Government 1352 –Identifications
Minimal effects hypothesis
Traditional academic perspectives argue that campaigns do not matter. Campaigns don’t
matter- they don’t shape the individual votes, rather the party Identification and
Government performance are the most important factors in determining voter choice. In
aggregate, the campaign effects that do sway voters cancel each other out, because at the
presidential level the candidates are balanced: equal numbers of ads, $, etc. Any
dynamics are predictable – Campaign performance is shaped by external factors such as
war, economy, etc.. Forecasting models are fairly accurate and can determine the
outcome before the campaign even begins.
Low Information Rationality
Popkin’s theory on how voters use their limited political knowledge to make rational
decisions when voting. Voters have limited information about candidates and politics in
general. However Popkin argues that it is not rational to be informed about politics. The
reason behind this rational ignorance is that few direct benefits from gaining political
information exist and the costs of obtaining such information are high. Voters can make
rational decisions without being fully informed by using heuristics in political decisionmaking based on information available to them such as race, party, and gender. Voters
are able to gather the minimally required knowledge from their social networks, the
media, and campaigns. Campaigns play a critical role in providing the necessary
information to make a rational decision. Given the incredible amount of coverage of
campaigns, even the most disinterested voter is exposed to some information during
presidential campaigns. The media acts as a filter for campaign information. Voters can
gain information from even the most basic media coverage including cues such as
personality.
Issue Ownership
Ansolabehere and Iyengar .The source of a campaign message affects the persuasiveness
of that message. This is due to the fact that the persuasiveness of information is partially
based on the credibility of the source of the information. When a source is perceived to
be knowledgeable about an issue that information is more likely to be influential. When
political parties have a perceived history of success with an issue, we say that they “own
the issue”. In short, issue ownership refers to the reputational superiority of a party on a
particular issue. Examples of issue ownership are the republican’s perceived superiority
on issues such as defense and the democrat’s mastery of social issues such as education.
Issue ownership creates stereotypes that affect campaigns. Candidates use voter
expectations about issues to increase the effectiveness of their campaigns. For example,
democrats may chose to focus their advertising on social issues they “own” because they
will provide greater gains. In another strategy, candidates may try and neutralize their
opponents advantage on an issue such as Bush did with his “No Child Left Behind”
education reform.
1
Party identification
When a voter identifies with a specific political party, they identify with the ideology or
philosophy. Political theorists maintain different conceptions of party identification and
they assign different predictive weight to party identification when evaluating campaigns
and elections. For Campbell, et al., party identification is a psychological relationship
between an individual and a group, for Fiorina it is a concept tied to retrospective
political evaluation and voting, and for Green et al., it is akin to religious affiliation. For
Campbell, party identification is an unchanging political disposition rooted in a selfclassifying psychological attachment. This psychological model is most akin to the
Michigan School, which suggests that family demographics are the driving force behind
party identification. Thus, party identification is not likely to change as a result of shortterm affects like campaigns. In contrast, Fiorina regards party identification as a “running
tally of retrospective evaluations of party promises and performance.” Thus, people align
themselves with parties after having evaluated their content or displeasure with previous
party successes and failures- what we would call “retrospective voting”. Fiorina’s
economic rational choice explanation, most akin to the Downs Model, maintains that
party identification is much less stable than originally believed.
Sociological model of voting
Columbia scholars published a study in 1948 entitled Voting. This was the first
comprehensive assessment of voting based on demographic patterns. “The basic
assumption was that voting is as much conditioned by who one is as by what one
believe…sociological variables create common group interests that shape the party
coalitions and define images concerning which party is most attuned to the needs of
various types of people.” This model had several limitations that would lead the
University of Michigan to focus on the psychological model. They also showed that the
majority of the voters chose which candidate was more like them. “Who was there
person”? They made there vote more on sociological characteristics, either it be sex,
religion, region, ethnicity. “How you vote depends on who you are.” There were many
problems with this: Social cleavages are cross cutting and religion is too influential in
votes.
Psychological model of voting
Michigan Model (1960’s). The party identification determines the vote choice. View of
PID as psychological attachment. Learn your PID from “mother knee”. Learn it from
who you are. PID usually last a lifetime and strengthen as an individual gets older. PID
provides an easy filter for understanding the political world: issues, beliefs, and
information. Shapes attitudes and beliefs. 70% of Democrats and Republicans share their
PID with their mother. Thus, party identification is not likely to change as a result of
short-term affects like campaigns.
Rational choice model of voting
(Down 1957)- Rational voters evaluate candidates based on self-interest. Voters select
candidates who are closer to their preferences. How each candidate would affect them
economically. They also look at the lat president’s performance. In this model the voter
uses short-cuts in the decision making process (1) Ideology-can summarize all of the
2
issues in ideology (Dems are left/reps are right) (2) Gov performance (esp. economic
performance).
Retrospective voting
Fiorina’s retrospective model of voting suggests that voters’ decisions are slowly updated
as a running tally based on political experience and events. Originally it was believed that
vote choice was a highly stable long-term preference. However, Fiorina argues that vote
choice can change over time and is a result of a cumulation of retrospective evaluations.
As an individual moves through the world, they experience political events. These events
are evaluated by voters and become the basis of vote choice. Events that can promote
change can also be personal, such as a change in economic or family situation.
Retrospective voting looks to past performance to evaluate candidates as opposed to
prospective voting in which voters examine future outcomes based on campaign
promises. Thus, in this economic rationale model people align themselves with parties
after having evaluated their content or displeasure with previous party successes and
failures- what we would call “retrospective voting”. This model is most akin to the
Down’s model in which rational voters evaluate candidates based on economic selfinterest. How did the party perform? PID Slowly updated with political experiences and
events. Especially by the performance of the incumbent party. Your Party ID is based on
your views of what’s going on in the White House. Retrospective evaluations of
presidential influence the lower level (congress) especially open seat races.
Prospective voting - – Looking ahead, whose promises do I believe in more? As
opposed to retrospective voting. Which party will perform better in the future. It is easier
to judge an incumbent’s past performance than to make guesses about the future. People
are generally more retrospective
Egocentric voting- people base vote on own personal economic condition.
Sociotropic voting
Downs’ Economic/Rational Choice Model suggests that voters evaluate candidate
policies based on self-interest. The decision-making process is based on ideology and
government performance. Sociotropic evaluations are important for understanding how
voters examine government performance. Voters must decide who will provide the most
benefits for them. In deciding whom to vote for, voters have to examine many factors.
Government performance, particularly economic performance, is a key factor in voter
decision-making. Voters examine government performance based on their own personal
situation (egocentric) and also the broader national conditions (sociotropic). How voters
weigh these issues has consequences for campaigns and policy decisions. Surprisingly,
research shows that voters weigh more heavily on sociotropic issues when voting. The
implications of sociotropic voting are that voters are more interested in policies resulting
in positive national outcomes than strictly focusing on self-interest when considering
policies and candidates.
3
Puzzle of Participation
Many factors that predict turnout have increased but still turnout is declining. Education
has increased and legal barriers have declined. Rosenstone and Hansen argue that the
record of political participation in America has created a set of puzzles. Given changes in
predictable voting factors, theorists expected an increase in voter participation.
Puzzlingly there has been a steady decline in voter participation since the 1960’s. Despite
increases in education levels and court rulings that have facilitated voting, factors that
should have resulted in greater participation, there has been a decline. Similarly, while
the public’s confidence in their political efficacy has diminished, the public’s desire to
contact representatives has increased. Despite declines in voting, Americans are more
likely to participate in other forms of political activities and the number of political
organizations has grown dramatically. R&H offer a new theory to answer these puzzles.
Unlike previous research, which argued participation was a result of who the citizen was,
R&H argue that participation is a result of political choices and incentives offered to
citizens. Instead of focusing on resources, identification, and personal beliefs, R&H
contends that the strategic choices of political leaders shape who votes and why.
Life experience hypothesis
The “Life Cycle Hypothesis” addresses the relationship between voting participation and
age group. Rosenstone and Hansen claim this relationship is attributed to the “social and
psychological involvements of the young and the aged.” It states that young adults are
less likely to take part, not because they lack experience, but because they feel less a part
of the community. “The general hypothesis, finally, contends that differences in
participation across age groups are artifacts of the socializing experiences of each
generation.” As people age, they acquire resources that promote participation. The
significance is that this phenomenon results in a lack of young-voter political action and
subsequent lack of focus by candidates on the youth vote and their issues. The result is a
government created for and by their parents, and thus potentially out of touch with their
needs and policy input. People acquire resources that promote participation, as they grow
older. Grow more interested and become attached to type of party or political ideology.
Life cycle Hypothesis
Contends that the relationship between age and participation (in the voting
process/politics) is a function of the social and psychological involvements of the young
and aged. Young people are not likely to participate not because they are not interested or
lack experience but because they are not integrated into communities and don’t have
social pressures to be involved. With age you become more socially and psychologically
connected with politics and your community
Generational Hypothesis
Differences in participation across age groups are artifacts of the socializing experience
of each generation. Differences in age groups are facts of social experiences of each
generation. As an individual gets older he falls into line with the rest of his generational
cohort, votes with his peer group, etc… (An older woman tends to vote for the same
candidate as the rest of older women)A votership that comes of age during a time of
4
political importance is much more likely to stay active than the generation that comes of
age in ordinary times.
Issue publics
Given range of issues, people only stay informed on those considered important. People
are really busy and don’t have time to stay involved with everything with politics. They
just know the things that they have too. There is no incentive to be informed about
Politics. There are no direct benefits to be knowledgeable. Campaign provides
information that is necessary to chose preferred candidates. Issue publics are issues that
specific sectors of the public care most about. For example, in the last election, there was
much discussion on the gay marriage amendments and how they influenced voter turnout.
This is a classic way that campaigns utilize issue publics such as in the red states in 2004
with gay rights. Issue publics are avenues in which campaigns can manipulate voter
turnout and also swing issues in their favor by taking a popular side of an issue knowing
an opponent may be on the “wrong” side of the issue.
Heuristics
Heuristics are simply shortcuts that voters can use to make the decision of for whom they
should cast their vote easier. Mostly used is party identification. It provides a quick way
to know with whom out of two candidates a voter may most agree with ideologically.
Other heuristics exist such as social groups, endorsements of the candidate, gender, and
race. Anything used to best determine the vote without working too hard would count as
an heuristic. (Info shortcuts or Cues) People rely on them to make decisions. Also they
use political ID heuristics to assume what type of person the candidate is. It is not rational
to be fully informed about politics- there are no direct benefits, better use of time, money,
energy. Heuristics allow voters to use short-cuts in political decisions making make.
Commission on Presidential Debates
The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987 to ensure and
mediate the presidential and vice-presidential debates. The debates themselves,
according to Holbrook, seem to have significant impacts on voting behaviors. For the
most part, big upsets, big mistakes, or clearly big victories are what matters in most
debates. However, Holbrook also suggests that after time, the debates even all of
themselves out as if they never happened. The commission’s suggestion on how many
debates to hold, etc. matters immensely to the parties involved. Much political wrangling
occurs trying to secure their terms on the debates in order to provide the best advantage
for their candidate. Campaigns can win or lose depending on the outcome of debates.
CPD negotiates with candidates for all debates. There were many times when a debate
was changed because of a candidate’s preference. (E.G. Bush didn’t want debate Clinton
because he knew that he would get killed. After a while there was this chicken that
started to show up at all of Bush’s rallies to protest). “Preaching to converted” – people
who generally watch debates are people hat are doing it in order to support their party.
People don’t turn on debates to see whom they think they should vote for. Debates are
also extremely late in the campaign and can’t really have any real effect because
everyone has pretty much already made up their minds. The debate is not as important as
5
the media coverage afterwards, especially for people who don’t have a chance to tune in.
If one candidate dominates it can influence the undecided.
Learning (as media effect) - Media provides information to make a decision.
Agenda setting
“Media may not tell you what to think but what to think about”. Since the public not
concerned with public issues the media shapes what they should be concerned about.
Implications for the role of media in politics.
Priming
By selective emphasis the media influences the standards by which policies are judged.
Voters weigh issues in accordance with perceived salience (Media focuses on economy
and then the voters are likely to base their vote on the state of the economy). The
attitudinal consequence of agenda-setting, in which the public comes to “weight…issues
in accordance with their perceived salience” (Iyengar). So for example if the New York
Times makes its top story the economy week after week, its readers will be primed to
think the economy is important.
Framing
The way the media talks about a certain issue can influence the way the public
understands that issue. For instance, “If the media-identified problem is framed primarily
as specific to an individual rather than as systemic, then the individual and not the
institution bears the blame. Such framing can serve to place the responsibility on the
doorstep of political leaders or elsewhere” (Davis, Press and American Politics)
In reducing the complexity of an issue the media can alter the way people see things. Or
by adding a negative tone people might perceive things differently. Even label and the
name are important (“Partial birth aborting”, “Death tax”).
Pack journalism
Everyone sees what everyone else is covering so that no one is ever behind. Key idea:
reduction in substantive value of reporting. People just copying major sources. Also,
creates "feeding frenzies" – a story will break and everyone will be covering at once,
heaping on the hype. When it’s focused on a candidate's mistake, it can be incredibly
detrimental (think Dean scream). Zaller notes how journalists want voice, but are
constrained by competition with other services – that's part of what leads to pack
journalism.
Hostile media phenomenon
Judgments of media depends on our own biases. Conservative believes that the media is
heavenly biased to the liberals and vice a versa. Shows that our PID/political beliefs that
we learn as a child act as a filter through which we understand and evaluate information.
6
Straw polls
Volunteer or “straw polls” cannot be generalized to the general population. These are
entirely voluntary polls that do not constitute a representative sample of the population in
a statistically rigorous sense.
Attack v. Contrast Ads
Negative Vs. Positive ads…Positive ads are soft images and encourage you to vote for
someone. Negative ads try and get you to vote against someone. They impose hard
images that are more fact and issue based. Challengers go negative, underdog go
negative. This election has been weird because Bush went negative so early. Negative ads
appeal more and are more effective especially amongst undecided voters. They are also
more issue related, more memorable, more expected and non normative. There are more
negative ads in closer races. Negative ads are more likely to be viewed as “news”. Makes
an easy story even if the charges are false. Negative ads are more likely to cover issues
and are more retrospective. Attack ads generally focus on a single candidate. They are
argumentative, challenge claims. They imply one candidate is better qualified, generally
more reliable than advocacy ad. Contrast ads have two candidates, generally seen as
informative. Can also be negative about a certain candidate, but they are the most
effective by lowering the public's opinion of the opponent without hurting the sponsor.
Ad watch
Slated purpose to evaluate truthfulness of ads. But…Ad watches talk about strategy and
motivation of ad. In 1996 100% of TV ad watches and 70% of newspaper ad watches
were devoted to explaining campaign strategy. Ad watches give the ads free airtime –
they are replayed on the news several times. Some are only aired on the news and never
get to air as commercials. Ad watches have declined. Media has no incentives to critique
ads because it takes away from their income.
McGovern-Fraser Reforms
Before 1960 state party leaders at national convention chose party nominees. Most states
held primaries to give signals to party leaders. Disagreement between debates and leaders
led to divisive selection. McGovern-Fraser reforms aimed at opening process- most states
to primary elections, changed most states to primary elections. Consensuses- decreased
role of party leaders in nomination selection. Increased the role of the media, activists,
and money. Consensuses- decreased role of party leaders in nomination selection.
Increased the role of the media, activists, and money.
Closed v. Open Primary
Closed primary: can only vote for party ballot. If you are registered with a party (20
states). Open Primary: can vote for either party ballot (20 states). In 2004 some states
canceled primaries because of high costs.
Party Caucuses
Caucuses are a multi-stage process that typically begins at the precinct level and progress
to state convention ¼ of states have caucuses compared with 2/3 that have primaries.
Delegates at party caucuses choose nominees.
7
Momentum
When a primary candidate gains momentum and wins consecutive states. Outcome is
more important than momentum. Media is favorable to those doing better than expected.
In early states, if you beat the expectation it might be more important than the actual
votes. Discussion of expectations and momentum instead of actual issues. Refers the
short-lived advantage to the frontrunner in a primary. As he starts to get votes and win
primaries, he appears to have a strong chance and can gain more support from his
previous successes. However, this can be a short honeymoon because the frontrunner
gets targeted and attacked by opponents and the media.
Bandwagon - The media and opponent usually target frontrunner. Bandwagon occurs
once there is a conclusion.
Winnowing - identifying those NOT in play
Death watch - Losing framed as inevitable “death watch”. Media expression that is used
during primary.
Front-loading
Each party sets the window for which primaries and caucuses must occur during each
election year. Democratic delegate selection- between 2/3. Primary calendar
characteristics by increasing frontloading. In 2000 there was a clumping of primaries on
March 7. (Mega Tuesday).
Voter Decision in Primaries
There are fewer cues available to voters in the primaries because retrospective evaluation
are not available and since the PID and ideology of primary candidates are the same. So,
voters look to electability and viability as the key factors in making decisions.
Electability
Candidate elect ability- can the candidate actually win the general election? A candidate’s
chances of winning the general election are better if he or she is able to win the
nomination without a long, potentially damaging, primary battle. Candidate electability
refers to his or her ability to win the general election after the primary. Gurian and
Haynes argue that “winning the nomination of a divided party can be a hollow victory. A
candidate’s chances of winning the general election are better if he or she is able to win
the nomination without a long, potentially damaging, primary battle.” Primary voters
often think strategically when voting the primary for this reason. Ideology and issue
positions are important here (economy and war). Personality evaluations are even more
critical as issue differences may not be that profound.
Viability
Candidate viability –can the candidate actually win the nomination or actual presidential
election? The candidates’ war chest, poll numbers, political backing and reputation from
the media measure viability. Candidate viability is whether or not a candidate is capable
8
of winning the nomination. Factors include campaign funding and or having the backing
of one’s party though issue similarities. War chests signal to the public and press that a
candidate has viability. According to Norrander, Candidate qualities, however, are the
most important (sincerity, caring…).Gurian, Haynes – poll standings and campaign
raising are the most important factors.
Incumbency advantage
Jacobson. Most prevalent in Congressional elections, this is often linked with the rational
choice model of voting because people are happy with the status quo unless there is a
drastic change. It is the idea that being the present holder of office makes your election
easier since you don’t have to prove anything, whereas the challenger has to make
promises and probably go negative first. Fenno’s Paradox that people like their own
congressman but hate Congress might explain why their re-election rates are well above
90%. Percentage of re-election increasing. Average incumbents vote share increasing.
Vanishing marginal- fewer seats are competitive (won by less than 60% of vote share).
To win a challenger must find vulnerabilities in the incumbent. Personal scandal,
incumbent is out of touch with district.
Retirement slump - average drops in party’s vote when incumbent retires.
Sophomore surge - average gain in vote share won by first time incumbents compared to
initial win.
Slurge
The “Retirement Slump,” along with the “Sophomore Surge,” (advantage in running as
first term incumbent as opposed to newcomer) is used to measure the value of
incumbency. When averaged together, these two factors create the “slurge” index. By
definition, the retirement slump is “the average drop in the party’s vote from the previous
election when the incumbent departs and the seat is thrown open.” According to David
Mayhew, incumbency advantage is responsible for the “vanishing marginals,” or
decrease in incumbent-held seats won with less than a certain percentage of the vote. This
slump, or average change in voter participation, is instrumental in predicting the potential
for parties to maintain office after the defection of their incumbent. One of the reasons
why incumbency retirement is so crucial is that it often results in the surfacing of
competitive candidates who have avoided campaigning for office while an incumbent
held the position.
Partisan Gerrymandering
Refers to arranging electoral divisions so that one political party has more power than the
other by diluting the other’s voting strength. The idea is to concentrate the opposing
party’s voters in a small number of districts that the party can win by large margins.
Republicans are more apt to redistrict to help their own party than Democrats.
Gerrymandering often produces bizarrely shaped districts and it derived its name from an
odd, salamander-like cartoon creature drawn by Elbridge Gerry.
9
Racial Gerrymandering
After 1990 census, states used racial gerrymandering to concentrate minorities. Refers to
gerrymandering according to race in which racial minorities are packed into minoritymajority districts. It is more effective than partisan gerrymandering. The Court’s
restrictions on racial gerrymandering work against Republicans because minority voters
are primarily Democrats.
Soft Money v. Hard Money
Soft Money - The Report of the Task Force on Campaign Reform defines “Soft Money”
as a category of funds raised by political parties, existing outside the limitations of
federal election law. Within the past month, the Supreme Court upheld parts of the
Campaign Reform Act which included a ban on soft money. The intended use of such
funds is for purposes of “party building” activities, but it has become a clever loophole
for financing “issue advocacy ads” which in reality support party presidential and
congressional candidates. The attraction of these gifts is that they aren’t curtailed by the
limitations and regulations that apply to federally regulated campaign money. As a result,
these funds give unfair advantages to candidates and affect their ability to have their
messages heard. They also build strong loyalties between candidates and major donors
which can create unfair special interest arrangements if and when the candidates are
elected. hard money is subject to federal regulation of campaign funds, soft money is not.
Hard Money-Contributions raised by candidates, the parties, or other political committees
subject to federal contribution limits and disclosure requirements”. Soft Moneycontributions made outside the limits and prohibitions of federal law including large
individual or PAC contributions and direct corporate or union contributions. The
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that effect in November 2002 effectively banned the
national parties and candidates from raising soft money. ““Soft money” is a category of
funds raised by political parties outside the limitations imposed by federal election law”
the intended purposed of soft money: “party building activities,” local campaigning. Soft
money has become a major loophole. Much is “issue advocacy” which clearly is meant to
support a presidential candidate but does not “expressly advocate a specific candidate”.
Not part of contribution limits. Much debate over potential regulations of soft money.
BCRA prevent officeholders and candidates from using soft money to reduce corruption.
Increased hard money caps. Allows for 527s, the “new “soft money” loophole” Large
sums collected from corporations, unions, trade groups and individuals outside the
normal limits on donations to federal campaigns.
PAC
Political Action Committees. 1974 FECA – barred corporations and interest groups from
donating directly to federal candidates. Between 1974-2002 the number of PAC’s
increased from 600 to 4,598; with most growth in the business sector. In addition to
business, labor and ideological PAC’s, many politicians have leadership. 1/3 of congress
have leadership PAC’s (can raise unlimited soft money). Delay’s “American for a
Republican Majority” PAC raised more that $2 million in 2000. If running for president.
Use to influence primary states. Just 14% of PACS contribute 82% of all OAC hard
money. The company or interest group can pay cost of overhead and fundraising, so all
collected funds can go towards election. Donations can be made to as many PAC’s as you
10
like, PAC’s pool donations so that giver can exert greater influence, PAC’s could spend
unlimited amounts of on” issue advocacy”.
527 Group
A nonprofit organization that attempts “to influence the nomination, election,
appointment or defeat of candidates for public office” but prohibited from direct election
activity (cannot “express advocacy” for election or defeat of candidate of defeat for
federal office). Regulated by IRS not FEC since don’t contribute to candidates or parties.
Can receive unlimited contributions including from foreign sources. More than 11,000
created between 2000 and 2002. 2 kinds of 527’s, serve as soft money arms of leadership
PAC’s. Which incumbents use to aid other candidates and otherwise further their own
careers. Non-politician 527’s: promote certain ideas, interests and partisan orientation in
election campaigns.
Bundling
Adding together maximum contributions to influence a candidate. Seen as one of the
loopholes to new campaign reforms. It is taking lots of maximum donations and putting
them together from one person or company to have political influence.
Issue/advocacy ads
Mostly put out by PAC’s in favor of specific candidates. PAC’s could spend unlimited
amounts of on” issue advocacy”. Issue ads cannot say to vote for or against a candidate.
Regulation of sham “issue” ads. PAC’s had higher limits; Could engage in “issue
advocacy”. Issue ads focus on political issues or influencing political opinion and
advocacy ads are ads used to tell voters to vote for or vote against a candidate of a party,
issue ads are more hard sells ads that focus on issues whereas advocacy ads are more soft
sell ads. BCRA put limitations on the use of advocacy ads.
Magic Words Test
For issue ads “functionally meaningless”. This test is to show what are issue ads and
what are advocacy ads, and basically advocacy ads say “vote for” or “vote against” but
this leaves a lot of loopholes
BCRA - Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold)
Banned soft money to national parties. States and local parties can use up to 10,000 in
soft money. Biggest change in campaign finance since 1974; immediately taken to court.
In McConnell V. FEC, SC upheld key parts of McCain-Feingold in a 5-43 decision: Soft
money ban- prohibits national parties from raising any soft money (I.E. Funds that do not
comply with federal contributions limits and source prohibitions). Require state parties to
spend only “hard” money on activities that affect federal elections. Prohibits federal
officeholders and candidates from soliciting or spending and soft money. Regulation of
sham “issue” ads. BCRA Loopholes - State and local parties can spend soft money on
activities that indirectly influence federal elections (GOTV, Voter Registration). Federal
candidates/officials can speak at fundraising events if not soliciting. Might see creation of
numerous local party committees.
11
1. Soft-money ban: prohibits national parties from raising any soft money
(i.e. funds that do not comply with federal contribution limits and
source prohibitions)
-requires state parties to spend only hard money on activities that
affect federal elections
-prohibits federal officeholders and candidates from soliciting or
spending soft money
2. Regulation of sham issue ads
-creates new category of “electioneering communications” defined
as ads that refer to federal candidates with in 30 days of primary
and within 60 days of general election
Buckley v. Valeo
Less than a year after the amendments were made to the FECA (Federal Election
Campaign Act) the case Buckley v. Valeo appeared and it led to the supreme court
upholding: the constitutionality of the contribution limits, the disclosure requirements,
and the presidential public-financing system, but it struck down: the caps on expenditures
(by a candidate’s campaign, by a candidate with personal funds, or by others spending
independently), except for voluntary limits tied to public financing in presidential
elections, and narrowed the class of political communications by independent groups
subject to regulations (i.e. disclosure limits and limits on the source an size of
contributions).this essentially left limits on contributions to candidates but no limits on
amounts spent independently on behalf on candidate loopholespaved the way for
PAC’s
Previous system established by Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974 and Buckley V,
Valeo. Before FECA, Campaigns finances by individual donations. In 1974 law required
public disclosure of contributions to candidates over $200 (hard money) established FEC
to oversee. Law limited campaign contributions, but also included a number of provisions
struck down by Supreme Court in Buckley V. Valeo (1976) Of freedom of speech
grounds. Essentially left with limits on contributions to candidates. But no limits on
amounts spent independently on behalf of candidates. There were many loopholes. Paves
way for creation of Political Action Committees 9the electoral arm of organized interests)
although the maximum contributions to a PAC is $5000 (the same as a donation of a
candidate.
FECA
Federal Election Campaign Act, first major reform; created the. Federal Election
Commission; provided public funding for pres elections. Limited campaign contributions;
required more disclosure by campaigns; limited Campaign spending (struck down by
Court) – led to creation of PACs – unlimited spending for “party building activities” –
new loopholes: soft money given to parties instead of candidates; bundling hard money
for more influence; self-financed candidates; PACs could make “issue ads”.
Duverger’s law
Single member plurality electoral rules leads to two party systems because of institutional
and Psychological barriers to minor parties. Single member plurality elections are those
12
in which vote for one candidate; candidate with most votes wins. In SMP system:
candidate A get 34% and Candidate B gets 33% and candidate C gets 33% then only
candidate A has a spot in government. Proportional representation system is common
alternative. there is a relationship between the number of parties and the type of electoral
system – SMD plurality systems usually only have two major parties and third parties are
very small, whereas in PR, there are many parties, most of them small.
Institutional Barriers:
Electoral College- winner takes all, minor party candidate can win a large portion of
popular vote but no electoral votes.
Ballot Access Restrictions: Difficult to get on the ballot, spend resources (signatures and
fees) getting on ballot while others are already campaigning.
Campaign Finance Laws: To receive public funds you must have gotten votes in the
previous election. Can only receive funds retroactively the first time.
Strategic voting
Voting for one’s second choice preference when first choice is deemed uncompetitive.
So, consider not only how much like a candidate (utility comparison) but also their
chance of winning (outcome probability) This is the opposite of “sincere voting”. You
need to consider not only how much you like a candidate (utility comparison) but also
what chance you think they have in winning the election (outcome probability).
Empirical evidence of strategic voting in primaries and among minor party supporters.
Horserace coverage encourages strategic voting.
Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem
No voting system will always make a fair choice possible between three or more
candidates. This result assures us that there is no single election procedure that can
always fairly decide the outcome of an election that involves more than two candidates or
alternatives. Use this theorem in reference to the fact that minor party candidates have
little chance of winning in election (institutional, psychological and campaign barriers)
and to justify the flaws in the Electoral College system.
Single member plurality district
Since under the plurality system you have to win the individual elections, only the big
parties have enough clout to get their candidates elected and third parties become
marginalized. Institutionalized barriers to third parties: Electoral College winner-takes-all
system, ballot access restrictions, campaign finance laws; also, psychological barriers people don’t want to vote for third party because they can’t win.
Proportional representation
The basic principles underlying proportional representation elections are that all voters
deserve representation and that all political groups in society deserve to be represented in
our legislatures in proportion to their strength in the electorate. In other words, everyone
13
should have the right to fair representation. First, they all use multi-member districts.
Instead of electing one person in each district, as we do here in the U.S., several people
are elected. These multi-member districts may be relatively small, with only three or four
members, or they may be larger, with ten or more members. The second characteristic of
all PR systems is that they divide up the seats in these multi-member districts according
to the proportion of votes received by the various parties or groups running candidates.
Thus if the candidates of a party win 40% of the vote in a 10 member district, they
receive four of the ten seats -- or 40% of the seats. If another party wins 20% of the vote,
they get two seats, and so on. This system is used in Canada, There is potential for a
minority government, and often parties have to form coalitions to get 50%.
Motor Voter
Law passed in 1993 that made it easier for people to register to vote by allowing them to
do so at the DMV and through the mail – these efforts were intended to boost voter
turnout
Majority- minority district
According to the US Supreme Court, “a majority-minority district is one in which the
majority of the district's population or the majority of its voting-age population is
composed of members of a specific racial or ethnic minority.” These districts are setup to
ensure that minorities will be able to elect their preferred representatives. The result is
often a representative who shares the racial or ethnic identity of the predominant minority
of the electorate. This becomes an important determinate of congressional and local
gerrymandering and redistricting. There has been a debate that efforts to concentrate
minority votes have violated the rights of Caucasian voters under “equal protection,” and
have changed the voter landscape in multi-ethnic districts. Because minorities tend to
vote Democratic, the Republican GOP has benefited from the concentration of minority
votes, and this has forced the question of whether or not we can legitimize drawing
district boundaries along partisan or ethnic lines. Majority of voters in a district are
comprised of a racial or ethnic minority. Thorenburg v Gingles 1986 Supreme court says
Voting Rights Act of 1965 require legislative district lines to not discriminate even
unintentionally against racial minorities-decision often interpreted to mean districts
designed in which racial or ethnic minorities are the majority. Depends on patterns of
inhabitance; constructed wherever possible. Aka racial gerrymandering
Split ticket voting
Voting for the presidential candidate of one party and Congressional candidate of
another. Jacobson studies show diminishing connection b/w presidential and
congressional voting. Split ticket voters less involved than straight party voters. Since
more info available about presidential election and in general during presidential election
years, more likely to split vote during presidential election. Could be due to well-known
incumbents and obscure challengers, pro-incumbent vote leads to split-ticket vote.
Jacobson The Politics of Congressional Elections
 Studies show diminishing connection b/w presidential and congressional voting
Converse “Information Flow and the Stability of Partisan Attitudes”
 Split ticket voters less involved than straight party voters (588)
14

Since more info available about presidential election and in general during
presidential election years, more likely to split vote during presidential election
(585-586, 590)
Fiorina
 “Voting for one party for president and another party for congress”
 Could be due to well-known incumbents and obscure challengers, pro-incumbent
vote leads to split-ticket vote
Coattail Effect
Success of party presidential candidate leads to party congressional success. Jacobson
says, “successful candidates at the top of the ticket-in national elections the winning
presidential candidate-pull some of their party’s candidates into office along with them,
ride in as it were, on their coattails”. Possible either because presidential choice directly
effects Congressional choice or because both are influenced by similar factors.
Traditional political interpretation is to say the former (it is in fact coattails/influence).
Study finds Presidential choice significant impact on Congressional choice. Defectors in
presidential race tend to also defect in house or senate indicates possibility of coattails.
Jacobson The Politics of Congressional Elections (128-132)
 “successful candidates at the top of the ticket-in national elections the winning
presidential candidate-pull some of their party’s candidates into office along with
them, ride in as it were, on their coattails”
 Possible either because presidential choice directly effects Congressional choice
or because both are influenced by similar factors
 Traditional political interpretation is to say the former (it is in fact
coattails/influence)
 Study finds Presidential choice significant impact on Congressional choice
 Defectors in presidential race tend to also defect in house or senate indicates
possibility of coattails
Scare-off advantage
Quality challengers are deterred from running if they have little chance of winning. There
has been a decline in competition in recent years. Less experienced challengers have
difficult time raising $$ (contributors want to give to winners). Consequences: media are
less likely to cover less competitive contests. Public are less informed/interested in less
competitive contests. voter decision making is less sophisticated. Ultimately, this gives
incumbent more leeway in legislative behavior
Leadership PAC
In addition to business, labor and ideological PAC’s, many politicians have leadership.
1/3 of congress have leadership PAC’s (can raise unlimited soft money). Delay’s
“American for a Republican Majority” PAC raised more that $2 million in 2000. If
running for president. Use to influence primary states.
Reapportionment
Refers to the process by which seats in the House are reassigned among the States to
reflect population changes following the decennial census.
15
Redistricting - refers to the redrawing of district boundaries in account for population
shifts.
Focus groups
A small group of people used to discuss feelings about a given issue/campaign ad/etc.
From hearing in-depth from these people, the aim is to glean useful information about the
rest of the population. Key idea: important technique in creating campaign ads, to see if
they have the desired effect.
Push Polls
Telemarketing technique in which phone calls are used to canvas potential voters, feeding
them fake info about a candidate under the pretence of taking a poll to see how info
affects voter preferences. Intent is to "push" voters away from one candidate and towards
another
GOTV
Get Out The Vote. Utilizes phones and other types of communication to mobilize voters.
Best tactic is face-to-face fieldwork. There is generally no partisanship. Just a
mobilization tactic, especially targets the age group of 18-35
Invisible Primary
The period of political time between the election of one president and the start of the first
state primary to determine the next presidential candidates. Gurian, Haynes – chance for
candidates to test the waters.
16