Linkage Institutions: III
Chapter 9: Nominations,
Elections and Campaigns
The evolution of campaigns
1. Election campaign: an organized effort to
persuade voters to choose one candidate
over another for the same office
- Political parties USED to conduct all phases of an
election campaign (as recently as 1950s)
- Now they are CANDIDATE CENTERED
- Candidates contract for polls and consultants
- Candidates communicate through media
- Campaign for nomination and election,
not just election
The evolution of campaigns
Today
• http://www.fec.gov/disclos
urep/pnational.do;jsessio
nid=9EBCC193FA1658B
B8312C282E9EEA005.w
orker2
1800
The evolution of campaigns
Modern Campaigns
- Parties have more control on delegate
selection
- Campaigns are two stages
1. Nominating candidate
2. Getting candidate elected
-
Parties basically provide funds and
services for candidates
Nomination Process-Facts
1. Interesting facts:
• No mention in Constitution!!
• It involves an election by party voters
1. In most countries, local party leaders
choose candidates with approval of national
leaders
2. US, each state is entitled to make its own
laws governing the nomination process! So
we have a lot of ways to nominate a person:)
Nomination ProcessCongress and State
1. Most used nomination tool= primary
- Primary election: election conducted with
a political party to select candidates who
will run for public office in next election.
Nomination ProcessCongress and State
• IN both parties, only about ½ of the regular party
voters bother to vote in any given primary (those this
varies greatly)
– Primary voters hold extreme views?
• Not necessarily
– Primary voters subdue their views to pick the
better faring candidate, rather than personal pick?
• Decline in competition for party nomination: 25% of
statewide candidates receive serious primary
competition (gerrymander?)
Nomination Process-Congress
and State
Examples:
Nomination ProcessCongress and State
- Major types of primary elections?
- Closed: voters must declare their party affiliation
before they are given the primary ballot on voting
day
- Modified: allows individual state parties to
decide whether to permit Independents to vote
and what offices
- Open: voters need not declare their party
affiliation and can choose one party’s primary
ballot on voting day- Modified: allows Independents to vote in party
primary
Nomination ProcessCongress and State
Examples
Nomination ProcessPresident
1. Parties formally choose nominees at
national conventions
- Democratic: July 25-28,2016
(Philadelphia)
- Republican: July 18-21, 2016
(Cleveland)
- Constitution: October 30-31, 2015
- Libertarian: May 26-30, 2016 (Orlando)
History of Presidential
Nomination Process
-1800-1824: Caucus of congressional
members for POTUS
Caucus: local meeting selects delegates for
county level, county level to state level, state
leads to national level
-1832: Nomination conventions (national) for
POTUS candidates--> delegates selected by
state legislatures
History
of
Presidential
History of Nomination Process
Nomination Process
- Progressive Era leads to states creating
primaries for POTUS as well.
1910: Oregon
1912= 1st election where primary POTUS used
1913: 17th amendment--> direct election of
senators rather than a caucus selection by
state legislatures! Gets rid of political bosses
determining candidates and encourages
more popular support
History
of
Presidential
History of Nomination Process
Nomination Process
In summary: before 1968
-Party dominated
-few primaries
-short campaigns
-easy money
-limited media coverage
-late decisions
- open conventions
History
of
Presidential
History of Nomination process
Nomination Process
So what happened to change the process!!!
1968 Democratic Convention inside
politics
1. LBJ decides to not run due to Vietnam/Civil
Rights protests
2. Demonstrators protest outside of Chicago
national convention and Chicago police
intervene
1. Protests due to strong support of McCarthy(antiwar) for POTUS nominee, but Dems nominate LBJ
VPOTUS Humphrey= vietnam!
3. Media (including a roughed up Dan Rather)
History
of
Presidential
History of Nomination Process
Nomination Process
So…McGovern-Fraser commission (led by D
Senator McGovern) sets new rules for 1972
recommending that ALL states adopt a new
rules to assure wider participation in
primaries to help national convention select
party delegate for POTUS election (so no
more riots)
So… states adopt the policy for POTUS
Republicans follow suit soon after…
History
of
Presidential
History of Nomination Process
Nomination Process
In summary: since 1972
- Candidate dominated
- Many primaries
- Long campaigns
- Difficult fundraising
- Media focused
- “front loaded”:states moving
primaries/caucuses earlier in calendar to gain
media/candidate attention (IOWA/NH!!)
- Closed conventions
Nomination- choosing delegates for
the national convention
Delegate: a person sent or authorized to
represent others, in particular an elected
representative sent to a conference.
•These are the people that choose the
party’s official nominee for president
-Before 1968= party dominated
-Since 1972= primary/caucus/candidate
dominated
Nomination- choosing delegates for
the national convention
• How do we select these delegates?’
– All states use a primary or a caucus to
determine delegates for National
Convention after the 1968 fiasco
Nomination- choosing delegates for
the national convention
Presidential Primary: special primary
used to select delegates to attend the
party’s national nominating convention,
which in turn nominates the presidential
candidate
-Democratic primaries are usually
proportional
-Republican primaries are usually winnertake-all
Nomination- choosing delegates for
the national convention
• Convention arrangements: National committee
selects a day, time and city for the nominating device
of candidate
– Republicans: Cleveland, OH July 2016
– Democrats: Philadelphia, PA July 2016
(Columbus was #2)
• Apportionment of delegates: national committee tells
each state how many delegates they can send to the
national convention in the summer weird formula
based on population and electoral votes
Nomination- choosing delegates for
the national convention
• Selection of delegates:
– Republicans allow states to determine
selection process of delegates
• Ohio-66 delegates application process
– Democrats have adopted several rules that
states have to follow to broaden
participation to women and minorities
• Ohio- 97 delegates, 9 alternates application
process
Nomination- choosing delegates for
the national convention
• Democratic Primary (Pledged and
unpledged delegates)
– Pledged: elected to his or her position with the
understanding that he or she will support a particular
candidate (80% of delegates) NOT TECHNICALLY BOUND
– Unpledged (superdelegates) unique to Democrats: pledge
allegiance to a candidate before convention, but can change
mind (20% of delegates) Democratic National Committee
(governors, party leaders, etc.)
Nomination- choosing delegates for
the national convention
• In primary states, voters are actually
voting for a candidate's slate of pledged
delegates. The number of delegates
who get to attend the national
conventions is proportional to the
candidate's share of the primary vote.
– These people file with the state party to be
delegates (look at Ohio’s on my website)
Nomination- choosing delegates for
the national convention
• Republican primary (Pledged and
Republican National Committee
delegates)
– Pledged: POTUS candidates preapprove
delegates and are pledged (80-85%)
– RNC: unpledged delegates by virtue of
their position(15-20%)
See Democratic Party
Nomination- choosing delegates for
the national convention
• In primary states, voters are actually
voting for a candidate's slate of pledged
delegates. The number of delegates
who get to attend the national
conventions is winner take all of the
primary vote.
– These people file with the state party to be
delegates (look at Ohio’s on my website)
Nominationchoosing
delegates for
Nomination
of POTUS
the national convention
Option 2: Caucus/Convention: method
to select delegates to attend a party’s
national convention
• In general, this is a local meeting that
selects delegates for a county-level
meeting, that leads to a state-level
meeting.
• State Convention selects national
convention delegates
Nominationchoosing delegates
for
History
of nomination
process
the national convention
Alternative methods
1. Submission of a certain number of
registered voters’ signatures
2. Self nomination
Used by 3rd parties, independents and
R/D that do not win party nomination
Nominationchoosing
delegates for
Nomination
of POTUS
the national convention
Primaries seem to be the most “open” method
for choosing delegates.
-POTUS primaries generate 80% of
delegates
-Nearly all delegates selected in primaries are
publicly committed to specific candidates
-Can easily tell before the conventions who
will be the nominee
- Front loading: states’ practice of moving
delegate selection primaries and caucuses
earlier in the calendar year to gain
FRONTLOADING!
In 2008, more than 1/2 of the delegates to both
conventions were chosen by February 5th !!!!
(= dropout of race)
In 2012, more than ½ of the delegates to both
conventions were chosen by March 6th
FRONTLOADING!
IOWA: holds 1st caucus at the end of
January (moved to January 3 in
2012!!!)--> forces out unpopular
nominees
NEW HAMPSHIRE: holds 1st primary in
February(moved to January 10 in
2012!!-->tests the appeal of the front
runners with ordinary voter
FRONTLOADING!!!
MARCH: 2008= THE GREAT TSUNAMI OF
24 STATES!!!Now many of them are moved
back! Super Tuesday= March 6 as 10 states
have primaries
April/May: are 2-5 states a week
June: California, Montana, New Jersey, New
Mexico, South Dakota,Ohio, Utah primaries
2016 Line UP
February: Iowa and New Hampshire
March: Is the wave of primaries/caucuses
including OHIO
--Most primaries and caucuses are finished
April: a few
May: a few
June: a few (including California)
2016 Line UP
Campaigning for Nomination
“Invisible Primary”: the process of
preparing for the next election in which
prospective candidates quietly begin
lining up political/financial support for
their likely race 4 years later
- exploratory campaign committees
start registering with the FEC
Campaigning for Nomination
Iowa and New Hampshire have been the
testing grounds on candidate popularity
- IOWA: gets rid of candidates rejected
by party faithful
- NH: tests Iowa frontrunners to
ordinary party voters.
Concerns: Is Iowa and New Hampshire
really a reflection of the US popular
vote?
Campaigning for Nomination
• Examples
Primary centered nomination
consequences
1. When no incumbent, numerous
choices (2016!!!)
2. Incumbent POTUS usually encounter
little to no opposition
3. Iowa and NH do matter
4. Candidate favored by most Party ID’s
usually win party nomination
5. Candidates usually win on own, not
through national party organization
Sabato’s List
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/20
16-president/
st
nd
Republicans:1 , 2
3rd tiers
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Donald Trump
Ben Carson
Carly Fiorina
Mike Huckabee
Chris Christie
Rand Paul
Bobby Jindal
Rick Santorum
Lindsay Graham
George Patakai
Jim Gilmore
and
Democrats
• Hillary Clinton
• Martin O’Malley
• Larry Lessig
• Joe Biden- not running
(October 21, 2015)
Elections- general
GENERAL ELECTION: a national
election held in November in evennumbered years.
1. All seats in House, 1/3 of Senate and
lots of states and local offices filled
2. POTUS= every 4 years (2008, 2012,
2016)
3. Congressional/midterm/off-year= in
between POTUS election (2010, 2014)
POTUS elections and
Electoral College
Electoral College: structure
1. State EC votes= senators + reps
– 535 + 3 DC
2. Candidate needs 270 to win
3. No majority? House decides (each state=1
vote)
–
12th (1804): corrects the tie possibility (P/VP)
because they run as pairs in single party
4. Every decade, # of electors change based
on congressional reapportionment done by
census (WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?-
POTUS and Electoral College
Electoral College: politics
1. Since 1860: all states have selected
electors by popular vote
2. 2000: Florida legislature threatened to
select electors themselves on basis of pre
1860 precedent (Bush v. Gore) HANDOUT
3. Electoral College is Federal, not National
1. Except for ME and NE, a candidate who wins a
state wins all electoral votes
2. 2000: possible to win popular and not Electoral
Electoral College: Abolish it?
1. Must distinguish between the electoral
“college” and the “system” of electoral votes
2. Electoral college is merely the set of
individuals empowered to cast the state’s
electoral votes
– FAITHLESS ELECTORS: electors who
break their pledge to a candidate when
they gather at the state capital to cast
their written ballots
– Voters today have reason to oppose the
need for a body of electors to translate
their decision
Electoral College: Abolish it?
3. The Electoral Vote system
– Many reformers argue for majoritarian
method for choosing POTUS
– But system had not had contradictory
impact since 1888
•
•
In elections from 1888 to 2000, the EC
magnified the victory margin
2000 election highlighted the fact that a
candidate winning the popular vote may still
lose presidency
Electoral College: Abolish it?
4. There are 3 lines of argument that support selecting
a president by Electoral votes
– Federal form of gov’t as embodied in the
Constitution weighs small states more in the vote
(2 senators/state)
– Electoral system encourages POTUS candidates
to campaign on foot and in rural areas, rather
than just via TV
– Focusing on only the popular vote would
increase the potential problems of a nationwide
recount in a close election (multiplying the
problems of Florida 2000 by fifty)
Electoral College: Abolish it?
5. Public opinion is opposed to EC
–
–
–
Does not understand process
2000
Technology is more efficient
Reforms??
Congressional Elections
1. Candidates for presidency are listed at the
top of the ballot, followed by candidates for
other offices
–
–
Straight-ticket: in voting, a single party’s
candidates for all offices
Split-ticket: in voting, candidates from different
parties for different offices
2. In recent years, elections have resulted in
divided government: one party controls
presidency, one controls one or both
houses of Congress
Congressional Elections
3. 1st past the post elections: (British term)
elections conducted in single member districts
that award victory to candidate with the most
votes
– In congressional elections, this means that the
party that wins the most votes tends to win even
more seats than projected due to % of vote
– Both parties do well and are hurt by this
Congressional Elections
• Example
Campaign-political context
1. Incumbent, challenger or open
election?
– Incumbent= “easier win”
– Challenger= seeks to replace the
incumbent
– Open election= lacks incumbent
2. Characteristics of state or district
– Bigger, more populous, more diverse=
more complicated/$$$$ campaign
– Party preference of electorate ?
Campaign- Political Context
• Example
CAMPAIGN FINANCE!!!
SEE HANDOUT!!!
1. Campaigns can boil down to $$$, but
does not ENSURE success
– Mitt Romney 2008
•
Raised more $ than his opponents, but did
poorly in Iowa/NH and withdrew early
CAMPAIGN FINANCERegulations
1. FECA (1971) until 2002
– FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
(FEC): bipartisan fed. Agency of 6
members who oversees financing of
national election campaigns
How FECA regulated…
• Charged with:
1. Enforce contribution limits
2. Require disclosure on spending
3. Admin public finance of POTUS
campaign
• Limit PAC contributions
How FECA regulated…
• Limit individuals/organization
contributions for federal office
1. HARD MONEY: DIRECT CONTRIBUTION TO
CANDIDATE’S ELECTION
2. SOFT MONEY: DONATION TO PARTY
COMMITTEES FOR CAPITAL AND OPERATIONAL
EXPENSES (NOT TO CANDIDATES)
• Limits on hard money were challenged
on basis of free speech (BUCKLEY V.
VALEO 1975)
•
•
•
SC upheld hard money limits
SC struck down limits on expenses by candidate
FEC can only regulate ads for or against language
Bipartisan Campaign Reform
Act of 2002 (BCRA)
1. Went into effect 2004 election
2. Raised previous limits on individual
spending and adjusted for inflation
3. Did not raise PAC contribution limits
4. Eliminated soft money contributions
5. Banned orgs from running issue ads
that named candidates before an
election
Bipartisan Campaign Reform
Act of 2002 (BCRA)
• Examples
BCRA and 527s
527??: committees named after sec. 527 in
IRS code (tax exempt status in election
campaigns if they are unaffiliated with
political parties and take positions on
issues, not specific candidates.
• Can spend unlimited $$ for media as long as
they do not expressly advocate a candidates
election or defeat !!
BCRA and 527s
• Pre BCRA $151 million (2002) to Post
BCRA $424 million (2004)
• Landmark USSC cases on Campaign
Finance
– McConnell v. FEC (2002)
– Shays v. FEC (2007)
– FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (2007)
– Citizens United v. FEC (2010)
BCRA and 527s
• Many groups no longer organize as 527s
– 501 social welfare org: groups of IRS code that
operate for promotion of social welfare= they are
exempt from reporting donors if they spend money
on issues, not candidates!
• EFFECTS of BCRA
– Parties develop infrastructure (ex. Internet, direct
mail) to raise money money from small donors
– Raised more hard money than combined
hard/soft from before… so BCRA= increased
campaign money!
Public Financing of POTUS
1. FECA (1974): provided public funding
for POTUS election campaigns (still
under BCRA)
2. Primary season funding
– FEC matched $ raised
– All candidates (1976-1996) accepted and
the associated spending limits
– 2000= beginning of candidates not
accepting public= no spending limits
Public Financing of POTUS
Examples
Public Financing of POTUS
3. Party Candidates (1976-2004): All
candidates accepted and the associated
spending limits
– 2004= beginning of candidates not
accepting public= no spending limits
Public Financing of POTUS
• Examples
Future POTUS candidates unlikely to
accept public funding limits!
STRATEGIES AND TACTICS
Strategy= broad approach to persuade citizens to
vote for the candidate
Tactic= content of the messages and way they are
delivered
Basic Strategies:
1. Party-centered: voter partisan id
2. Issue-oriented: seek support of groups=issue
3. Candidate-oriented: personal quality
4. Tailored to political context
5. Use info obtained by professionals to
develop/implement strategy
MEDIA STRATEGY!
1. News coverage is valuable
– Free??
– Seems objective to audience
2. Incumbents have the advantage
3. Effective campaigns recognize the
limitations of both news media and
audience
4. National news tend to focus on the “horse
race”
Advertising the Candidate
1. Objective of paid advertising
– Name recognition
– Promotion of virtues
– Attack the opponent/play on emotions
Watch ads for past candidates on living room
candidate
2. Most ad uses electronic media
continued
3. Political ads contain more substance than
many believe
– Policy positions may be deceptive
– Both attack/contrast ads carry more policy info
than pure advocacy ads
•
•
Attack= negative
Contrast= criticize opponent and advocate positive of
sponsored candidate
– Media may report controversial ads as news
– Finding about impact of neg ads are ambiguous
– BCRA contains provision to reduce neg ads-->
candidates must announce that they “approve”
any ad run by their campaign
INTERNET USE
1. 1992-2002: develops as a campaign
medium
2. Fast, easy and cheap
3. Voters use the internet a lot!!
4. Online ads small on campaign $$
because local TV reaches average
voter better
Voter choices…
1. Party identification
1. More than 1/2 decide how to vote before party
convention ends in summer
2. Early vote decision usually = vote according to
party id
3. Defection usually by candidate attributes/issues
4. Characteristics of vote for winning POTUS
• Gains the votes of nearly all of those who id with party
• Takes some of his opponents’ id
• Wins most of the independents
Voter choices…
2. Issues and policies
– Candidates seek to exploit issues they
think is important to voters
– Challengers campaign by pointing out
problemss and promising to fix
– Incumbents try to campaign on
accomplishments
Voter choices…
3. Candidate attributes
– Esp. important when voters lack info about
past behavior and policy stands
– Some voters fall back on their beliefs about
religion, gender and race to judge
candidate
Voter choices…
4. Evaluating the voting choice
– Rational voting= we vote based on performance
and proposed policy
– Studies= candidate attribute/party more important
than issues
– Correlation b/w issue position and party id
– Alignment of party and ideology has increased
with congressional voting
Voter choices…
5. Campaign effects
– TV campaign
• “sound bites”= candidate can not rely on news to relay
message
• Entertainment coverage?
• Fight mostly through tv ads
• Adds target “swing” states
– Debates
• Fixture since 1976
• Incumbents reluctant unless on own terms…