Duke University
Department of Political Science
Spring 2004
Political Science 137
Campaigns and Elections
TR 2:15-3:30 in BioSci 130
Thomas (Tom) Scotto
E-mail: tjs@duke.edu
Office: 304 Perkins Library
Home Phone (before 10:00PM)
493-8945
Introduction
This class looks at campaigns and elections from a political science perspective as
opposed to how the media report on campaigns and elections. At the present time, a
particularly interesting mode of thinking about politics centers on what is known as the
“New Institutionalism.” For our purposes we can think of this paradigm in the following
manner:
Preferences * Institutions = Outcomes
In layman’s terms this paradigm suggests that if we seek to study political phenomena,
whether our goal is to understand a Government’s social policies in Ireland or campaigns
and elections in the United States, we need to look not only at how individuals make
decisions, but the context (preferences and institutions) under which these decisions are
made.
It is my belief that much the institutional forces governing campaigns can be traced to the
“reforms” of the Progressive Era. The end of political machines, civil service reform, the
initiative and referendum (and, as a Special 2004 update of the course—the RECALL!),
the primary election, the Australian Ballot, etc. all came about during the Progressive Era
and influences the campaign process today. Sadly, time constraints dictate that we will
only encounter what the political science literature has to say on a few of these reforms.
However, my goal for the first third of the course is to have you come away with the idea
that the rules of the game matter. Additionally, the focus on the Progressive Era is
interesting because the literature in political science, both historical and contemporary,
does not necessarily view the period in the same manner as your high school history
teacher.
The second third of the course actually does look at the campaign from the lens of the
voter. In studying voting behavior, there are two distinct traditions in political science.
One, The American Voter, takes a social-psychological approach to the study of voting
behavior. The other, Downs’ Economic Theory of Democracy, looks at the voter as a
rational actor, and stems from economic decision theory. These two books are “classics”
in the way Plato’s Republic is a classic text in political theory. Although much has been
done to improve and refine the theories and findings of the two approaches, those seeking
to study voting behavior should first understand the intellectual heritage of the subdiscipline.
Finally, the third portion of the course looks at issues challenging advisors to
contemporary American campaigns. During this portion of the course, I want to further
explore the role of political parties in elections, the increasing strength of incumbency,
and whether campaigns even matter.
WARNING -- WHAT THIS CLASS IS NOT (borrowed almost verbatim from
Professor Patricia Hurley at Texas A&M): This is not a class in practical politics or
current events. You will not learn how to run a campaign, make a campaign ad,
determine strategies for ad placement, do opposition research, and so on. Similarly, our
objective is not to discuss breaking or recent news about elections, the War on Terrorism,
or to rehash all the details of the unusual features of the presidential election of 2000. We
will, however, bring in information about the election of 2000, the War, and the
forthcoming 2004 presidential election as they illustrate general points made in the class
or as they point to new questions that need to be addressed in political science. However,
if you signed up for this class expecting a large portion of the class time to be devoted to
a current affairs discussion of the last presidential election you will be disappointed.
Readings: Too much reading leads to too little learning! Hence, the syllabus is divided
into 2 types of reading: Required and Optional. Required reading is the reading that you
must do before each class. Optional reading is the reading that would be too onerous to
assign as mandatory in a semester long course but will enhance your understanding of
how political science looks at campaigns and elections if you get to it at some point and
time. To better understand the required reading, during each class, one or two students
will complete the reading, draw up an outline, and present it to you in class as part of
their participation grade. Locations of the Readings: There are four books that I
suggest buying and have been ordered at the bookstore. They are:
1) Riordon, William L. 1995. Plunkett of Tammany Hall: A Series of Very Plain
Talks on Practical Politics. New York: Signet Classics.
2) Campbell, Angus, Phillip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes.
1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
3) Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York:
Harper and Row.
4) Key, V.O., Jr. 1949 [1984]. Southern Politics in State and Nation. Knoxville, TN:
University of Tennessee Press.
All of the books listed above are the editions that I have. You may purchase any edition
you wish with the exception of the abridged version of The American Voter. Better deals
can often be found in the used book sections of Amazon.com, Barnsandnoble.com, and
abebooks.com.
The other readings will either be found on e-reserve or on the online journal indexes.
Contact a librarian for help using online resources.
Short Paper: I want you to write a paper of 5-7 pages, taking a position on one of the
following two topics:
1) “A Reform of the Progressive Era has had a positive/negative impact on the
way campaigns and elections are run in the United States in the Twenty-First
Century.”
2) “The recent Supreme Court ruling upholding major provisions of the McCainFeingold campaign finance law is detrimental to the campaign process.”
These papers should not be of the “I feel that” style. You should spend considerable time
looking at what the popular press and the political science literature has to say about one
of these statements and use such sources in the formation of your argument.
This paper is worth 25 percent of your final grade with 7.5 of the 25 percent consisting of
an annotated bibliography. The first draft of the bibliography is due on February 10th.
The Cornell University Library's Research Service Division gives a wonderful overview
of what constitutes an annotated bibliography, and I suggest you use it as a guide. It can
be found online at: http://www.library.cornell.edu/okuref/research/skill28.htm.
The reason for this portion of the assignment is that I am concerned with the quality of
sources many students are citing in their papers. To better help you identify quality
sources and how to access these sources, I have scheduled a library skills session class for
January 27th. The session will be conducted by Catherine Shreve, the Perkins Library for
Public Policy and Political Science. At this session, you will likely pick up suggestions
which can help you improve your source selection for the short paper (and the final paper
as well!). Ms. Shreve has developed a short exercise, available under the "Assignment"
heading on the course's "Blackboard" page, which you should complete and place in the
"Drop Box" section of the course's "Blackboard" site no later than 11:59PM on January
25th.
I find all of Duke’s Librarians to be highly qualified and competent professionals. Most
should be able to help with any basic questions you have for obtaining additional
information on topics of interest during the term. However, for specific questions on
obtaining quality sources for your papers, you may wish to consult with Ms. Shreve
directly as she is aware of the course content and the assignments. Her contact
information is below:
Ms. Catherine Shreve
Reference Department
Perkins Library
660-6934
catherine.shreve@duke.edu
These papers will be graded on an A, B, F standard with an infinite rewrite option. In
essence, if you wish to avoid an “F” on the paper, you will rewrite the paper until it meets
my standard of a “B-” paper. Of course, if and when you receive a “B-,” feel free to
improve your paper as often as you would like before the last possible due date. For
some of you, this course may involve a painful amount of writing and revising.
However, hopefully the framework that I have set out will allow you to improve your
writing without being detrimental to your GPA. A first draft of the paper is due on
February 24th.
“Midterm” Exam: After we have completed reading The American Voter and An
Economic Theory of Democracy, you will be required to take an examination asking you
to link statements on the exam to the theories presented in the two books. More details
on the midterm will be given as we read the two books. An option will be offered to earn
back half the credit you loose on the midterm examinations via additional writing and
research. An example of how this credit will be earned involves reading an additional
article not on the syllabus and writing a response as to how the article relates to the
theory asked about in the original question. This exam is worth 20% of your final grade.
Final Paper: In a paper of about 10 pages, I want you to look at one or more of the state
Democratic presidential primaries scheduled to take place during the course and inform
the reader as to how (or if!) the literature in political science has anything to say about
how the campaign was run, who won the race, how the candidates were chosen, etc. The
paper should be thorough and well researched. Unfortunately, due to time constraints, I
cannot offer a rewrite option with this paper. More details on expectations and advice on
how to proceed will be given in class. This paper is worth 30% of your final grade.
Running of the Class: I plan to divide the class into thirds. The first third will involve
oral presentations given by those who have chosen to present on the day’s readings. The
second third will involve a lecture by me on the topic of the day, and the last portion of
the class will be reserved for your comments. The quality of your oral presentation and
your classroom participation will account for the final 25% of your grade.
Schedule of Readings and Lectures:
Thursday, January 8th: Introduction
Tuesday, January 13th: The Coming of the Progressive Era
Required Reading: Riordon, William L. 1995. Plunkett of Tammany Hall: A
Series of Very Plain Talks on Practical Politics. New York: Signet Classics.
Optional Reading: Hofstadter, Richard. 1974. The American Political Tradition
and the Men Who Made It. New York: Vintage Books. Chapter Seven entitled
“The Spoilsmen: An Age of Cynicism.”
Bernheim, A.C. 1888. “Party Organizations and their Nominations to Public
Office in New York City.” Political Science Quarterly 3:1 99-122.
Thursday, January 15th:
No Class—Work on Bibliography
Tuesday, January 20th: Primary Elections: Friend or Foe?
Required Reading: Horack F.E. 1910. “Primary Elections in Iowa.” Proceedings
of the American Political Science Association. 7: 175-186.
Norrander, Barbara. 1996. “Presidential Nominational Politics in the PostReform Era.” Political Research Quarterly 49: 875-915.
Kuzenski, John C. 1997. “The Four. Yes Four. Types of State Primaries.” PS:
Political Science and Politics. 30: 207-208.
Optional Reading:
Findley, James C. 1959. “Cross-Filing and the Progressive Movement in
California Politics.” The Western Political Quarterly 12: 699-711.
Hinckley, Katherine A. and John C. Green. 1996. “Fund-Raising in Presidential
Nomination Campaigns: The Primary Lessons of 1988”
Political Research Quarterly 49: 693-718.
Tobin, Richard J. and Edward Keynes. 1975. “Institutional Differences in the
Recruitment Process: A Four-State Study.” American Journal of Political Science
19: 667-682.
Thursday, January 22nd. Weakening the Parties: Australian Ballot and Non-partisan
elections.
Required Reading: Rusk, Jerrold G. 1970. “The Effect of the Australian Ballot
Reform on Split Ticket Voting: 1876-1908.” The American Political Science
Review 64: 1220-1238.
Lapp, John A. 1915. “Non-Partisan Government.” The American Political
Science Review 9: 313-315.
Sherrill, Kenneth. 1998. “The Dangers of Non-Partisan Elections to Democracy.”
Social Policy 28: 15-22.
Optional Reading: Wolfinger, Raymond E. and John Osgood Field. 1966.
“Political Ethos and the Structure of City Government.” The American Political
Science Review 60: 306-326.
Cole, Richard L., Delbert A. Taebel and Richard L. Engstrom. 1990.
“Cumulative Voting in a Municipal Election: A Note on Voter Reactions and
Electoral Consequences” The Western Political Quarterly 43: 191-199.
Library Assignment Due on the 25th!
Tuesday, January 27th: Library Session with Catherine Shreve:
Class Meets in Library Instructional Lab
Thursday, January 29th: Two Parties by Design?
Required Reading: Duverger, Maurice, Political Parties, Their Organization and
Activity in the Modern State, (London: Methuen, 1978 [1951]), Part II, Chapter 1,
The Number of Political Parties, pp. 206-228 and 255-280.
Optional Reading: Blais, Andre, and R.K. Carty. 1991. “The Psychological
Impact of Electoral Laws: Measuring Duverger's Elusive Factor.” British Journal
of Political Science 21: 79-93.
Scarrow, Harold A. 1986. “Duverger's Law, Fusion, and the Decline of American
"Third" Parties.” The Western Political Quarterly 39: 634-647.
Tuesday, February 3rd: Politics was(is?) Different in Dixie: The Legacy of the
“Progressive” Era in the South.
Required Reading: Key, V.O., Jr. 1949 [1984]. Southern Politics in State and
Nation. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press. Chapters 1, 14, 18, 19,
20, 21, 25, 29.
Optional Reading: Key, V.O., Jr. 1949 [1984]. Southern Politics in State and
Nation. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press. Chapters 4, 5, 7,10.
Hood, M.V., III, Quentin Kidd, and Irwin L. Morris. 1999. “Of Byrd[s] and
Bumpers: Using Democratic Senators to Analyze Political Change in the South,
1960-1995” American Journal of Political Science 43: 465-487.
Thursday, February 5th: The Initiative, Referenda, and Recall: Campaigning for
Issues and Not Candidates or Arnie’s Calling?
Required Reading:
Magleby, David B., and Kelly D. Patterson. 1998. “Consultants and Direct
Democracy.” PS: Political Science and Politics 31: 160-169.
Nicholson, Stephen P. 2003. “The Political Environment and Ballot Proposition
Awareness” American Journal of Political Science 43: 403-410.
McClain, Paula D. 1988. “Arizona "High Noon": The Recall and Impeachment of
Evan Mecham” PS: Political Science and Politics 21: 628-638.
Optional Reading: Price, Charles M. 1975. “The Initiative: A Comparative State
Analysis and Reassessment of a Western Phenomenon.” The Western Political
Quarterly 28: 243-262.
Gamble, Barbara G. 1997. “Putting Civil Rights to a Popular Vote.”
American Journal of Political Science 41: 245-269.
Bowler, Shaun, Todd Donovan, and Trudi Happ. 1992. “Ballot Propositions and
Information Costs: Direct Democracy and the Fatigued Voter.” The Western
Political Quarterly 45: 559-568.
Tuesday, February 10th: The Gerrymander: How the Drawing of Districts Influences
the Campaign.
Required Reading: Engstrom, Richard L. 2002. “The Post-2000 Round of
Redistricting: An Entangled Thicket within the Federal System” Publius 32: 5170.
Cranor, John D., Gary L. Crawles, and Raymond H. Scheele. 1989. “The
Anatomy of a Gerrymander.” American Journal of Political Science 33: 222-239.
Optional Reading: Gronke, Paul, and J. Matthew Wilson. 1999. “Competing
Redistricting Plans as Evidence of Political Motives: The North Carolina Case.”
American Politics Quarterly 27: 147-176.
Cox, Gary W. and Jonathan N. Katz. 1999. “The Reapportionment Revolution
and Bias in U.S. Congressional Elections.” American Journal of Political Science
43: 812-841.
Baker v. Carr(369 U.S. 186, 1962) and Wesberry v. Sanders(376 U.S. 1, 1964).
Draft 1 of Annotated Bibliography Due
Thursday, February 12th: Campaign Finance I: The Current (Sad?) State of Affairs?
Required Reading: Corrado, Anthony. 2003. “A History of Federal Campaign
Finance Legislation.” Manuscript online at:
http://www.brookings.edu/gs/cf/sourcebk01/HistoryChap.pdf
Familiarize yourself with Recent Court Rulings and Positions Taken by
Thinktanks:
Brookings Institution: http://www.brook.edu/gs/cf/cf_hp.htm
Cato Institute: http://www.cato.org/research/crg/finance.html
ACLU: http://www.aclu.org/VotingRights/VotingRightslist.cfm?c=165
Center for Responsive Politics:
http://www.opensecrets.org/payback/issue.asp?issueid=CFR&CongNo=107
Public Campaign:
http://www.publiccampaign.org/congress/index.htm
Tuesday, February 17th: Campaign Finance II: Does Spending Matter?
Required Reading: Green, Donald Phillip, and Jonathan S. Krasno. 1988.
“Salvation for the Spendthrift Incumbent: Reestimating the Effects of Campaign
Spending in House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 32: 884907.
Francia, Peter L. and Herrnson, Paul S. 2003. “The Impact of Public Finance
Laws on Fundraising in State Legislative Elections” American Politics Research
31: 520- 539.
Optional Reading: Shepard, Lawrence. 1977. “Does Campaign Spending Really
Matter?” Public Opinion Quarterly 41: 196-205.
Abramowitz, Alan I. 1991. “Incumbency, Campaign Spending, and the Decline of
Competition in U.S. House Elections.” The Journal of Politics 53: 34-56.
Jacobson, Gary C. 1979. “The Effects of Campaign Spending in Congressional
Elections.” The American Political Science Review 72: 469-491.
Lopez, Edward J. 2003. “Term Limits: Causes and Consequences.” Public Choice
114: 1-56.
Thursday, February 19th: Origins of the Social-Psychological Model
Required Reading: Campbell et. al. Chapters 1 and 2
Optional Reading: Eldersveld, Samuel J. 1951. “Theory and Method in Voting
Behavior Research.” Journal of Politics 13: 70-87.
Kitt, Alice S., and David B. Gleicher. 1950. “Determinants of Voting Behavior:
A Progress Report on the Elmira Election Study.” Public Opinion Quarterly 14:
393-412.
Tuesday, February 24th: Turnout, and the Formation of the Vote
Draft 1 of Paper Due!!
Required Reading: Campbell et. al. Chapters 3-5
Optional Reading: Blank, Robert H. 1974. “Socio-economic Determinism of
Voting Turnout: A Challenge.” Journal of Politics 36: 731-752.
Lodge, Milton, Marco R. Steenbergen, and Shawn Brau. 1995. “The Responsive
Voter: Campaign Information and the Dynamics of Candidate Evaluation.” The
American Political Science Review 89: 309-326.
Thursday, February 26th: Partisan Identification
Required Reading: Campbell et. al. Chapters 6-8
Optional Reading: Finkel, Steven E. 1993. “Reexamining the "Minimal Effects"
Model in Recent Presidential Campaigns.” The Journal of Politics 55: 1-21.
Sears, David O. and Nicholas A. Valentino. 1997. “Politics Matters: Political
Events as Catalysts for Preadult Socialization.” The American Political Science
Review 91: 45-65.
Tuesday, March 2nd: Issues and IF they Matter in a Campaign
Required Reading: Campbell et. al. Chapters 9-11.
Optional Reading: Converse, Philip. 1964. The nature of mass belief systems in
mass publics. In David Apter, ed. Ideology and Discontent. New York: Free
Press.
Finkel, Steven E., and Gregory Trevor. 1986. “Reassessing Ideological Bias in
Campaign Participation.” Political Behavior 8: 374-390.
Thursday, March 4th: Social and Economic Forces
Required Reading: Campbell et. al. 12-14.
Optional Reading: Campbell et. al. 17-18.
Jankowski, Thomas B, and John M. Strate. 1995. “Modes of Participation over
the Adult Life Span.” Political Behavior 178: 89-106.
Tuesday, March 9th: No Class Spring Break!
Thursday, March 11th: No Class Spring Break! ………………….
Tuesday, March 16th:
Rationality and Political Behavior
Required Reading: Downs Chapters 1-4.
Optional Reading: Rabinowitz, George, and Stuart Elaine Macdonald. 1989. “A
Directional Theory of Issue Voting.” The American Political Science Review 83:
93-121.
Hotelling, Harold. 1929. "Stability and Competition," Economic Journal 39, 4157.
Thursday, March 18th: Uncertainty and Elections I
Required Reading: Downs Chapters 5-7.
Optional Reading: Budge, Ian. 1994. “A New Spatial Theory of Party
Competition: Uncertainty, Ideology and Policy Equilibria Viewed Comparatively
and Temporally.” British Journal of Political Science 24: 443-467.
Enelow, James, and Melvin J. Hinich. 1981. “A New Approach to Voter
Uncertainty in the Downsian Spatial Model.” American Journal of Political
Science 25: 483-493.
Stokes, Donald E. 1963. “Spatial Models of Party Competition.” American
Political Science Review 57: 368-377.
Tuesday, March 23rd: Uncertainty and Elections II
Required Reading: Downs Chapters 8-10.
Optional Reading: Aldrich, John H. 1983. “A Downsian Spatial Model with
Party Activism.” The American Political Science Review 77: 974-990.
Davis, Otto A., Melvin J. Hinich, Peter C. Ordeshook. 1970. “An Expository
Development of a Mathematical Model of the Electoral Process.” 64:426-448.
Thursday, March 25th: Information Costs and Voting
Required Reading: Downs Chapters 11-14.
Optional Reading: Zaller, John. 1991. “Information, Values, and Opinion.” The
American Political Science Review 85: 1215-1237.
Conover, Pamela Johnston, and Stanley Feldman. 1989. “Candidate Perception in
an Ambiguous World: Campaigns, Cues, and Inference Processes.” American
Journal of Political Science 33: 912-940.
Tuesday, March 30th: Wrap Up on Downs and Review
Required Reading: Downs Chapters 15-16.
Optional Reading: Ferejohn John A., and Morris P. Fiorina. 1974. “The Paradox
of Not Voting: A Decision Theoretic Analysis.” The American Political Science
Review 68: 525-536.
Lacy, Dean, and Barry C. Burden. 1999. “The Vote-Stealing and Turnout Effects
of Ross Perot in the 1992 U.S. Presidential Election.” American Journal of
Political Science 43: 233-255.
Thursday, April 1st: “Midterm” Exam
Tuesday, April 6th: Incumbency and Its Advantages
Required Reading: Cover, Albert D. 1977. “One Good Term Deserves Another:
The Advantage of Incumbency in Congressional Elections.” American Journal of
Political Science 21: 523-41.
Pritchard, Anita. 1992. “Strategic Considerations in the Decision to Challenge a
State Legislative Incumbent.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 17: 381-393.
Optional Reading: Howell, Susan E. 1982. “Campaign Activities and State
Election Outcomes.” Political Behavior 4: 401-414.
Krebs, Timothy M. 1998. “The Determinants of Candidates' Vote Share and the
Advantages of Incumbency in City Council Elections.” American Journal of
Political Science 42: 921-935.
Thursday, April 8th: Negative Campaigning
Required Readings: Mayer, William G. 1996. “In Defense of Negative
Campaigning.” Political Science Quarterly 111: 437-455.
Ansolabehere Stephen., Shanto Iyengar, Adam Simon, Nicholas Valentino. 1994.
“Does Attack Advertising Demobilize the Electorate?” American Political
Science Review 88: 829-838.
Optional Reading: Theilmann, Joel, and Allen Wilhite. 1998. “Campaign Tactics
and the Decision to Attack.” The Journal of Politics 60: 150-162.
Freedman, Paul, and Ken Goldstein. 1999. “Measuring Media Exposure and the
Effects of Negative Campaign Ads.” American Journal of Political Science 43:
1189-1208.
Tuesday, April 13th: Media and Commercials
Final Long Paper Due!!!!!!!!
All Rewrites Due!!!!!!!!
Required: Kahn, Kim Fridkin, and John G. Geer. 1994. “Creating Impressions:
An Experimental Investigation of Political Advertising on Television.” Political
Behavior 16: 93-116.
Rahn, Wendy M., John H. Aldrich, Eugene Borgida. 1994. “Individual and
Contextual Variations in Political Candidate Appraisal.” 88: 193-199.
Optional: West, Darrell M. 1994-1995. “Television Advertising in Election
Campaigns.” Political Science Quarterly 109: 789-809.
Zhao, Xinshu, and Steven H. Chaffee. 1995. “Campaign Advertisements Versus
Television News as Sources of Political Issue Information.” Public Opinion
Quarterly 59: 41-65.
Thursday, April 15th: Open Seats and Candidate Entry
Required: Bond, John R., Richard Fleisher, and Jeffery C. Talbert. 1997.
“Partisan Differences in Candidate Quality in Open Seat House Races, 19761994.” Political Research Quarterly. 50: 281-299.
Seligman, Lester G. 1961. “Political Recruitment and Party Structure: A Case
Study” The American Political Science Review 55: 77-86.
Optional: Frendreis, John P., James L. Gibson, and Laura L. Vertz. 1990. “The
Electoral Relevance of Local Party Organizations.” The American Political
Science Review 84: 225-235.
Cannon, David T. 1993. “Sacrificial Lambs or Strategic Politicians? Political
Amateurs in U.S. House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science
37:1119-1141.
Tuesday, April 20th: Course Wrap Up and Evaluations