Presidential
Selection
Historical Evolution of
Selection Processes
 The Constitution had no provision for
political parties or a nominating system.
It was simply assumed that well qualified
people would run for office and be elected.
The founders were especially suspicious of
the ability of “the people” to select and
elect a president.
 Citizens were generally illiterate and not
attuned to the sophistications required for
making coherent policy choices.
Communications was limited, and it was
very difficult for candidates to launch a
national campaign. Most important, the
people could not be trusted to select
supportive officials for the propertied class.
 Further, there was suspicion of executive
power, so it was preferred that the
selection of a president be subjugate to the
legislative branch.
 In 1796, with incumbent President George
Washington having refused a third term in
office, Federalists in Congress selected
incumbent Vice President John Adams from
Massachusetts as their candidate for the
presidency with former Governor Thomas
Pinckney of South Carolina as the next most
popular Federalist.
 Jefferson and Madison had begun organizing
an opposition to the Federalist Party starting in
1791-1793.
 Unlike the previous election of Washington,
where the outcome was a foregone
conclusion, Democratic-Republicans
campaigned heavily for Jefferson and
Madison, and Federalists campaigned heavily
for Adams and Pinckney.
 The debate was an acrimonious one, with
Federalists attempting to identify the
Democratic-Republicans with the violence
and chaos of the French Revolution and the
Democratic-Republicans accusing the
Federalists of favoring monarchy and
aristocracy.
 In foreign policy, the DemocraticRepublicans denounced the Federalists over
Jay's Treaty, perceived as too favorable to
Britain, while the French ambassador
embarrassed the Democratic-Republicans by
publicly backing them and attacking the
Federalists right before the election.
 Although Adams won the presidency,
Thomas Jefferson received more electoral
votes than Thomas Pinckney.
 The executive was therefore split, with
Federalist John Adams elected president
and Democratic-Republican Thomas
Jefferson elected vice president.
 Needless to say, this situation did not result in a
trouble-free presidency.
 Four years later in 1800 partisan congressional
caucuses met again for the purpose of
recommending candidates. Called “King
Caucus” at the time, this remained the principal
mode of selecting candidates until the 1820s.
Note that this mode of nominating presidential
candidates placed Congress in a preeminent
position.
 Ratification of 12th Amendment as discussed in
the last lecture occurred in 1803. From this point
forward, presidential elections were intrinsically
partisan in nature. Winner-take-all.
 However, the Federalist party declined rapidly
after the War of 1812, when they strongly
opposed the war at the Hartford Convention.
 The War of 1812 was very unpopular in New
England: the New England economy depended
heavily on trade, and the British blockade
threatened to destroy it entirely. In 1814, the
British Navy managed to enforce their blockade
on the New England coast, so the Federalists of
New England sent delegates to the Hartford
Convention in December 1814. The Convention
recommended secession from the Union.
 After the British defeat at the Battle of New
Orleans, under the leadership of Andrew
Jackson, intense patriotism erupted. As a
result, Federalists lost the loyalty of many
citizens. By 1816, the Federalist party had
ceased being a viable force in American
politics. (Note: British defeat at New Orleans
occurred after peace treaty favorable to
America had been signed.)
 The ensuing period of only one political party
was called the Era of Good Feelings.”
 In the 1820s, there was a breakdown in the
one party system, with the remaining
Democratic-Republican party dividing into two
factions, National Republicans and
Democrats. National Republicans supported
John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay.
Democrats supported Andrew Jackson and
William Crawford.
 The formation of these parties led to the
demise of the congressional caucus and to the
development of a more decentralized mode of
nomination that was increasingly consistent
with the sectional composition of the parties.
 By the 1830s national nominating conventions
became the principal means for brokering
interests and uniting the party for a national
election campaign.
 The first nominating convention occurred 1831
by the Anti-Mason Party, a small but relatively
active third party. Being a small party, it had
no congressional members, and therefore
organized a general meeting in which
delegates came from state parties who chose
nominees as well as determined the party’s
positions on important issue of the day.
 Jacksonian Democrats followed suit in 1832
with the first national nominating convention by
a major party. Afterward, national nominating
conventions became the standard method for
selecting nominees and for articulating party
positions (platforms).
 The modern Democratic Party traces its
origins to 1828, and is the oldest of our
modern political parties. Andrew Jackson is
generally associated, but Martin Van Buren
was largely responsible for the development of
a party organization. Until about 1837, the two
parties were actually called Jacksonian and
Anti-Jacksonian.
 National Republicans advocated federal
money for internal development, government
promotion of commercial interests through
high tariffs and low taxes on the wealthy, and
a strong National Bank that would provide
easy credit to business entrepreneurs. The
Constitution was to be interpreted flexibly to
allow these policies.
 Jacksonian Democrats advocated free
markets, no federal money for internal
development, tariffs and excise taxes that
were only sufficient to fund the government,
and were against a National Bank. The
Constitution was to be interpreted strictly so
that states rights were protected, and it did not
allow the policies advocated by the National
Republicans.
 After this, two major parties emerged calling
themselves Democrats and Whigs.
Whigs morphed from Federalists and National
Republicans.
 The modern Republican Party was born in
1854, when the Whigs were split between
those supporting and opposing the KansasNebraska Act, which would have allowed
slavery in the new western territories.
 Republicans were largely from the North and
opposed the extension of slavery, while
Southerners largely favored it.
 Republican Abraham Lincoln won the
presidency in 1860 on an anti-slavery platform,
and support for increased federal promotion of
business and commercial interests.
 Interestingly, early Republicans were
supporters of big business, and wanted to use
the power of the central government as a
means for promoting commerce. Thus, original
Republicans were unlike modern Republicans
regarding the role of the central government.
 Trace the development of American political
parties here.
 Early nominating conventions were informal
and rowdy affairs. Choosing delegates to the
nominating conventions was left to state
parties, and more particularly to the leadership
of state parties. There was nothing
democratic about it. Public participation at
either the state or national level was extremely
minimal. Candidates were selected for the
public, rather than by the public.
 Selection processes were not democratic; nor
were those who were selected representative
of the general population. They did serve the
purpose of facilitating governing.
 Nineteenth century conventions
served a variety of purposes.
 Forum for party bosses to articulate
their positions
 Agreements with other bosses could
be negotiated at these conventions,
and support mobilized
 By brokering interests, they helped
unite disparate elements withing the
party converting an agglomeration of
state organizations into a national
coalition for the purpose of electing a
president and vice-president
 The nominating position buttressed
the position of party officieals, but at
the expense of rank and file party
members. The influence of
leadership depended on the ability of
party leaders to deliver the votes. To
ensure loyalty, party leaders hand
picked their delegations.
 Demands for reform began to be heard
at the beginning of the 20th century. A
number of states changed their mode of
delegate selection to permit greater
public participation.
 This movement was short-lived: Low
voter turnout in primaries, high costs of
elections, opposition of party leaders to
primaries. Many state legislatures made
their primaries advisory only and some
disappeared altogether.
 Consider the dynamics of the following
graphs.
 Until the 1970s, presidential candidates
avoided primaries. They were seen as
an all lose situation. Again, candidates
were selected by party leaders and
elites, rather than through popular
judgements. Candidates, therefore, had
everything to lose by entering primaries.
Occasionally, primaries were seen as
means of testing one’s political
popularity. Eisenhower in 1952;
Kennedy in 1960; Johnson in 1968. In
each case they wanted to prove to party
leaders that they could win in the
general election by winning first in
primaries.
 As shown by the graphs, conventions
still settled the nomination process until
the 1970s.
 What happened to cause a change to a
more democratic process?
 The television age and higher visibility of
political events had a profound effect.
There was a growing sense that
conventions were anti-democratic as a
result of televised coverage of the
conventions.
 New interest groups pushing for
attention and representation. Civil rights,
anti-Vietnam War, gay rights.
 The image produced by the 1968
Democratic nominating convention in
Chicago was very powerful. Protests
and police. Groups locked out of the
convention. WASP America inside
nominating the president.
Reforms in Modern
Selection Processes
 Two major reforms mark changes in modern
selection processes: changes in party
nomination procedures and federal regulation
of money in elections.
 Both sets of reforms were a response to
particular conditions.
 Television and greater visibility of nomination
processes. Growing importance of the media.
 Reaction to the failed Johnson presidency,
Vietnam, and demand for more democratic
accountability.
 Reaction to the extremely tumultuous 1968
Democratic National Convention where
“bosses” determined the outcome.
 Reaction to growing sense of the importance
of money in politics.
 A response to political corruption and
Watergate.
Party Reforms
 McGovern Commission-After the ’68
convention, the Democratic party appointed
commissions to examine the rules for delegate
selection.
 As a result of these initiatives the following
party rules changes occurred.
In primary states:
 Delegates had to be chosen in the calendar
year of the convention.
 3/4 of the delegates had to be elected in
districts no larger than those for members
of Congress.
 The allocation of delegates to candidates
had to reflect fairly the popular vote that the
candidates received within the state (no
winner take all).
In non-primary states:
 Delegates had to be selected in multistage
caucuses that were well publicized in
advance to allow adequate time for
campaigning.
 Proxy voting was abolished.
 In all states the Democratic party promoted
more equal representation of the rank in
file in the delegations themselves. It did
this by implementing affirmative action
plans for specific groups. Beginning in
1980 half the Democratic party delegates
had to be women.
 One consequence of these reforms was
that primaries became the preferred
method of delegate selection. To avoid
having their delegates challenged at the
conventions, many state legislatures simply
had the voters choose them.
 This meant that the Republican party had
to follow the lead of the Democrats. It was
impossible for state legislatures to choose
one mode of delegate selection for
Democrats and another for Republicans.
 Since 1972 the party nominating
processes have become more open and
participatory and less elite oriented. It
has become a more decentralized
process.
 The changes in party nominating
procedures has also meant a more
candidate centered, rather than party
centered process.
 This has in turn meant less candidate
loyalty to the party. It has also meant
that nominees can count on less support
after election from those loyal to the
parties.
 The increased reliance on primaries has
meant less brokering in a convention,
and that the nomination is usually
“sewed up” long prior to the convention.
 Other effects
 Demographic representation to conventions
has become more reflective of the
population, especially within the Democratic
party.
 However, ideologically those who have
attended conventions as delegates for both
parties have tended to be more ideological
and issue oriented than the general
population.
 Democrats have tended to be more liberal,
and Republicans have tended to be more
conservative than the population generally.
 Further reforms by the Democrats after
1980. Only a few states were given
permission to have primaries before March
of the election year in an effort to shorten
the contest. A sort of window strategy was
adopted by the Democrats which
compressed and frontloaded the schedule.
States moved their contests to the
beginning of the period in order to
maximize their influence on the results.
 The current nominating process of U.S.
presidential elections currently consists of two
major parts: a series of presidential primary
elections and caucuses held in each state, and
the presidential nominating conventions held
by each political party.
 This process was never included in the United
States Constitution, and thus evolved over
time by the political parties to clear the field of
candidates.
 The primary elections are run by state and
local governments, while the caucuses are
organized directly by the political parties.
Some states only hold primary elections, some
only hold caucuses, and others use a
combination of both. These primaries and
caucuses are staggered between January and
June before the federal election, with Iowa and
New Hampshire traditionally holding the first
presidential state caucus and primary,
respectively.
 Like the general election, presidential
caucuses or primaries are indirect elections.
The major political parties officially vote for
their presidential candidate at their respective
nominating conventions, usually all held in the
summer before the federal election.
 Depending on each state's law and state's
political party rules, when voters cast ballots
for a candidate in a presidential caucus or
primary, they may be voting to award
delegates "bound" to vote for a candidate at
the presidential nominating conventions, or
they may simply be expressing an opinion that
the state party is not bound to follow in
selecting delegates to their respective national
convention.
 Along with delegates chosen during primaries
and caucuses, state delegations to both the
Democratic and Republican conventions also
include "unpledged" delegates who can vote
for whomever they want. For Republicans,
these include top party officials. Democrats
have a more expansive group of unpledged
delegates called "superdelegates", who are
party leaders and elected officials.
 Here is a link to a Congressional Research
Service report that describes the presidential
nomination process for 2016 in some detail.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42533.pdf
Note: The numbers in each shaded row are for states
where the process for Republicans and Democrats are the
same. The numbers for R and D indicate the number of
states where the process applies only to Republicans or
Democrats.
 Here is a link that gives the presidential
primary, caucus, and state convention dates
for the 2016 presidential election where you
can see how “front loaded” the process really
is.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/events.p
html?s=c
See especially, March 6, Super Tuesday
Other Key Dates:
 2016 Democratic National Convention will
be held during the week of July 25, 2016 in
Philadelphia, PA
 The 2016 Republican National Convention
was held starting on July 18, 2016 in
Cleveland, OH.
 There is no rule dictating order, but since
1936 the incumbent party has held its
convention second.
Regulation of Money
 The role of money in a democracy has
been a topic of philosophical debate for
centuries. Money is a potential basis for
diluting people’s votes in a democracy
and buying influence.
 Out of this concern came the notion of
taxpayer-financed elections. The first bill
to include a public funding provision was
introduced in December 1904 by
Representative William Bourke Cockran
of New York. He believed that "it might
be possible for the government of the
United States to do away with any
excuse for soliciting large subscriptions
of money" by financing elections with
public funds. In 1907, President
Theodore Roosevelt advocated "an
appropriation for the proper and
legitimate expenses of each of the great
national parties." Similar sentiments
were expressed, and legislative
proposals introduced, during much of
the first half of this century.
 However, despite its enduring appeal
with some lawmakers, a public funding
law was not passed until 1966, and
much of that statute was subsequently
repealed. The momentum it generated,
however, led to the eventual passage of
the Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971 (FECA) and the Revenue Act of
1971.
 Then, in 1974, as a reaction to the
events of Watergate, Congress enacted
the 1974 amendments to the FECA,
which established public financing of
Presidential primaries, nominating
conventions and the Presidential
election itself by amending the
Presidential Election Campaign Fund
Act and by enacting the Presidential
Primary Matching Account Act.
 The reforms had four purposes:
 limit skyrocketing campaign expenditures
 limit the influence of large contributors on
political behavior
 make the contributions process more open
 subsidize through public expenditures
national campaigns.
 The FECA created an agency, the
Federal Election Commission (FEC) to
implement the law and to assure that
contributors and candidates complied.
That agency still regulates the use of
money in federal elections. Here is their
website where you can find lots of
information on how this all works.
http://www.fec.gov .
 In Buckley vs. Valeo (1976), an opinion
issued by the Supreme Court, the
legislation was challenged as an
infringement on First Amendment rights
of free speech. The Supreme Court
upheld Congress’ right to regulate
contributions and expenditures of
campaign organizations, but not the
independent spending of individuals
during campaigns. As a result, if money
is channeled through groups or parties it
is subject to the law; if money is spent
by individuals independently of the
campaign then it has until recently
remained unregulated.
 The Federal Election Campaign Act of
1976 was a response to the Court
decision and did the following:
 Provided for public disclosure of all
contributions and expenditures over a certain
amount. At the FEC website you can find out
who gave what to whom and how much
using a search engine.
 Placed limits on individual and group
contributions to candidates. Originally,
individuals could give $1000 to each
candidate, $20,000 to the national party, and
$5,000 to a political action committee.
Political Action Committees could give $5000
to a candidate, $15000 to the national party,
and $5000 each to other PACs. Party
Committees could give $1000 to candidates,
unlimited amounts to the National Party, and
$5000 to PACs.
 Provided federal matching subsidies to
candidates for the party’s nomination and
election.
 The public funding program, which has
financed every Presidential election
since 1976, consists of three parts:
 Matching funds for Presidential primary
candidates who have met certain eligibility
requirements;
 Grants to sponsor political parties'
Presidential nominating conventions; and
 Entitlements for the general election
campaigns of major party nominees and
partial funding for qualified minor and new
party candidates.
 The Federal Election Commission (FEC)
administers the public funding program.
The Commission determines which
candidates and committees are eligible
for public funds, and in what amounts.
 The program is funded by the check-off
that appears on federal income tax
forms. Originally was $1, now $3, so the
amount available for public funding is
not indexed to inflation.
How the Primary Matching Fund
System Works
 Partial public funding is available to
Presidential primary candidates in the
form of federal matching payments.
Candidates seeking their party's
nomination to the Presidency can qualify
to receive matching funds by raising
over $5,000 in each of 20 states (i.e.,
over $100,000).
 Primary election candidates seeking
matching funds must submit a letter of
agreements and certifications. This
document is a contract with the
government. In exchange for public
funding, the candidates promise to
comply with the provisions of the
Federal Election Campaign Act and the
Presidential Primary Matching Payment
Account Act. As part of this agreement,
candidates pledge to limit national
spending for all primary elections and to
limit spending in each state based on its
voting age population. In 2000, George
W. Bush chose not to accept public
funding for the primary campaign.
To see who spent what during past
presidential primary seasons go to
opensecrets.org.
Historical Data
2008
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.p
hp
2012
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.p
hp
2012 Top Contributors and to Whom
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib
all.php?cycle=2012
How General Election Funding Works
 The Presidential nominee of each major party
is eligible for a public grant of $20 million (plus
a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA)) for the
general election campaign. Considering the
cost of living change since 1976, certifications
of $84.10 million each were made by the FEC
for the general election campaigns of Barack
Obama versus John McCain..
 To be eligible, candidates must agree to limit
their spending to the amount of the grant and
must pledge not to accept private contributions
for the campaign.
 Minor party candidates and new party
candidates may qualify for partial general
election funding, based on their party's
electoral performance.
 Note that these funds do not include money
spent by the political parties and soft money.
 Go to the following link to find a more
complete description of the process.
http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.shtml .
 For more information on presidential
election funding go to
http://www.fec.gov/info/pfund.htm
Soft Money
 Money raised and spent outside the
limitations and prohibitions of the federal
election law is commonly called "soft
money." It has often consisted of large
donations from individuals, corporations
and labor unions. These funds, which
are usually given to state and national
party committees, cannot legally be
raised or spent to influence federal
elections. Some critics have argued that
soft money is being raised and spent in
ways that may affect federal candidates,
including those running for President.
 To fully understand the perceived soft
money problem, one must examine how
the money is raised and how it is spent.
Generally, these expenditures, while
billed as get out the vote initiatives, have
been spent on issue ads that do not
directly advocate a particular candidate,
but which imply one candidate over the
other. Soft money expenditures in the
last two presidential elections have
become virtually indistinguishable from
other campaign expenditures.
The McCain-Feingold-Cochran
Campaign Reform Bill of 2002
 A Ban on Soft Money. The bill
prohibited all soft money contributions to
the national political parties from
corporations, labor unions, and wealthy
individuals. State parties that are
permitted under state law to accept
these unregulated contributions are
prohibited from spending them on
activities relating to federal elections,
including advertising that supports or
opposes a federal candidate. In
addition, federal candidates are
prohibited from raising soft money.
These provisions shut down the
Washington soft money machine,
prohibiting the $100,000, $250,000 and
even $500,000 contributions that for the
last decade have flowed to the political
parties.
 McCain-Feingold-Cochran also doubled
the amount of "hard" money individuals
may contribute to state parties for use in
federal elections, from $5,000 to
$10,000. It increased the amount of
"hard" money an individual may
contribute in aggregate to all federal
candidates, parties, and PACs in a
single year from $25,000 to $30,000.
 Restrictions on "Phony Issue Ads"
Run by Corporations and Unions
(The Snowe-Jeffords
Amendment). First adopted as part of
McCain-Feingold during the Senate's
February 1998 campaign finance
debate, the Snowe-Jeffords amendment
addressed the explosion of thinly-veiled
campaign advertising funded by
corporate and union treasuries. These
ads skirted federal election law by
avoiding the use of direct entreaties to
"vote for" or "vote against" a particular
candidate. Under the bill, labor unions
and for-profit corporations are prohibited
from spending their treasury funds on
"electioneering communications."
 Foreign Money. McCain-FeingoldCochran also strengthened current law
to prohibit foreign nationals from making
any contributions in a federal, state or
local election. The foreign money
abuses from the 1996 election that
captured so much attention have been
entirely shut down by this proposal.
 Greater Disclosure and Stronger
Election Laws. McCain-FeingoldCochran bill also contained a number of
provisions designed to improve
disclosure of campaign finance
information and strengthen enforcement
of the law.
 Rule 527 in the Internal Revenue Code provides
for tax exemptions for advocacy groups organized
to raise money for political activities. The 527s
have been around for years, but not until 2002 -when the soft-money loophole was closed -- did
they develop.
 The 527s are not officially involved with political
parties and are not subject to campaign-finance
restrictions.
 Provided they don't directly endorse candidates,
these groups are able to spend money during the
campaign without violating federal campaign
spending and contribution limits.
 Democrat-leaning groups formed some 527s
quickly:
 · The Media Fund, financed with millions from
billionaire George Soros.
 · MoveOn.org Voter Fund, blasted President
George W. Bush for losing U.S. jobs to
outsourcing.
 Republican-leaning groups also formed. The 527
that garnered the most attention: Swift Boat
Veterans for Truth, which financed ads attacking
Democrat John Kerry's Vietnam service
Citizens United versus Federal
Election Commission
 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,
558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), 558 U.S. ––––, 130
S.Ct. 876 (January 21, 2010) held that the First
Amendment prohibits government from placing
limits on independent spending for political
purposes by corporations and unions. The 5–4
decision originated in a dispute over whether the
non-profit corporation Citizens United could air a
film critical of Hillary Clinton, and whether the
group could advertise the film in broadcast ads
featuring Clinton's image, in apparent violation of
the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act,
commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act in
reference to its primary Senate sponsors.
 The decision reached the Supreme Court on
appeal from a January 2008 decision by the
United States District Court for the District of
Columbia. The lower court decision had upheld
provisions of the 2002 act, which prevented the
film Hillary: The Movie from being shown on
television within 30 days of 2008 Democratic
primaries.
 The Supreme Court reversed the lower
court, striking down those provisions of the
McCain–Feingold Act that prohibited all
corporations, both for-profit and not-forprofit, and unions from broadcasting
“electioneering communications.”

An "electioneering communication" was
defined in McCain–Feingold as a broadcast,
cable, or satellite communication that
mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a
general election or thirty days of a primary.
 The Court did uphold requirements for
disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of
advertisements. The case did not involve
the federal ban on direct contributions from
corporations or unions to candidate
campaigns or political parties, which remain
illegal in races for federal office.
Getting the
Nomination
 Requisites for Getting the Party’s Nomination
 Time and energy devoted to the preprimary and pre-convention period.
 Strong, in depth organization for the initial
primaries and caucuses.
 A firm financial base must be established
early on.
 Strategy. Understanding of the rules of the
game. Magnifying victories, minimizing
defeats.
 Groups within parties must be targeted and
appeals to them be made. Over the course
of the campaign, however, these appeals
must be moderated. If the overall
constituency is too narrow it is impossible
to win the general election.
 The actual strategy that candidates use
is variable. Poorly known candidates
must establish credibility. Winning early
primaries or caucuses guarantees
media attention and name recognition.
Carter in 1976 is an example of an
underdog strategy. He went all out on
New Hampshire and gained recognition
from there.
 Incumbents do not have a problem of
name recognition and credibility They
have to maintain credibility, not establish
it. Johnson lost credibility in 1968 with a
loss in New Hampshire and withdrew
from the race. Incumbents often do not
announce their candidacy until late.
The Convention
 As discussed previously, due to reforms
in the pre-convention process the
nomination is typically sewed up long
before the convention. Modern
conventions do not, therefore, select the
nominees, but do serve other purposes.
 Highly visible events that crystallize party
loyalists. They excite the faithful. Giant pep
rally.
 Serve as an initial point for presidential
campaigns.
 Party platforms state the policy positions of
the group.
 For parties the purpose is to show off
nominees, policy positions; from the
perspective of the candidate to start building
the broad based coalition required for
governing; from the standpoint of groups it is
to gain visibility, and support for positions.
 At least formally conventions make some
judgments. Establish rules for the
convention, accept or reject delegate
credentials, forge party platforms, and
choose the standard bearers.
 The coalition decides on a platform, which
may or may not be helpful during the
campaign. Bush in 1992 and the abortion
issue at the Republican convention.
Prior Experience of Recently Nominated
Candidates
 Roosevelt was Governor of New York; Truman
was a United State Senator and Vice
President; Eisenhower was a General of the
Army; Kennedy was a U.S. Senator; Johnson
was a U.S. Senator, Nixon was a Vice
President under Eisenhower, Ford was a
member of the House of Representatives.
George H.W. Bush was the most experienced
public official to be president since Roosevelt.
 More recently, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and
George W. Bush were former governors. Prior
to that Carter was a Naval Officer and peanut
farmer. Reagan was an actor and president of
a union. Clinton was an attorney and former
Rhodes Scholar. Bush was an oil man and
baseball team owner.
 Barack Obama was a United States Senator
from Illinois.
The Election
 Elections are about:
 Leadership style, personality, individuals,
party loyalties, media diversions
 Accountability for past and future actions
(past for incumbents; future for nonincumbents).
 Resolution of Group Conflict, an important
stabilizing mechanism for the political
system
 Legitimize the Regime
 Cycles of change. Politicians tend to
become more responsive to constituencies
as elections approach. For presidents this
increased responsiveness and focus occurs
4 years into the presidency.
 Establish a National Policy Agenda
Who Wins is Determined by:
 Party Identification. Party ID acts as a cue
signaling views on issues, as well as liking for
candidates regardless of those candidate’s
personalities, styles, etc. Party ID tends to be
a long term stabilizing factor.
 When Party Identification is weak or missing,
other factors become important. Candidate
image, personality and style, good looks,
religion, advertising, etc. Experience in office
for challengers. Character issues such as
trust, integrity, candor. However, these factors
tend to be short term influences of political
behavior.
 To be important, issues must stand out from
campaign rhetoric. They must attract attention
and hit home.
 Elections may be determined by voter turnout.
Turnout, in turn, is affected by: Voter
registration laws (e.g., Florida in 2000). Efforts
of the parties to get out the vote.
Demographics. Weather patterns.
 Campaign finance-The costs of a
presidential campaign have spiraled
upward since the 1960s. Money does
not predict election outcomes, especially
for incumbents. Incumbents are known
quantities with name recognition. Money
does little to boost this. Challengers
need money to achieve name
recognition and exposure to the public.
 News Coverage-The press has
assumed an increasingly important role
in presidential election campaigns.
Good press, bad press can both affect
election outcomes. George H.W. Bush
received a lot more negative press in
1992 than did either Perot or Clinton. He
was depicted as unsympathetic and
elitist. Likewise, George W. Bush
received a lot more good press in 2000
than Gore. Bush’s lack of verbal
abilities was depicted as folksy, rather
than a mark of ignorance and illiteracy.
Gore who was obviously intelligent and
articulate was depicted as too
intellectual, stiff, and lacking in
personality.
Electoral College
 The electoral college is an important
strategic consideration for candidates
seeking the presidency.
 Representation-wise, each person’s
vote is more important in the smallest
states.
 However, the winner take all rule in 48
of the 50 states means that there is an
incentive for candidates to focus only on
states they have a chance of affecting.
 This also means that large populous
states are more important to the election
and receive more attention.
 Only in the first 2 elections, when Washington
was the unanimous choice, did the electors
exercise a nonpartisan and presumably
independent judgment as was intended by the
founding fathers.
 Within 10 years the party system had begun to
develop and electors became its political
captives. Nominated by the party, they were
expected to vote for the party’s candidates,
and did. In 1800 all of the electors voted for
Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. The
election was cast to the House of
Representatives, which chose Jefferson since
it was controlled by the Federalist party.
 The constitution was amended in 1803 to
provide separate balloting for President and
Vice President.
 Various non-decisive elections occurred during
the 19th century. In 1824, John Q. Adams
won over Andrew Jackson, and two other
candidates. Jackson had the most electoral
votes, but not a majority. The House selected
Adams over Jackson, allegedly because of
political favors offered to the Speaker of the
House.
 In 1876 Tilden received 253 thousand more
popular votes than his Republican rival,
Rutherford B. Hayes. However, he was short of
an electoral vote majority. The election was sent
to the House which was Republican, and Hayes
became president.
 In 1888 Grover Cleveland had 95,000 more
popular votes than Republican Benjamin Harrison.
However, Harrison had the majority of the
electoral votes and became president.
 The election of 2000 resulted in Al Gore receiving
about 544,000 more popular votes than Bush.
However, Bush received the most electoral votes
after five conservative justices of the Supreme
Court gave him Florida’s electoral votes by
denying the validity of a recount in three heavily
Democratic Florida counties.
 All total, there have been four presidents out of 44
who have lost the popular vote, but become
president on the basis of the electoral vote (John
Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin
Harrison, and George W. Bush).
 There have also been eighteen presidents out of
44, who have received less than 50 percent of the
popular vote.
 There were other close calls. Dewey in 1948 if
carrying California (needed about 12000
votes); Kennedy in 1960 (9000 votes in
Missouri and Illinois), Nixon (1968 with a
change of 55000 votes in 3 states), Carter in
1976 (10000 votes in Hawaii and Ohio).
 Here are some links where you can see the
electoral and popular vote results through
American history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Stat
es_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_m
argin;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Stat
es_presidential_elections_by_Electoral_Colleg
e_margin
 Should we have an electoral college, rather
than a popular vote? Obviously there are
consequences to the design of the founding
fathers.