Running for Office
I. American elections today are much more
candidate-driven than are European elections, which
are much more party-based. This is because we use
“Single-Member Plurality” elections, while most
other democracies use “Proportional Representation.”
(SMP vs. PR)
II. To run for office in the U.S. involves getting on
the ballot through primary elections (within a party)
and then campaigning in the general election
(between the parties). Party leaders have little
control over who ends up as their candidate, and
campaigns tend to be focused as much on personality
as on policy.
III. There are several differences between
Congressional and Presidential elections:
Presidential elections are more competitive;
Voter turnout is much lower for midterm
congressional elections;
and incumbency is a much greater advantage for
members of Congress than for the president.
IV. Presidential campaigns involve several steps:
1. Getting mentioned
2. Time to run
3. $$$ MONEY $$$
4. Organization (paid staff and volunteers)
5. Developing strategy
(Tone, timing, theme, target voters)
• Tone (positive or negative)
• Timing (go for broke or ‘hold your
powder’)
• Theme (“Morning In America”, “Change
We Can Believe In”)
• Target Voters (what groups can you ‘pick
off’ from your opponent’s base)
V. Running for Congress
• Incumbents (normally!) have a major advantage,
especially in House elections. Historically, they
are reelected over 90% of the time.
• There are several reasons for this, including:
name recognition, fundraising advantage, local
orientation/earmarks, franking privilege, and
gerrymandering.
• House members tend to serve more as
“delegates” than as “trustees.”
Redistricting Game
I. Candidates must prevail first in primary elections
and then in the general election.
• Voter turnout is lower in primaries than in the
general election.
• Voters in primary elections tend to be more
ideological than voters in general elections
(Democrats more liberal, Republicans more
conservative).
• Challenge is to appear ideological enough to
appeal to party activists and primary voters,
but moderate enough to appeal to the general
electorate.
• Two types of issues tend to emerge during
campaigns:
1. “Position” issues: candidates differ,
voters may realign
2. “Valence” issues: widely held views—
who is more ‘believable’?
II. Candidates in both primary and general elections
use similar methods to gain attention:
• Paid advertising (esp. effective for littleknown candidates and during primaries)
www.livingroomcandidate.com
• News broadcasts (“photo ops”)
• Debates (risks slip-of-the-tongue; gives voters
an ‘impression’ of the candidates)
• Computer/direct mail (targets specific groups,
so specific issues can be raised. Effective for
fund-raising)
• Internet has become the new medium for
political advertising and fundraising—
candidates are still feeling their way with their
on-line strategies.
All of this involves MONEY…
I. Running for office costs a lot of money—but,
contrary to popular opinion, money cannot ‘buy’
success in an election.
There are strict laws governing campaign finance—
the most recent law, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform
Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold) radically changed
the process.
5 “Ps” of campaign financing:
Party Assistance
• National party organization (RNC, DNC;
RCCC, DCCC; RSCC, DSCC) provide funds
to candidates in competitive districts
Political Action Committees (PACs)
• Corporations, unions, special-interest groups,
and politicians form PACs to contribute to
candidates. PACs can contribute more than
individuals.
Private Donors
• Strict limits on campaign contributions-$2500 per individual per federal campaign.
campaign contribution limits
link
Public Money
• Government will provide matching funds to
candidates who stay within spending limits in
presidential primaries; both major-party
candidates can receive federal funds for the
general election, although in 2008 Barack
Obama became the first candidate ever to
decline the public funds.
Personal Financing
• Individuals may spend unlimited amounts of
their own money in order to run for office.
For the first time in history, the 2008 presidential
candidates raised over $1 billion to fund their
campaigns. In 2012, over $6 billion was spent by the
candidates and outside groups. Where will it stop?
Campaign finance rules:
Completely overhauled in 2003 by McCainFeingold, and again more recently by the
controversial Supreme Court decision in the
“Citizens United” case (see article and
timeline here).
Key change: NO “soft money”— theoretically
hurt Democrats more than Republicans.
However, it has led to rise of “527’s” and now
“Super PACs” which have largely supplanted
the former role of the national party
committee’s ‘issues’ ads and ‘party-building’
activities.
Because of the cost of federal elections, the lack of
federal funds for Congressional elections, and the
advantages of incumbency, challengers increasingly
tend to be wealthy individuals.
WHAT REFORMS DO YOU SUGGEST?
What Decides Elections?
I. More than simply party identity
• More registered Democrats, but they are less
wedded to their party
• GOP does better among independents, and
have better turnout rates
II. Issues, especially the economy, decide elections
• Most voters who switch parties do so in their
own interests, on issues that affect them
personally
• “Prospective” voting is used by relatively few
voters—activists and special interest groups
who really “know the issues.”
• Most voters practice “Retrospective voting” in
which they judge the incumbent’s performance
and vote accordingly—are you better off now
than you were four years ago?
•
Midterm elections USUALLY hurt
president…
III. Campaigns do make a difference
• Reawaken party loyalties
• Let voters see how candidates handle pressure
• Let voters judge candidates’ characters
• Tend to emphasize themes over details
IV. To be successful, candidates must find winning
coalition—maintaining core supporters while
attracting independents. Especially difficult with
recent importance of primary elections.
Election Outcomes
I.
Some elections have resulted in party
realignments:
“A sharp, lasting shift in the popular coalition
supporting one or both parties occurring during
an election or early in a presidential
administration.”
• Several historical examples (1828, 1860,
1896, 1932) have resulted in new parties
(Democrats, Republicans) and shifts in voting
blocs.
• Major change recently has been shift in
presidential voting patterns in the South as
Southern whites have left the Democratic
party.
NOTE: Red= Republican on this one:
2012
II. Do election results matter? Some argue that
public policy remains more or less the same no
matter which official or party is in office.
• May have some truth, because voters must
elect numerous officeholders. Difficult for
parties to form coalitions of officeholders.
• Many elections do make differences in policy,
but the system generally moderates the pace of
change.
• Why, then, the perception that elections do not
matter? Because most elections are
retrospective judgments about the incumbent
president and existing congressional majority.