election Campaigns

In the United States today, elections are centered moreon candidates than on political parties. This was notalways the case. At one time, candidates relied heavilyon their parties to help them win elections. Today,however, candidates behave more like independentpolitical actors than party representatives. Theydepend mainly on their own political skills and theefforts of their campaign organizations to get elected.

The High Cost of Running for OfficeMoney has played a large part in this shift from party-centered to candidate-centered elections. As campaigns have grown more expensive, candidates havecome to rely increasingly on their own fundraisingabilities or personal fortunes to win public office. In2000, for example, more than $3 billion was spent onelection campaigns in the United States. On average,winning candidates for a seat in the House of Representatives spent $500,000 each. Winners of eachSenate seat spent an average of $4.5 million, ‘I’oday,the cost is even higher.

(iurptcr 10 Political Campaigns and hlcctions 191

IF

F

-

90 YOUUNPERSTANt’ 111&

.CiofAL (‘OtL ,

‘iSTEM?

American electron campaignscuter cm ca didates rather than

on parties. Note the absence of

party names on these campaign

posters. in many other countries,

the party afhliations of candi

dates play a much larger role in

campaigns

The high cost of running for otlice is a concern

for various reasons. Candidates with limited resources

may find it hard to cumpete with those who are well

funded. This lack of a level playing field inevitably

excludes some people from running for office. In

addition, officeholders must spend considerable time

and energy building up their war chests for the next

race, rather than f&usrng on the work of governing.

‘Ihe main issue, however, is whether campaign

contributions corrupt elected officials. When can

didates win public office, do the’ use their positions

to benefit big campaign donors? In other words, do

politicians always “dance with the ones who brung

them,” as the old saying goes? Lawmakers generally

say no, but the public is not so sure.

Two Strategies Guide Campaign Donations

Political scientists have observed that individuals

and groups donating to campaigns choose from two

basic strategies. The first is the electoral strategy.

Donors that follow this strategy use their money to

help elect candidates who support their views and

to defeat those who do not. The goal is to increase

the likelihood that Congress, their state legislature,

or their city council will vote as the donor wishes it

would vote.

The second is the access strategy. Donors fol

lowing this approach give money to the most likely

winner in a race, regardless of party. If the race

looks close, the donor might even contribute to both

campaigns. The goal is to gain access to whichever

party wins the election, Donors using this strategy

evpect to he able to meet with the official they sup

ported and present their views on issues of interest

to them.Political scientist Michael Smith points out that

neither strategy involves trading money for a prom

ise to vote a certain way on a piece of legislation.

Indeed, offering money for votes is considered

bribery and is clearly illegal. Donors found guilty

of offering bribes—and lawmakers found guilty of

accepting them—face prison sentences, not to men

tion ruined careers.

1 here have been weli-publicixed examples of

such corruption. Nonetheless, political scientists

find that most elected officials act according to their

political principles, no matter who donates to their

campaigns. Donors who make large contributions to

campaigns might enjoy greater access to officehold

ers. But that access may or may not translate into

influence over the actions of those officials.

Where Campaign Money Comes From

Almost all of the money used to fund election cam

paigns comes from private sources. A few wealthy

candidates have been able to fund some or all of their

campaigns from their own assets. In 2000, for ex

ample, lohn Corzine of New Jersey spent 56() million

192 tSr t 3 Puli[icuI P irt icipatioi i uric1 Ik’li

of his own money on a successtul bid for a scat in theUS. Senate. the great majority of candidates, however, must reach out to their supporters for funding.

Most campaign funds come horn individualcitizens. I hese donat ions are olten raised throughdirecUmail or Internet fundraising campaigns Andthey are typically tairl’ small, in the $25 to $1 Do range.Cat]didates also host lundraisers to raise money fromlarre donors. In 2OtJ 200, the amount of money

an individual could donate to a single candidate waslimited 1w law to $2,300 for the primary campaignand another $2,300 tor the general election. Thesefigures are periodically adjusted for inflation.

In recent years, political action committees havebecome an important source ot campaign funds.PACs are organizations formed b corporations,labor unions, or interest groups to channel fri ndsinto political campaigns. Similar to individualdonations, PAC contributions to a single candidateare limited to $5,000 for the primar campaign andanother $5,000 for the general election.

Public Funding of CampaignsAnother source of money for some candidates is

public funds. A few states, such as Arizona and NewHampshire, rise public money to finance campaigns

Candidates rimmnq br lederal otticu raise funds m various ways. Donors in some parts ofthe country rontnhute tar mute to campaiqns than do others. In 2004, California topped thenation in terms ot total cnololjiilioii,s, With NOW York mid the District of Columbia in secondand third place, respectively

Sources of Campaign Funds

S2’t 5101), ,lOi Ili1niiii Up u S2.3110 for UdCll ‘1011 p5 Ufl1iI assets Provrde5 by lii lip to StOUt per ij’rir-tioIIml Oct siml or the bier net clricuon Ipi mary rrd general) or loans, unlimited by law - candid ate’s party Iprimary arid general)

‘‘‘- r-’---’- ——‘

_•‘-—si- -f,

Campaign Contributions by State, 2004

Van ME

Mr NI],VTMN NH MAOR

WI ‘N ‘III SDMl “‘ \Rl

WYPA CT

IA -‘---NJNE OH MDCil IN

Ui WVVA DC

-

KS MO KY•NC

TNAZ

NOK AR SC -

S150 mi!l,ori and upMMS AL GA

Si0O million to Si 50 millionShO million to 5100 millron

AK TX LA

FL S25 million to 550 millionLess than S25 mIlton

HI

Scsi, _i,,c,,r,,l El, ‘nor Cr, Inns’- ci-.

II[

Chapter 10 Political Campaigns and Elections 193

tr osern4r and slate lawniakers, At the federal le\el,

only presidential candidates receive public funding.

This money comes from taxpayers who check a $3

donation box on their i ncoine lay fdrms. 11w n ionev

accumulates between elections and is made available

for both primary and reneral elect ion ram paicims.

To quality for public hinds, a candidate must raise

at least $5,000 in each of 2() states in small cont rihu

tiomis of $250 or less. Once qualified, candidates can

receive fdderal matching funds of up to $250 for each

additional corn ribtition they receive. ‘1 he purpose if

these provisions is to encourage candidates to rely

mainly on small contributions from average voters,

Public funds come with a caic Ii. Candidates

who receive public money must agree to limit their

campaign spending. In 200-I. the limit tdr primary

campaigns was about $37 million. Rather than ac

cept that limit, three candidatcs—( eorge W. Bush.

Howard 1)ean, and john kerry chose to fdrgo pub

lic funding. Instead, they raised and spent far larger

sums on their own. Once nominated, however, both

Bush and Kerry did agree to accept public I rinds.

This limited their spending in the general election

campaign to about $75 million.

The future of public funding for presidential

elections locks uncertain for two reasons. One is a

drop—oil in taxpayer donations for this purpose.

The other is a growing reluctance among presiden

tial hopefuls to accept public funds and to limit

their campaign spending.

Reining in Soft Money and Issue Ads

In 1974, Congress created the Federal Election

ComflhiSsion to enforce laws that limit campaign

contributions, The FEC requires candidates to keep

accurate records of donations to their campaigns and

to make those records available to the public. This

public disclosure allows voters to see who is support

ing which candidates for federal offices.

Despite FEC oversight, campaign spending

spiraled upward during the 1980s and 1990s. Much

of the money came from interest groups who had

found loopholes in existing campaign finance laws.

Calls for reform led to the passage of the Bipartisan

Campaign Reform Act in 2002, also known as the

McCain-Feingold Act.

The new law attempted to solve two main prob

lems. The first was the growing use of soft money to

194 Unit $ Political Participation and itcha i’ior

fund election campaigns. Soft money is unregulated

money donated to a political party fdr such purposes

as voter education, in theory, soft money was not to

be used to support individual campaigns. For this

reason, it was not limited by campaign funding laws.

In practice. however, parties used soft mnone to help

candidates tumid their election bids, thus boosting

campaign spending.

‘Ihe Bipartisan Campaign Refdrm Act bans the

use of soft money in individual election campaigns.

It also limits how much soft money an individual

can contribute to a party. Furthermore, parties can

use soft money only to encourage voter registration

and voter turnout.

The second problem was the use of issue ads in

campaigns. Issue ads are political ads that are funded

and produced by interest groups rather thamm b’

election campaigns. In theory, these ads focus on

issues rather thami omi candidates. Thus, like soft

money, they were not regulated by campaign finance

laws. In practice. however, many issue ads were

barely disguised campaign ads. For example, such

an ad might discuss a pollution problem and then

suggest that “Bill Jones, a lawmaker up for reelection,

is “a friend of polluters.’ Even though the ad did not

say, “\1ote against Bill Jones.” its intention would be

to influence how voters viewed the lawmaker.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reldrm Act bans the

broadcast of such thinly disguised campaign ads in

the 60 days leading up to an election. This part of

the law has been challenged in court, however, by

groups that see the ban as an unconstitutional limit

on their First Amendment right to free speech. In

2007, the Supreme Court ruied in reoenii Eiciiutm

Commission v. WISCOnSIn Right to Life that such ads

could be banned “only if the ad is susceptible of no

reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to

vote for or against a specific candidate.”

Finally, the act contains a “stand by your ad” rule

that requires candidates to take responsibility for

their campaign commercials. Beginning in the 2004

elections, candidates were required to appear in their

OWfl ads and explicitly endorse the content.

One side effect of the reform act has been the

growth of groups known as 527 committees. These

organizations are formed under Section 527 of the

tax code. Because they are not tied to a political party

or candidate, they are allowed to raise and spend

Many people heheve thm niapirdonors to campaigns have toomuch influence in U.S. politics.Campaign finance laws have hadsome success in limiting specialinterest donations to candidates.In addition, Americans can stillvote leaders out of office [theleadeis do a poor lob.

tmlimited amounts to support or oppose candidates.In effect, 527 committees and their donors havebond a loophole that allows the continued use ofunregulated soft money in political campaigns. AsSenator John McCain, one of the sponsors of the2002 reform law, pointed out, Money, like water,will look for ways to leak hack into the system.”

1O6 Voter Behavior

Elections are important in a democracy. They allowt parUcipde guei nnieni. ihev also serve

to check the power of elected ofticials. When votersgo to the polls, they hold officials accountable fortheir actions. In The Federalist Papers, James Madisonobserved that elections compel leaders

to anticipate the inonient when their poweris to cease, when their exercise of it is to hereviewed, aiid when they must descend tothe level Jroni which they were raised; thereforever to remain unless a /aithjiih dischargeoitlieir trust shall have established their titleto a renewal of it.

—James Madison,The Federalist No.57, 1 788

Elections are one of the things that distinguish ademocracy from a dictatorship. Nevertheless, manyAmericans do not vote.

Who Does and Does Not VoteIn any given election, as many as two—thirds of allAmericans who could vote do not do so. When asked,nonvoters offer a number of reasons for not goingto the polls. Many say they are just too busy. Otherscite illness or lack of interest. Political scientists whostudy voting point to three differences between votersand nonvoters: age, education, and income.

Age. I he percentage of people voting varie.samong different age groups. Most voters are overthe age of SO, and voting tends to increase with age.Once voters reach 75, however, turnout begins todecline, mostly due to ill health. The younger aperson is, the less likely he or she is to vote. In thepresidential elections of 1996 and 2000, fewer thanone-third of all those in the 18—24 age group wentto the polls. That figure rose in 2004. Whether thatupward trend will continue depends on future voterslike you.

Education. Voting also varies by level of education. Americans with college educations vote inmuch higher numbers than do high school dropouts.Nearly three-fourths of all eligible voters with college

,,,L47

LIJTIE I

-J

(Jiaptcr IL) Political ; arid Elccrions 195

II Ctiiii(i’JUit’,i’ 1t I,I(IIIdI()I(I’r /‘\II)t’f( II’ 1(1 tII([I’•LI’ lily Ii? III itJil

t’;imniiq Liwi’i,ik’i’ WtTi) ill miii vi’ hi liii ith’i’.

Voter Turnout in Presidenidl Elections, 1912- 2004

1?I,)

/0

lit

a) -

flI--

-.10

It)cc

‘I)

a)0

21)— IS )j utti :-io- ‘I ‘ni

10

0 ——

I ‘JJ) 0/i, iOU I ‘IO’l I tJ35 1 tt’f 000 2000 ‘0)14

Year

degrees voted in 2004. Less than one—third of those

who left high school without graduating cast ballots.

Income. Voting also varies with income group.

Middle-class and wealthy Americans are much more

likely to vote than are those living in poverty. This

difference may, in part, reflect the fact that income

and education are closely intertwined. However,

there may be other barriers to voting among the

poor. People working at low—wage )obs, for example,

may find it difficult to get time oft work or to find

transportation to the polls on Election Day.

How Voters Choose Among Candidates

When deciding how to vote, Americans tend to look

at three things: the candidate’s party affiliation, the

candidate’s position on issues raised in the campaign,

and the candidate’s characteristics.

Party affiliation. The party a candidate belongs to

is the most critical factor that voters consider when

choosing who to vote for. Most Americans still align

themselves with a party and vote for its candidates.

This is particularly true when voters are not familiar

with the candidates’ views or experience.

Issues. The issues raised in a campaign are a

second factor that voters consider when evaluating

candidates. This is particularly true of independent

or swing voters, who do not have a strong party

affiliation. These voters tend to look for candidates

who hold positions on the issues that are similar to

their own positions.

Candidate characteristics. Voters also choose

candidates based on the candidate’s personal char

acteristics. These characteristics can be superficial,

such as the candidate’s image or appearance. \7ot—

ers may be drawn to candidates who seem friendly,

trustworthy, or “presidential.” A candidate’s charac

teristics also include his or her skills and experience.

Eor example, a candidate might have a long record

of public service that gives voters confidence in that

peo1’s ability to govern.

‘l’his last point touches on another important

factor for many voters: whether a candidate is an

incumbent already holding office. Unless incum

bents have performed poorly, voters tend to regard

them as more reliable and experienced than their op

ponents. As a result, voters-are much more likely to

vote for an incumbent over an untested challenger.

Is Nonvoting a Serious Problem?

Obviously, it is desirable for citizens in a democracy

to participate in elections. But how serious a prob

1cm is nonvoting? Does nonvoting behavior mean

196 c i : Pcliti,a1 P,t ticijta(uo?’l ti,i,l BtJiatuor

I ‘ ‘1 I \ i I)) I I))I) I (I II i I 4) I il .1

J i I I k I I I II I I I I ii i.ILIc to III) I i I I il Ii is? I’ it ,uI s en I Is! s

sLi it I)j 4 l i Ii Iii (‘Ne L lILNI Ii 4)5

is III! I IIII1\ it liIi IR1II Reasons for Not Voting1)11 \flhii R III .0) Ll\ \\ 11111 IoiI)s. SilL Ii N

Too busy, confhctinq schedule 19.SYoIII \OHlI \ni I Ii ii. Jo lot \(ItL IIII. dIL LtkL lItnessordisabihtyoiNn orfainity’s 15.4%Il\.k JcilkJ IL’)) ,IiIj’HiII Iii VO\L ruifleni hIs Otherreasons 109%ii 1,0 Lid III IS ii ,we il,is in ‘iii u.s. \ polil u. ,il Not interested 10.7%Ii .iJi no n’lioIt tIn needS ,J uhi’Iists ol Ih,L’ Did notlike candidates orcampaign issues 9.S/aiii I ‘ l)L .111 L’ I 14. ‘I.I lilt le j,i ii cI Iii nis. 1 hi5 Out of town 9 0°nil un ni . n .1 R 1(111 \ k ni o ilL h ei tan Do not know or refused to say 8.5%‘4 OJI( JO Ii))! III) I))) ,IU ) ‘) lvL’rninL’nI does nil Registration problems 6.8%I

I. Forgot to vote 3.4%

s&i \ i.. likil iL ((IS, .111(1 1I i\ Liii iuL’nl (ii ‘L’s not sL,i \ L’

Inconvenient polling place 3.0%I heir needs He ,Iiis’ I hosi p1 iiple do nol \ Ok.

Transportation problems 2.1%not hei lililic I’ II 0 4’ \ i)\ is ii hit iii \ oil

Bad weather 0.5%ii OIL IL 4I ol s,ilisla lion amoiii theii) ff ti o P°’

‘

IL ii, it \ ti’ h0 ,iiiS( ti I(’\ .1k hipp \s ii h the \\[he U S Census buii IU SUIVPyS nnIiVUti’iS litWi each i’n’i hUnt lililgs are. It tIll \ ci not, the soiiId maLi’ the to hint out why they di,! not vuto this tohie shows ml’ 100501’SLI hut to OIL’. uttered toi met ‘io’nq ii’ the 20tJ11 ItL’,I,o

I ections pLo a major toe I Anwi can politics. \Ve have more eleotions and elci.tcd ofliuals than most oihei demociacies. .\t the same time, the elekral proi.ess is complicatedand expensive, and mailv oters do not participate.Suffrage lark in our nations history, sulirage was limited to white males. .\s a result olLoss and I.onstittitiunaf amendments, almost all citi/ens t and older noss enjoy the rightU) vote.

Primaries and caucuses \.lust candidates for public othee must first win the nominationof their pai t\. lo do so, thc compete in Iwin1ry elections and LauLLises for the support ofpa rtv members.

General elections I he nominees of ea h parts face each other in general elections. I hereare three types ol general elections: presidential, in idterm, and off ear.Campaign finance Mone is a ke factor in elections. Congress set up the Pederal l’.lcctionommission to regulate fundraising and spending h candidates in federal elections. \one -theless, the amount ot Inone\ raised for and spent on elections continues to rise.Voter behavior \‘oL ng s aries with age, education, and income. \‘oters make t. hoic es basedon party, issues, and Landidate charac tel istics. l’.xperts differ on whether nonvoting represents a serious problem or reflects a level of satisfaction ss ith L’S. pohtii_s.

I I H’) I’H ,I.,t,,I H,/’,4I0, ,,,/I ,i “m’ 19’I

Whether or not you agree that

low voter turnout is a serious

problem, it seems clear that

our government would be more

representative if more people

voted. Low turnout is especially

common among younger voters.

Would you be more likely to

turn out to vote if voting were

no longer voluntary? Or if you

might be fined or even jailed for

not voting? Think about this as

you read about other countries

that have transformed voting

from a civic responsibility to a

legal duty.

Compulsory Voting

by the International Institute urthci that voting, vofuntarih

for Democracy and Electoral or othei i se, has an eduL atonal

Assistance ell’ t upon the citi,ens. Politi

cal parties .an deri e tinam.ial

\lust dc’nio rat ic govt nnnts benefits from cmpuRoi

onsohi p iii IL ipat Tug in nation otin, since they dl not have

ii c’fc lion i iight of iti/elislup. to spend resotuces cons lncing

oTilc c onsI(lcr that part Icip.iti( Ifl the t*i. toraic that it should in

it clec lions is ako a eiti,cns civ geiwial turn out to Vole. I asth

Ic rsponsihilitv. In snnw LOUN if democ ra\ is go ernmciIt

Iris. where \ oting is Lonsidercd b the topic. isnmaNv this

a dut . \ ulm at eieuions has includes all people. .1 hen it is

been made compuIsor and has s er Life/ens responsibihtv to

been retul.itcd in I he nat onal ki their representatives.

constitutions and electoral ias.

Some ouni ris o as tn as [0

imiipose saiictioils ()fl noflVok’rS.

Average Voter Turnout( a )fli pam SI uv ‘( It ii t Is not -

-

in Selected Countries,

a nc L.Ol iccpt. Some ot bc 1945—2006

first LI untries that iiitioduccd

muamidatom \ voUn \ ti C)rlp(IIsJr ‘f ‘‘O’fl(r

flek?,imun in I 92 .\rgentina in

191 I, and \ustraiia in 1921.

Fh.re are also exam pies (It

countries 5.11 h as \cneiueia and

the ‘set hcriands, \vh ich at one

Ii me in their h istorv practiced--

eompulsor voting but have

since abolished it. Nu’icriipisu ‘‘ ict’iq

Arguments for Compulsory Voting

Advocates of compulsory voting

argue that decisions made by

democi at ica)I elected gm em -

-

incimts arc inure legitimate when

higher proportions of the popu—

fat ion participate. They argue

198 Unit 3 POIn1LnI PHtiCJfnIH}ii a,i1 ttcIunj,)r