Elections
AP Government
The issues
The issues
Democrats












Liberal
Pro spending on social
programs
Pro choice
Gay rights
Secular
Relax immigration rules
Gun control
Affirmative Action
Campaign regulations
Anti death penalty
Federal government power
Proactive on environment
Republicans












Conservative
Pro spending on military
Pro life
Pro traditional marriage
Allow religion in public life
Border control
Second Amendment rights
Individualism
Economic freedom on
campaigns
Pro Death Penalty
State government power
Environmental regs hurt
businesses
Voting Coalitions of the Two
Parties:
Democrats
Young (18-21)
 Women
 African American
 Jewish
 North Eastern &
Western Regions
 Urban
 Union

Republicans
Upper Income
 Protestant/churc
h going
 Military families
 South
 Midwest
 Rural

The Functions of Elections

Elections serve
 to legitimize governments
 to fill public offices and organize
governments
 to allow people with different views
and policy agendas to come to power
 to ensure that the government remains
accountable to the people.
The Functions of Elections
Most political change in the United
States comes about because of
elections.
 Elections generally have allowed us to
avoid:
 Riots
 General strikes
 Coups d'etats

Why Don’t Americans Vote?

Long and complex ballots

Confusing to voters
People are poorly informed
 Disaffection





Elections are determined by money and
special interest support
Loss of trust in government
Alienation
Legal barriers


Some groups were not allowed to vote
15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, and 26th
Amendments fixed this
Demographics & Political Behaviors
“Vital Statistics in American Politics” by CQ
http://www.cqpress.com/product/Vital-Statistics-on-AmericanPolitics-6.html


Race – African American, Hispanic, Asian

Gender

Region – South, Mid West, West, North East

Socioeconomic – high/low

Age – (18-21)

Religion – Catholic, Jewish, Protestant

Urban/Rural

Union
African American voters in the 2004
Election
Race in 2010
Mid Terms:
Registering To Vote

Voter Registration
 A system adopted by the states that
requires voters to register in advance
 Motor Voter Act
 Requires states to permit people to
register to vote when the apply for their
driver’s license.
 Millions added to electorate but the
election outcomes were not affected
Efforts to Lower Costs Voting
Same day registration
 Easing of registration regulations




No picture ID required in most states
Show many forms of ID
Expansion of ballot access


absentee or mail balloting
other mechanisms (internet)??
Same Day
Registration
70
60

50
Maine
Minn.
Wisc.
N. D.
Nation
40
30
20
10
0
Turnout
Produces higher
turnout

At least 30% of
American adults
change their home
address every 2
years --- and hence
must re-register!
The Political Consequences
of Turnout

Do fewer voters help Republicans or
Democrats?

Who usually wins elections- challengers or
incumbents?

Who does higher turnout help the incumbent
OR the challenger?
The Political Consequences
of Turnout


Do fewer voters help Republicans or
Democrats?
 Usually Republicans
 But increasing categories of voters can
make a difference in either party
Who usually wins elections- challengers or
incumbents?


Incumbents (90%+ in House and 70%+ in Senate)
Who does higher turnout help the incumbent
OR the challenger?
 Generally helps the challenger but
incumbents usually still win
Do we vote for the Candidate
or the Campaign?



Today, most people vote for a
candidate not the campaign
 He/she is even more
important than money 
Campaigns are able (most of the
time) to downplay a candidate’s
weaknesses and emphasize
his/her strengths.
However, even the best
campaigns cannot put an
ineffective candidate in the win
column – most of the time 
Six Types of Elections
 Caucus
 Primary
Elections
 General Elections
 Initiatives
 Referendums
 Recall elections
Caucus
A caucus is when a political party gathers
to make policy decisions and to select
candidates.
 Straw ballots or nonbinding elections
may take place in a caucus

The Iowa Caucus




The Iowa Caucus is the most
important because it is first
 As a result, Iowa garners a
vastly disproportionate
number of candidate visits
and amount of media
attention.
A better than expected
showing on caucus night can
boost a candidacy, while a
poor performance can spell the
end of a candidate's hopes.
Howard Dean after losing Iowa:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5FzCeV0ZFc
Primary Elections

Primary elections select party nominees for the
general election



Held on different days in different states
Most states force voters to vote in only one primary
(Dem or Rep)
Primaries are run by the parties for the benefit of
the parties
 In one-party states, the primary election IS the
only election that matters

New Hampshire

The Most Important Primary is
held in NH
The major testing ground for
candidates for the Republican
and Democratic nominations.





Most important because it is FIRST
Attracts the most attention of the
press corps
Candidates who do poorly usually
have to drop out.
Little known, under funded
candidates who do well suddenly
become contenders, as they gain
huge amounts of media attention
and money
Some candidates spend 8-12
months there BEFORE the
election
Primary elections: different types



Open primaries
 You can enter the voting booth and then decide
on the party primary in which you will vote
Closed primaries
 You must reveal your party OR be a registered
member of that party to vote
Blanket (or love) Primaries
 In blanket primaries voters may choose from
both party ballots in a primary
 For instance, a voter might select a Democrat
for governor and a Republican for senator.
 California’s blanket primary was struck down as
unconstitutional in 2001
General Elections


In general elections we elect office holders
Two types of general elections
 Presidential election years (2000-2004-2008)
 Party nominated candidates and
independents
 First Tuesday after the first Monday in
November
 Midterm elections (2002-2006-2010)
 General election but no presidential race
 Still first Tuesday after the first Monday in
November
 Both party-nominated candidates and
independents but fewer voters
General Election Turnout
Voter turnout is the highest for general
elections
 In presidential years, the general election
turnout is the highest
 In midterm elections, general election
turnout decreases in most states

Initiatives
 Initiatives
allow citizens to propose
legislation and submit it to popular
vote.
 Popular in California and western
states




Initiative 85 - Parental Notification before
Termination of Teen's Pregnancy
Initiative 86 - Increase on Cigarette Tax
Initiative 87 - Funding for alternative forms of
energy
Initiative 88 - Property Parcel Tax to fund for
Education
Referendum

A referendum allows the legislature
to submit proposed legislation for
popular approval.




Special elections on certain topics or
issues
State voters approve or disapprove
proposed legislation.
Often used for constitutional
amendments
The Georgia Legislature recently
sponsored the “Marriage
Amendment”

It passed with overwhelming support
Recall Elections
 Recall
elections allow citizens to
remove someone from office.
Voters decide whether or not to vote out
an official
 California recalled Governor Gray Davis
and elected Arnold Schwarzenegger

 The“Governator”
Yellow Dog
Democrat


A Yellow Dog Democrat is a staunch loyalist to
the Democratic Party.
The term, Yellow Dog Democrat, first occurred
in the 1928 elections, when Al Smith ran for
President against Herbert Hoover.


Southerners hated Hoover, hence, the popular saying,
"I'd vote for a yellow dog if he ran on the
Democratic ticket" was born!
Blue Dog Republican is a more modern term,
and less well known term…means the same thing
The Electoral College

Framers wanted president chosen by the
elite of the country


Winner-Take-All system gives bigger
emphasis to more populated states


The Electoral College was established
Except for NE and ME which use a divided
elector system
State parties choose the electors

Electors are usually party elite
The Electoral College

How it works:
 Each state has as many votes as it does
Representatives and Senators.
 Winner of popular vote typically gets ALL the
Electoral College votes.



Except for NE and ME which divide electoral votes
Electors meet in December, votes are reported
by the vice president in January.
If no candidate gets 270 votes (a majority), the
House of Representatives votes for president,
with each state getting ONE vote.
A History of American
Elections
From George Washington’s
Farewell Address
As he addressed Congress
and his administration he
warned about the dangers
of political parties
 “…the spirit of Party are
sufficient to make it the
interest and the duty of a
wise People to discourage
and restrain it.”

Thanks but “NO THANKS” George
Political Parties immediately formed
 And the rest is history!!


1800
 Federalists
v Anti-Federalists
 Big Government v Small Government
 Hamilton v Jefferson
Party Realignment/Critical Elections


Occurs when a new voting coalition appears in an
election year
 Often after a long period of little party change
These are called critical or realigning elections
 1800 (Republican Democrats)
 1828 (Jacksonian Democrats)
 1860 (Republicans- abolitionists)
 1896 (Democrats-Populists and farmers;
Republicans-City and business interests)
 1932 (New Deal Coalition Democrats)
Four instances in which winner of the
popular vote didn’t get the presidency:




1824: House selects John Quincy Adams (loser:
Andrew Jackson)
1876: Samuel Tilden wins popular vote,
Rutherford Hayes wins presidency.
1888: Benjamin Harrison edged in popular vote
by Grover Cleveland, but Harrison wins in
electoral college.
2000: Gore wins popular vote, Bush takes
presidency after US Supreme Court decides
Florida dispute.
Important Elections to Know
* Critical/Realigning Elections
 1800*  1972
 1828
 1860*
 1896
 1980
 1992
 1994
 2000
 1932*  2004
 1960
 2006
 Who
ran?
 Who won?
 Why did they win?
Who voted for them?
 Where did they live?
 What party?
 What were their
political beliefs?

Important Cases Concerning Elections
Baker
v Carr
Shaw v Reno
Buckley v Valeo
McConnell v Federal
Election Commission
Baker v Carr 1961
Facts of the Case
 Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens
alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion
the seats for the state's General Assembly was
virtually ignored. Baker's suit detailed how
Tennessee's reapportionment efforts ignored
significant economic growth and population
shifts within the state.

Question
 Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over
questions of legislative apportionment?

Baker v Carr 1961




Conclusion
In an opinion which explored the nature of
"political questions" and the appropriateness of
Court action in them, the Court held that there
were no such questions to be answered in this
case and that legislative apportionment was a
justifiable issue.
In his opinion, Justice Brennan provided past
examples in which the Court had intervened to
correct constitutional violations in matters
pertaining to state administration and the
officers through whom state affairs are
conducted.
Brennan concluded that the Fourteenth
Amendment equal protection issues which Baker
and others raised in this case merited judicial
evaluation.
Shaw v. Reno- 1993




Case concerned reapportionment and civil rights
North Carolina created a congressional district
which was, in parts, no wider than the interstate
road along which it stretched in order to create a
black-majority district
 AKA… The creation of a “Majority-minority
district”
Five North Carolina residents challenged the
constitutionality of this unusually shaped district,
alleging that its only purpose was to secure the
election of additional black representatives.
Was this gerrymandering case constitutional?
North Carolina District under scrutiny in Shaw v Reno
Ruling and Importance



The Court said NO in this case!
It ruled although North Carolina's
reapportionment plan was racially neutral on its
face, the resulting district shape was bizarre
enough to suggest that it constituted an effort
to separate voters into different districts based
on race.
Districts can not just be based on one
factor alone- race
 The unusual district, while perhaps created
by noble intentions, seemed to exceed what
was reasonably necessary to avoid racial
imbalances.
 Left door open for some instances in future.
Election of 1800*

Thomas Jefferson (RD)



(Republican Democrats)
Jeffersonians- “common man”
John Adams (F)
Election of 1828

Andrew Jackson (D)



“Common man” voters
No land requirements
John Quincy Adams (F)
Election of 1860*




Abraham Lincoln (R)
 Anti-slavery
Stephen Douglas
 No. Democrat
John C. Breckenridge
 So. Democrat
Bell
 Constitutional Unionist
Election of 1896

William McKinley (R)


Pro business and city dwellers
William Jennings Bryan (D)
Election of 1932*

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D)


New Deal coalition
Herbert Hoover (R)
Election of 1960

John F. Kennedy (D)


Television
Richard Nixon (R)
Election of 1968 and 1972

Richard Nixon (R)


Silent majority
Southern strategy
Humphrey- 68
 George McGovern (D) 72

Election of 1980

Ronald Reagan (R)



“Anyone but Carter”
Conservative voters
Jimmy Carter (D)
Election of 1992

Bill Clinton (D)





“It’s the economy, stupid”
Used Bush’s promise of “Read my lips, no new
taxes” brilliantly (James Carville)
Perot took away some of the votes that would
have gone to Bush
George HW Bush (R)
Ross Perot (Reform)
Election of 1994
Midterm election
 Ushered in the “Conservative
Revolution” headed by Newt Gingrich
 AKA…the “Devolution Revolution”
 Gingrich and his fellow Conservative
Republicans offered Americans a “Contract
with America”

Election of 2000

George W. Bush (R)

Squeaker election


Florida was swing state
Thrown in to Supreme Ct.

VP AL Gore v Governor Jeb Bush
Al Gore (D)
 Ralph Nader (Green)


Green’s took away some of the natural
base of Democrats
Election of 2004

George W. Bush (R)




9-11
War on terror
Character issues
John Kerry (D)

Was “swiftboated” by Vietnam war
vets
Election of 2006
Midterm election
 Brought Democrats back to power in
both Houses of Congress for first time in
over 10 years
 The War in Iraq was factor
 President Bush’s unpopularity was also a
factor

Money and Politics
•2000: Bush $ 193; Gore $ 134 million.
•Total 2000 = $ 327 million
•2004: Bush $ 293: Kerry $ 252 million
•Total 2004 = $ 545 Million
A 60 % increase in 4 years!!
•.09 % of population gives at least $ 1,000 to
political campaigns, but 55% of funds raised
this way!!
•FYI
¼ of Congress are millionaires compared
to 1% of U.S. citizens!!
Buckley v Valeo (1976)

Facts



The issue of campaign contributions came under
scrutiny after the Watergate scandal
The Federal Election Committee set guidelines
and limits on money given to campaigns
 Was this constitutional??
The Court also had to decide whether or not you
can be limited by the amount you can spend on
your OWN personal campaign
 Was this constitutional??
Importance




Yes!
The case upheld limits on campaign spending set
by the FEC
 Today it is $2300 per election per
candidate
No!
Spending your own money on your campaign was
found to be a free speech right.
 Steve Forbes, Ross Perot, and other wealthy
Americans have taken advantage of their
personal wealth in their quest for office.
McConnell v Federal Election
Commission (2003)
Facts of the Case
 In early 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance
Reform Act of 2002 a which reformed the way
that money is raised for--and spent during-political campaigns was passed. (AKA “McCainFeingold” Act)
 Its key provisions were:




A ban on unrestricted ("soft money") donations made directly to
political parties (often by corporations, unions, or well-healed
individuals) and on the solicitation of those donations by elected
officials
Limits on the advertising that unions, corporations, and non-profit
organizations can engage in up to 60 days prior to an election
Restrictions on political parties' use of their funds for advertising on
behalf of candidates
McConnell v Federal Election
Commission (2003)
Questions the Court considered:
 #1. Does the "soft money" ban of the Campaign
Finance Reform Act of 2002 exceed Congress's
authority to regulate elections under Article 1,
Section 4 of the United States Constitution and/or
violate the First Amendment's protection of
freedom of speech?

#2. Do regulations of the source, content, or
timing of political advertising in the Campaign
Finance Reform Act of 2002 violate the First
Amendment's free speech clause?
Conclusion- “No” on Both Counts!
Question #1- No


The Court held that the restriction on free speech was minimal
and justified by the government's legitimate interest in preventing
"both the actual corruption threatened by large financial
contributions and... the appearance of corruption" that might
result from those contributions.
The Court also found regulation was necessary to prevent the
groups from circumventing the law. Justices O'Connor and
Stevens wrote that "money, like water, will always find an outlet "
and that the government was therefore justified in taking steps to
prevent schemes developed to get around the contribution limits.
Question #2- No

The Court also rejected the argument that Congress had exceeded
its authority to regulate elections and said that that would only
affect state elections in which federal candidates were involved
and since the law did not prevent states from creating separate
election laws for state and local elections it was constitutional.
Political Action Committees
(PAC’s)



PAC’s are private groups organized
to elect or defeat government
officials and promote legislation
 There are over 4,000 PACs
registered with the Federal
Election Commission.
PAC’s gave over $200 million to
congressional candidates in 1996
(individuals gave $444 million).
PACs may donate $5,000 per
candidate, per election
 Primaries, general elections and
special elections are counted
separately
Money from PACS


PACs may receive up to $5,000 from any one
individual, PAC or party committee per calendar
year.
PACs can give $5,000 to a candidate committee per
election (primary, general or special).


PACS support candidates with campaign money



They can also give up to $15,000 annually to any national
party committee, and $5,000 annually to any other PAC.
½ sponsored by corporations; 1/10 by unions
1/3 liberal and 2/3 conservative (2001)
Incumbents get the most PAC money!!
Money Limits

Individuals can give up to $2300 to a
candidate but PACS can give $5,000 to a
candidate



Federal money will match presidential campaign
money but….
Parties need at least 5% of vote in previous
year for presidential candidate to receive funds
If that doesn’t happen you need PAC’s!!!
Top PAC’s in 2004
EMILY's List $22,767,521
2. Service Employees International Union $12,899,352
3. American Federation of Teachers $12,789,296
4. American Medical Association $11,901,542
5. National Rifle Association $11,173,358
6. Teamsters Union $11,128,729
7. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
$10,819,724
8. National Education Association $10,521,538
9. American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees $9,882,022
10. Laborers' International Union of North America $9,523,837
1.
Hard Money/
Individual Contributions
Hard money is money given
directly to the candidates
 This is limited by law


The Federal Election Commission (FEC)
limits individuals to contributions of
$2,300 per election, per candidate
($2,300 in the primary and another
$2,300 in the general election).
Soft Money

Soft money is money with no limits or rules that
is raised and spent outside of federal election
guidelines.




PAC’s contribute soft money to campaigns
Soft money is often used to pay for ads that do not
expressly advocate the election or defeat of a particular
candidate.
As long as these ads do not use the words "vote
for", "elect", "vote against“… ads can be paid for
with unregulated soft money.
Many argue that the huge infusion of unregulated
soft money has “destroyed the federal campaign
laws”.
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act

The BCRA was passed in
2002


Also known as the
McCain-Feingold Act
Banned national political
party committees from
accepting or spending
soft money
contributions

The original intent has
been lost in loopholes
527’s
527’s are groups that developed
from the loopholes in the McCainFeingold Act
 Many 527s are run by special
interest groups and used to raise
unlimited amounts of money to
spend on issue advocacy and
voter mobilization.
 They do not give money to any
particular campaign or candidate
thus ARE NOT regulated by the
FEC

‘Swiftboating”
On May 5, 2004, the RNC
accused MoveOn.org and others
527’s of coordinating their efforts
with the John Kerry campaign
 On August 20, 2004, the John
Kerry campaign accused “Swift
Boat Veterans for Truth” of
coordinating their efforts with the
George W. Bush campaign


http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=Ads
Does “Low” Turnout Matter?

Demographics of those who
turnout differ significantly
from those who do not:





Whites
higher income
higher educational attainment
residentially stable
But there is scant evidence
that their issue
preferences differ
significantly from those who
do not turnout
Consider….

How can you know what parties or
candidates will do once in office?


It is difficult if not impossible to predict the
future
How much can you believe politicians
during election campaigns?
Conclusions on Improving Turnout

Reducing cost (time) is
key determinants


Registration and access
are the keys for improving
turnout
New innovations in
registration and ballot
access could increase
turnout
The End