1.

1 .
A Q U A S I - F R E E M A R K E T M O D E L T H A T
S A Y S S O M E I D E A S A N D B E L I E F S W I L L
F L O U R I S H A N D O T H E R S F A I L B A S E D O N
F R E E C H O I C E
2 . T H I S M A R K E T P L A C E O F I D E A S
G E N E R A T E S P U B L I C O P I N I O N

Marketplace of Ideas
 Before the 19 th century the strata of society were deeply divided, caused by a

 lack of usable roads lack of effective communication media (illiteracy)

 lack of a common language
Class differences that affected languages, religion, experiences

Marketplace of Ideas
 During the 19 th century the Western world begins to establish this marketplace
 establishes a single national language (US efforts to teach immigrants English)
 establishes widespread literacy (compulsory education)
 building of roads, railroads, and telegraphs (cell phones ??)
 legal protection for free expression of ideas

Marketplace of Ideas


This “marketplace of ideas” has created certain fundamental values in the US:


Equality of opportunity
Individual freedom – limited role for government

Democracy
We see less of a commitment to these values elsewhere. Why?

Never had a feudal aristocracy

Never had strong Socialist movements

 Why do we want voting?
 promotes accountability of leaders
 is an institution of legitimization
 safety valve for social discontent
 offers groups protection against governmental abuse





Laws ensure the public notification of location, date and the registration process
Civic education either through student government or curriculum that encourages voting but not direct participation (i.e. protests)
Party system that assists with registration, civic education and party machines party loyalty creates a reason to vote

1.
electoral composition
 voting requirements - property, race, gender, age, etc…
 registration requirements - must register before election as a way to limit fraud
 because it requires an abstract commitment to voting –
 the more educated tend to vote, meaning the poor and less educated vote less often

2. Translating voters choice into electoral impact a)
Criteria for winning
 majority - 50% + 1
 plurality - greatest # of votes (mostly used in the US)
 helps larger, more powerful groups
 proportional - parties awarded seats based on % of votes
 helps smaller, weaker groups, but creates coalition governments that can be unstable

b) electoral districts (in the US House)

The number of representatives is set at 435 in 1910 (originally one for every 30,000 people as described as the minimum ratio in Article One, Section Two, Clause Three) now roughly one seat for every 700,000
 The process for allocating seats is:


Census - Constitutionally required every 10 years
Reapportionment - Seats reallocated based upon shifting population

Redistricting -- State legislatures draw boundaries




Baker v Carr (1962)
(Chief Justice Earl Warren)

Supreme Court says the courts can intervene in redistricting issues
Reynolds v Sims (1964)
(Chief Justice Earl Warren)
 established "one man, one vote" that required that each individual had to be weighted the same in terms of legislative representation

(i.e. that districts have to be the same population size) under the
Equal Protection Clause
These two rulings mean that that court appeals are now almost always the fourth step in redrawing
House districts

 Another wrinkle in redistricting is gerrymandering
(mass. Gov. Elbridge Gerry) - manipulating districts to try to influence outcome

The South used gerrymandering in the 60s and 70s to deny
African American officials office
 the practice of “cracking” would divide African American communities into different districts as an effort to limit African
American representatives

In response we see the rise of “benign gerrymandering” as an effort to increase minority representation -- a 1982 amendment to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 actually requires it, when possible




Shaw v. Reno (1993)

Court rules that white voters had standing to sue if voting boundaries were so “bizarre” as to be explained only by the effort to ensure the election of minority representatives
Miller v. Johnson (1995)

If race was a “predominant factor” in the drawing of district lines then it is presumptively constitutional
Bush v. Vera and Shaw v. Hunt
 struck down boundaries that put too much emphasis on race

 c) Insulating decision-making processes

The Electoral College (538 electors, 270 (i.e. a majority) or above to win)


Each state gets the number of electors equal to its # or reps and senators
Voters actually casting ballots for a state of electors
 Most states it is all or nothing

In Maine and Nebraska it is divided (by congressional districts and senate votes for statewide winners)

It’s left up to the house if no majority emerges

 Can be undemocratic

Calif Oregon

54 votes 7 votes

5,000 lead for A 10,000 lead for B


Can favor rural states

Alaska

626,932 people
California
33,871,648

3 votes 54 votes

208,977 people per vote 627,259 people per vote
May actually favor minority groups in urban settings

 Frequency of elections

Senate – only 1/3 is elected at a time
 Size of electoral districts

Local issues rule in the House


State issue rule in the Senate
National issues rule in the White House
 Ballot issues


Party ballot – lists only candidates from that party (or straight ticket)
 does not allow for a “split ticket”
Australian Ballot – lists candidates by position being sought

 administered by the state and allows for “split tickets” means fewer “clean sweeps”

 Need to include, but not limited to the following”

6 terms


Quotes
5 pictures


Charts
Chapter outline



