Participation in Government by the Electorate
The American republic allows citizens several ways to participate in government. Many Americans believe the only way to be involved is to vote, but there are far more ways to be active.
One of the more common forms of participation is through protest. Citizens with a common cause organize a protest to demonstrate their desire to see some sort of policy change implemented. By themselves, protests usually don't cause a change in policy. However, that doesn't mean they aren't still worthwhile events. Protests are valuable because they allow for a group to let it be known to both the government and the public that they're disaffected about a particular issue. A protest also generates media interest and thus, the public becomes more educated about a cause they might have never known otherwise.
Political discussion is another form of participation in America. Because we are free to speak openly about the government without fear of punishment, Americans can exchange ideas about politics. While discussing ideas doesn't always change someone's mind, you can make them more aware of the perspective of the opposition.
While communication with other private citizens is helpful, citizens often prefer to communicate with policy makers and the media instead. Contacting members of the government is useful because they are the people responsible for making the decisions about the rules and regulations that govern the nation. These members of government rely on voters to stay in power, so they are always willing to listen, even if they don't agree with citizens.
Contacting the media is extremely helpful because of the ability of the media to magnify an issue. When members of the press broadcast or publish a story about your particular cause, other people will become aware of your problem.
Individuals or groups wanting to become more involved in government also can make financial contributions to a candidate's campaign or political group. Donating money to a political campaign has an effect on a politician. It doesn't guarantee that a politician is going to vote the way you want them to, but it does buy access to a politician.
One of the more popular methods of becoming involved with the political process is to join an overtly political group -- such as a political party or an interest group. Membership in these groups help to magnify the issue that particular group represents. Also, members benefit by being around others who are like-minded in their thinking.
Many citizens go further than working for a political party or group, but actively campaign for a specific candidate running for office. Political campaigns require large numbers of volunteers to carry out an enormous amount of tasks, including answering phones, creating and mailing out flyers, and canvassing neighborhoods. In return, people gain valuable experience in politics and often are the people who receive jobs when their candidate is elected into office. They also tend to have access to the people in positions of power, who rely on them for carrying out various tasks.
Once people gain a certain amount of experience running a campaign, they often decide to run for office themselves. This provides a person with the ability to become a decision maker in government.
Finally, the one form of political participation in which a majority of Americans actually participate is voting. For any American to vote, they must have reached the age of 18 by Election Day. Despite the ease of voting, many Americans do not participate because some impediments to voting still exist.
One of the complaints from Americans is that a person must voluntarily register before they can vote. For most of the nation's history, residents of any given area would go to their local county courthouse to register. In more rural areas, this actually could be an obstacle because the courthouse could be so far out of the way for residents.
To correct this problem, Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act (1993). This law allowed voters to register at their local Division of Motor Vehicles when they received a driver's license. The rationale was that people had to go to their DMV anyway, so allowing them to register to vote would eliminate the need for a trip to the courthouse.
Another problem for voters is the fact that our elections take place on Tuesdays. Most Americans do not have the ability to get to the polls because employers typically do not allow for people to leave work to vote. Local governments have attempted to alleviate this by extending polling hours to as early as 6 a.m. and as late as 7:30 p.m.
Can you answer: what other obstacles exist that prevent a higher voter turnout?
Historically, minorities have faced unfair obstacles that have been put in place by because of racism. Voter discrimination took place mainly in the South because of the animosity towards black Americans after the Civil War. This element of racism still lingers in the modern world, but some of the barriers have been eliminated.
Poll taxes were one way that minorities were prevented from voting. Black voters in the South were subject to a 'tax' before they could vote. Because most black Americans were living in poverty, they couldn't afford to pay to vote. The poll tax also was not applied to white voters. Ultimately, the 24th Amendment to the Constitution banned poll taxes.
Black Americans were also subjected to so-called literacy tests, which required them to have a certain amount of knowledge about American government, or require them to read certain passages from books to demonstrate literacy. These existed in the South until Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which specifically outlawed the use of these literacy tests.
Grandfather clauses were another method by which minorities were discriminated against. These were laws passed by Southern states in the post Civil War era that allowed for blacks to avoid taking the literacy tests if they could prove they had a grandfather that had been an eligible voter or a soldier. Since most blacks prior to the Civil War were slaves, they had no voting eligibility thus future generations would not be eligible to vote either. Grandfather clauses were eventually ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1915.
Since the elimination of these three barriers to voting, the process has become more open and easier to access. In areas where significant minority populations exist that speak another language, ballots are printed in other languages to assist these citizens. Illiteracy is not a valid reason to prevent someone from voting.
The newest controversy over the issue of voting stems from some states passing laws that require voters to present a photo ID before casting a ballot. These states claim these types of laws are in place to prevent voter fraud from occurring. Opponents challenge these laws, claiming they are designed for no other purpose than to discriminate against minorities, who have lack the financial resources at times to purchase a photo ID. Their claim is that this represents an indirect form of a poll tax.
Can you answer: Do you believe that requiring people to present a photo ID before voting is an unfair obstacle to the process? Why or why not?
Voter Turnout
Different types of elections tend to generate different levels of turnout among the electorate. Voter turnout is always the highest in presidential election years, where we typically see between 50%-60% of eligible voters casting ballots. During presidential elections, the president is being elected, but so are one-third of senators, and all 435 House members. Many states hold their elections for legislatures and governor as well.
In mid-term elections, the voter turnout drops off significantly. A typical figure for these election years is approximately 35%. These elections still provide a great deal of significance, as all 435 House members are up for re-election, and anther one-third of senators have expiring terms. Yet, because the presidency is not on the ballot, many people presume this type of election is not as important.
Mid-term elections also serve as a sort of referendum on how the president is doing halfway through his administration. For instance, the 2014 mid-terms saw Republicans gain a large number of seats in both the House and Senate, signifying that voters were not satisfied with President Obama and the Democratic policies.
Some states hold what are known as off-year elections, where they hold elections for state offices in odd numbered years, so that they do not coincide with elections for federal offices. The advantage of this concept is that each election allows voters to focus on only a few races, so that they might make better, more informed decisions.
The negative aspect to off-year elections is that voters typically begin to feel what political scientists call "voter fatigue." This is the result of Americans being inundated with so many elections, which have ridiculously long campaign seasons. This translates to voters not coming out to vote in these state-wide races because they're tired of all the campaign signs and television commercials.
Who comes out to vote?
Though it can be very difficult to predict which people will come out to vote, certain correlations exist between characteristics and the likelihood of that person voting.
The level of education of a voter is probably the most significant in determining whether or not a person will come out to vote. People with higher levels of education are more apt to vote because they understand the significance of the process and how the government works.
Race is another factor in examining who comes out to vote. White people, statistically, come out to vote more often than minorities. However, this doesn't mean white people are somehow more intrinsically motivated to vote. The impact of race on likelihood of voting is connected to the level of education. Since most minorities had been kept an educational disadvantage for so long in American history, they haven't reached the same educational level as white Americans. When educational levels are similar among black and white citizens, black Americans have a slightly higher level of voter turnout.
When comparing gender, women turn out at higher rates to vote than men. The reason comes from the reality that women haven't had the right to vote as long as men. They appreciate it more because they know what it's like to not have the ability to vote. There are women still alive today who lived in a time where women were not empowered to vote.
Age is another important determinant in voter turnout. The older a person becomes, the more likely they are to vote. As people grow older, they tend to accumulate more wealth, and they are likely to have a family. They have more to lose, which results in them understanding the importance of voting.
Voter turnout can also be linked to a person's marital status. Married people will vote more often than singles. When individuals get married, they have to worry about someone other than themselves. Marriages usually result in children also, which means a person thinks more about the future. To protect that future generation, they will be more likely to vote than a person who isn't married.
Voting Choices
Americans tend to make choices for politicians by any one of three different methods. Prior to the 20th century, many Americans cast their votes on the basis of political party. It was very common for people to engage in straight-ticket voting, where they would vote for every candidate of their preferred political party.
After 1900, elections became more candidate centered, politicians didn't rely on the parties as heavily. Also, Americans became disillusioned with catastrophes brought on by both parties. Thus, more Americans started to split their ticket, voting for some members of both parties.
As the century progressed, Americans started to vote based more on candidate appeal. Yes, that's right, the image and likability of a person often determines if a person will vote for a candidate or not. Certain aspects of one's image are seen as essential. When was the last time we had a president with facial hair? How many bachelor presidents have occupied the White House? Americans feel like they need a president or member of Congress that they can relate to.
Finally, some Americans will vote based on the issues and policies they believe are best for the nation. Voting on issues and policies is difficult because it requires that people inform themselves and despite the availability of information, it can be problematic to distinguish between fact and fiction.
When people do opt to vote on policies, there are two ways they can go about this. Many Americans engaged in what's called retrospective issue voting, where a person examines what a candidate for office has done in the past. People may also cast a ballot based on prospective issue voting, where they vote based on what a candidate promises to do if elected.
Can you answer: which of these three methods do most Americans use when voting, and why?
Elections in the United States
There are some facets in American elections that are fairly unique when compared to the rest of the world. One such aspect about our election process is that elections are regularly scheduled. The elections held here are not delayed or cancelled for any reason. Regardless of what is transpiring in the nation or the world, elections must go on. A notable example took place during the Presidential Election of 2012, when Superstorm Sandy hit the New York-New Jersey area, causing massive damage and large amounts of snowfall which prevented many people from voting.
Elected offices in the United States also have fixed terms, a specific amount of time that person can hold office before facing re-election. Additionally, the terms for the United States Senate are staggered, so that no more than one-third of the Senate can be voted out of office in any one election. This guarantees some consistency in leadership.
The fact that terms of office are fixed leaves some candidates creates a possibility for what we call lame ducks. These are politicians who have only a limited amount of time left in office and know they aren't coming back (because they're retiring, not running, or have lost the election).
Most American elections also work on a winner-take-all system. The system rewards only the candidate who receives a plurality (the most) of the votes. When we elect candidates, we elect them in what's called a single-member plurality system. This means a single individual represents an entire district based on receiving a plurality of the votes.
Many European nations use a model that works opposite to the American system. Instead of a winner-take-all principle, they use proportional representation. This concept usually works on a system where voters cast ballots for a political party instead of a single person. Voters make their choices for certain political parties, and when the ballots are counted, that particular party gets a certain number of seats in the lawmaking body based on the percentage of votes they receive.
For instance, imagine that a nation's lawmaking group has 100 seats available. When the votes are counted for each party, here is the result.
The Birthday Party - 40%
The Toga Party - 25%
The Communist Party - 5%
The Gangsta Party - 30%
The Birthday Party would receive 40 out of the 100 seats available in the law making group. The Gangsta Party would receive 30, the Toga Party 25, and the Communist Party would get 5. This system is more representative of what the people want. It also rewards parties who don't win the election, but still receive a large amount of support from the people. Proportional representation tends to encourage a government with multiple political parties, whereas a winner-take-all system tends to breed a two-party system.
Congressional Elections
When people elect members of the Senate and House of Representatives, there are certain trends that have developed. One of these is that incumbents tend to win re-election from 80%-90% of the time. Many incumbents hold what are considered to be safe seats, where they don't face any real threat of being defeated in an election.
In the House of Representatives, elections and election strategy differ slightly than Senate races. During the primary elections, when multiple Democrats square off against one another and multiple Republicans do the same, they are attempting to find the one candidate to run against the other major party's candidate.
In these primaries, the biggest focus for any challenger is gaining visibility. As someone who is not an elected official already, it will be difficult to receive as much media attention or have access to as many resources. Getting your name to become a more frequently used household name is the great challenge, and candidates must also appeal to their base, meaning Democrats must take more liberal positions and Republicans tend to take more conservative positions. Most incumbents usually don't face serious challenges in their primaries.
If a candidate is fortunate enough to win his or her primary election, they move to the general election and the focus of the campaign changes. At this point, candidate usually have to soften their positions and move towards the middle to appeal to the more moderate voters who don't strongly identify with either major political party.
During the general election, incumbents hold most of advantages and thus, they tend to win more often. Incumbents win because:
Senate elections are similar to House races, but they tend to breed more competition because the Senate is more prestigious. The terms are longer and there are less seats in the Senate than the House. Thus, parties want to fight hard to get their candidate in office so that they become an incumbent. Because of the level of competition for Senate seats, more money is spend on these elections than in a House race.
Presidential Elections
Held once every four years, presidential elections have taken on a life all their own. They're complex, they have tradition, and the outcome determines who will become the most powerful person in the free world.
If a person wants to run for president as a candidate for one of the two major parties, they must first receive that party's official nomination. The nomination must be won through primary elections and caucuses throughout the nation's 50 states and other territories.
States typically hold their primaries or caucuses at different times of the year. Traditionally, in the January of the election year, Iowa holds the first caucus and New Hampshire holds their primary within the few days following. Though tradition holds that these two states hold these top spots, the political parties must officially sanction when any state holds their primaries. When states attempt to move up their primary dates to make their presidential primaries more relevant, it's referred to as frontloading.
Other states become particularly annoyed with Iowa and New Hampshire holding these first two positions because of the enormous amount of media attention and money that come into these areas. Candidates spend much of their time and energy into these two states because it sets a tone for the rest of the nation. Winning one or both of these two states sets a trend for a candidate as a frontrunner.
The presidential primary season lasts from January to June, and often, the states whose primaries are at the end of that season find that their votes don't really matter because a candidate has typically secured enough votes to have officially won the party's nomination by that date. Not only are their votes disregarded, they receive little to no attention from the candidates, the media, or the financial benefits.
When a candidate receives a certain percentage of votes, they receive a certain number of "pledged delegates" who will go to the national convention and vote for that candidate when the party asks for nominations for president. At the national convention, the candidate who receives the majority of delegates voting for them will receive the party's nomination for president.
Typically, the more popular candidates start to distance themselves from the field after Super Tuesday, a date usually in late February or early March where a large number of states hold their primaries.
Once its time for the national party convention that summer, the pledged delegates will travel there to help select the president. The pledged delegates cast most of the votes at the national convention, but both parties allow for a portion of the delegates to be what the Democrats call "superdelegates" and the Republicans refer to them as unpledged delegates. These delegates are not obligated to vote in any particular manner. They are usually individuals who are important to the party. For instance, in 2008 and 2012, former President Bill Clinton was a superdelegate at the Democratic National Convention.
In most campaigns, being a superdelegate or unpledged delegate just means that a person receives a nice trip to the party's national convention. They have rarely decided the outcome of a party's nomination process. However, in 2008, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton went through the entire primary season while virtually splitting the pledged delegates. At the party's convention, the superdelegates helped tip the balance in favor of Obama receiving the nomination.
The National Party Convention
Every four years, each party holds a national convention to take on multiple tasks. At the convention, the delegates will cast their votes (as their states instruct them) for their preferred candidate. Whomever receives the majority of the delegates' votes will be the party's nominee for the presidency. In some rare instances, no candidate receives a majority of the votes from delegates. If that occurs, then a brokered convention must take place. In these situations, supporters for each candidate must attempt to woo delegates to change their votes. (After the first round of voting, pledged delegates are no longer obligated to their state's choice.) The party delegates will continue voting until one candidate receives a majority of votes.
By the time of the convention, the party's nominee is usually known and they have selected a running mate, who will also be officially nominated at the convention. When a candidate selects a running mate to potentially be their vice president, they find someone who has strengths where they are weak. You want someone who complements you and creates a stronger 'team'.
For instance, President John Kennedy selected Lyndon Johnson as his running mate despite the fact the two men had very little in common. Kennedy was from the Northeast, relatively young, from a wealthy family, and had an Ivy League education. Johnson was an older, foul-mouthed Southerner who came from a poor family in Texas. What did the two have in common? Kennedy couldn't really appeal to Southerners on his own.
When picking a running mate, it's also wise to select someone who will not attempt to upstage your candidacy for president. In 2008, John McCain gambled by selecting Sarah Palin, then a little known governor from Alaska. He hoped that a younger, more conservative woman would give him a broader level of support. McCain's gamble backfired, as Palin was making the news with all sorts of witty banter, wild statements, and one-liners. She became more of the story than McCain, particularly when became more evident that McCain was not going to win the election.
Winning enough primary elections to receive the party's nomination can be extremely time consuming and difficult, which is why some candidates opt to not run with any party and skip the primaries to run in the general election as an independent.
The advantage of not running in a primary is that a candidate could focus his or her funds and attention towards the general election. The major problem with running as an independent (or third party) candidate, is that you must go to each individual state and fulfill their requirements to be placed on the ballot for president. Each state has a different standard for a candidate's name to be placed on the ballot. Some simply require a fee to be paid, while others require large numbers of signatures from citizens. Most independents or third-party candidates have difficulty marshaling the manpower and money to fulfill these requirements.
The General Election and the Electoral College
Once the two major parties have nominated their candidates for president, the campaigning becomes more intense. A key portion of the campaign season are the three presidential debates that take place in the month prior to the election. During the debates, candidates have a great chance to articulate their positions on policies and to answer any criticisms that have been levied against them. Additionally, the vice-presidential nominees engaged in one debate.
Since 1988, the presidential debates have been arranged by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), which was created and maintained by the two majority parties. They negotiate the specifics of each debate and the two sides consider every practical detail. Will the candidates be standing or sitting? Are the questions known ahead of time? Where will each debate be held? Who will moderate the debate? Will there be a town hall format? Can the candidates bring notes or take notes during the debate? These are the types of considerations each party works to negotiate so they can attempt to create a more advantageous atmosphere for their candidate.
Independents and third-party candidates can become involved in the presidential debates, but the criteria for being invited prevents most candidates from being involved. Candidates wishing to be a part of the debates must:
Gaining more than 15% support in the national polls almost always excludes third-party candidates. Voters typically don't support these candidates because they know the two major parties almost always win elections. And third party candidates don't win because they don't receive support.
Can you answer: Should the requirements to be a part of the presidential debates be eased to allow more access? Why or why not?
One of the unique and sometimes misunderstood facets about presidential elections is the fact that we do not use a popular voting system. The United States selects its president through a body of people known as the Electoral College. The sole purpose of the Electoral College is to choose the president and vice-president. To win the presidential election, a candidate must receive a majority of the votes from Electoral College members (which is currently 270 out of 538).
The number of Electoral College members is always the sum of members in the House of Representatives, the members of the Senate, and three votes for Washington, D.C. Each state receives a different number of members for the Electoral College based on its House and Senate membership.
For instance, California has 53 members in the House and 2 senators, therefore they have 55 total members in the Electoral College. West Virginia has 3 members in the House, and 2 senators, so the total is 5 members in the Electoral College.
Each state has their own method for determining how they will choose their members of the Electoral College. In almost every state, a popular vote is taken among the people and whomever receives the most votes in the state will receive all of the Electoral votes for that state. It works on a winner-take-all principle. If a candidate wins the state of California by one vote, they would still receive all 55 Electoral votes.
What most Americans find frustrating about the Electoral College is that members have no legal obligation to vote in the way their state tells them to. When a member of the Electoral College deviates from what their state selects, they are said to be a faithless elector. While faithless electors have gone against the wishes of their state from time to time, none have ever changed the outcome of a presidential election.
Americans become frustrated with the Electoral College because citizens are accustomed to voting for nearly every other office. There is no Constitutional right or guarantee that a person has the right to vote for president. The Electoral College was written into the Constitution as a means of choosing the president to compromise between competing groups.
At the Constitutional Convention, some had suggested a popular vote for president while another faction hoped to have Congress select the president (a model similar to British Parliament). The compromise was to create a small body of people whose sole job was to choose the president.
When a candidate is in the general election, the strategy and tactics are based upon winning what are called battleground states (sometimes labeled 'swing states'). These states are ones that have a fairly even split of Democrats and Republicans that could be tipped in either direction in winning the election.
Democrats don't spend much time campaigning in states such as California or New York because those states are traditionally far more liberal and almost always vote Democrat in presidential elections. Why would you bother campaigning in a state you know you'll win? That logic holds true for states that you know you probably won't win. For a Democrat, why would you bother campaigning in Texas when you know it's most likely to vote Republican.
With that in mind, candidates spend time and money in the battleground states. Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida are three states that traditionally end up being swing states. Each one is also worth a significant number of electoral votes.
If no candidate receives a majority of the votes in the Electoral College, the president and vice-president will be chosen by the House of Representatives, whereby each state would receive only one vote. The states would all vote until one candidate receives a majority of the states' votes.
Twice in American history, the House was responsible for choosing the president -- in the Election of 1800 and against in 1824.
The American republic allows citizens several ways to participate in government. Many Americans believe the only way to be involved is to vote, but there are far more ways to be active.
 |
| In 2011, the Occupy Wall Street movement became a way for Americans to vent their frustration |
Political discussion is another form of participation in America. Because we are free to speak openly about the government without fear of punishment, Americans can exchange ideas about politics. While discussing ideas doesn't always change someone's mind, you can make them more aware of the perspective of the opposition.
While communication with other private citizens is helpful, citizens often prefer to communicate with policy makers and the media instead. Contacting members of the government is useful because they are the people responsible for making the decisions about the rules and regulations that govern the nation. These members of government rely on voters to stay in power, so they are always willing to listen, even if they don't agree with citizens.
Contacting the media is extremely helpful because of the ability of the media to magnify an issue. When members of the press broadcast or publish a story about your particular cause, other people will become aware of your problem.
One of the more popular methods of becoming involved with the political process is to join an overtly political group -- such as a political party or an interest group. Membership in these groups help to magnify the issue that particular group represents. Also, members benefit by being around others who are like-minded in their thinking.
Many citizens go further than working for a political party or group, but actively campaign for a specific candidate running for office. Political campaigns require large numbers of volunteers to carry out an enormous amount of tasks, including answering phones, creating and mailing out flyers, and canvassing neighborhoods. In return, people gain valuable experience in politics and often are the people who receive jobs when their candidate is elected into office. They also tend to have access to the people in positions of power, who rely on them for carrying out various tasks.
Once people gain a certain amount of experience running a campaign, they often decide to run for office themselves. This provides a person with the ability to become a decision maker in government.
Finally, the one form of political participation in which a majority of Americans actually participate is voting. For any American to vote, they must have reached the age of 18 by Election Day. Despite the ease of voting, many Americans do not participate because some impediments to voting still exist.
 |
| Every vote counts! Ask Al Gore about that ... |
One of the complaints from Americans is that a person must voluntarily register before they can vote. For most of the nation's history, residents of any given area would go to their local county courthouse to register. In more rural areas, this actually could be an obstacle because the courthouse could be so far out of the way for residents.
To correct this problem, Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act (1993). This law allowed voters to register at their local Division of Motor Vehicles when they received a driver's license. The rationale was that people had to go to their DMV anyway, so allowing them to register to vote would eliminate the need for a trip to the courthouse.
Another problem for voters is the fact that our elections take place on Tuesdays. Most Americans do not have the ability to get to the polls because employers typically do not allow for people to leave work to vote. Local governments have attempted to alleviate this by extending polling hours to as early as 6 a.m. and as late as 7:30 p.m.
Can you answer: what other obstacles exist that prevent a higher voter turnout?
Historically, minorities have faced unfair obstacles that have been put in place by because of racism. Voter discrimination took place mainly in the South because of the animosity towards black Americans after the Civil War. This element of racism still lingers in the modern world, but some of the barriers have been eliminated.
Poll taxes were one way that minorities were prevented from voting. Black voters in the South were subject to a 'tax' before they could vote. Because most black Americans were living in poverty, they couldn't afford to pay to vote. The poll tax also was not applied to white voters. Ultimately, the 24th Amendment to the Constitution banned poll taxes.
Black Americans were also subjected to so-called literacy tests, which required them to have a certain amount of knowledge about American government, or require them to read certain passages from books to demonstrate literacy. These existed in the South until Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which specifically outlawed the use of these literacy tests.Grandfather clauses were another method by which minorities were discriminated against. These were laws passed by Southern states in the post Civil War era that allowed for blacks to avoid taking the literacy tests if they could prove they had a grandfather that had been an eligible voter or a soldier. Since most blacks prior to the Civil War were slaves, they had no voting eligibility thus future generations would not be eligible to vote either. Grandfather clauses were eventually ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1915.
Since the elimination of these three barriers to voting, the process has become more open and easier to access. In areas where significant minority populations exist that speak another language, ballots are printed in other languages to assist these citizens. Illiteracy is not a valid reason to prevent someone from voting.
The newest controversy over the issue of voting stems from some states passing laws that require voters to present a photo ID before casting a ballot. These states claim these types of laws are in place to prevent voter fraud from occurring. Opponents challenge these laws, claiming they are designed for no other purpose than to discriminate against minorities, who have lack the financial resources at times to purchase a photo ID. Their claim is that this represents an indirect form of a poll tax.
Can you answer: Do you believe that requiring people to present a photo ID before voting is an unfair obstacle to the process? Why or why not?
Voter Turnout
Different types of elections tend to generate different levels of turnout among the electorate. Voter turnout is always the highest in presidential election years, where we typically see between 50%-60% of eligible voters casting ballots. During presidential elections, the president is being elected, but so are one-third of senators, and all 435 House members. Many states hold their elections for legislatures and governor as well.
 |
| Voter turnout in mid-terms falls dramatically from presidential elections |
Mid-term elections also serve as a sort of referendum on how the president is doing halfway through his administration. For instance, the 2014 mid-terms saw Republicans gain a large number of seats in both the House and Senate, signifying that voters were not satisfied with President Obama and the Democratic policies.
Some states hold what are known as off-year elections, where they hold elections for state offices in odd numbered years, so that they do not coincide with elections for federal offices. The advantage of this concept is that each election allows voters to focus on only a few races, so that they might make better, more informed decisions.
The negative aspect to off-year elections is that voters typically begin to feel what political scientists call "voter fatigue." This is the result of Americans being inundated with so many elections, which have ridiculously long campaign seasons. This translates to voters not coming out to vote in these state-wide races because they're tired of all the campaign signs and television commercials.
Who comes out to vote?
Though it can be very difficult to predict which people will come out to vote, certain correlations exist between characteristics and the likelihood of that person voting.
Race is another factor in examining who comes out to vote. White people, statistically, come out to vote more often than minorities. However, this doesn't mean white people are somehow more intrinsically motivated to vote. The impact of race on likelihood of voting is connected to the level of education. Since most minorities had been kept an educational disadvantage for so long in American history, they haven't reached the same educational level as white Americans. When educational levels are similar among black and white citizens, black Americans have a slightly higher level of voter turnout.
When comparing gender, women turn out at higher rates to vote than men. The reason comes from the reality that women haven't had the right to vote as long as men. They appreciate it more because they know what it's like to not have the ability to vote. There are women still alive today who lived in a time where women were not empowered to vote.
Age is another important determinant in voter turnout. The older a person becomes, the more likely they are to vote. As people grow older, they tend to accumulate more wealth, and they are likely to have a family. They have more to lose, which results in them understanding the importance of voting.
Voter turnout can also be linked to a person's marital status. Married people will vote more often than singles. When individuals get married, they have to worry about someone other than themselves. Marriages usually result in children also, which means a person thinks more about the future. To protect that future generation, they will be more likely to vote than a person who isn't married.
Voting Choices
Americans tend to make choices for politicians by any one of three different methods. Prior to the 20th century, many Americans cast their votes on the basis of political party. It was very common for people to engage in straight-ticket voting, where they would vote for every candidate of their preferred political party.
After 1900, elections became more candidate centered, politicians didn't rely on the parties as heavily. Also, Americans became disillusioned with catastrophes brought on by both parties. Thus, more Americans started to split their ticket, voting for some members of both parties.
As the century progressed, Americans started to vote based more on candidate appeal. Yes, that's right, the image and likability of a person often determines if a person will vote for a candidate or not. Certain aspects of one's image are seen as essential. When was the last time we had a president with facial hair? How many bachelor presidents have occupied the White House? Americans feel like they need a president or member of Congress that they can relate to.
 |
| JFK is the foremost example of candidate appeal |
Finally, some Americans will vote based on the issues and policies they believe are best for the nation. Voting on issues and policies is difficult because it requires that people inform themselves and despite the availability of information, it can be problematic to distinguish between fact and fiction.
When people do opt to vote on policies, there are two ways they can go about this. Many Americans engaged in what's called retrospective issue voting, where a person examines what a candidate for office has done in the past. People may also cast a ballot based on prospective issue voting, where they vote based on what a candidate promises to do if elected.
Can you answer: which of these three methods do most Americans use when voting, and why?
Elections in the United States
There are some facets in American elections that are fairly unique when compared to the rest of the world. One such aspect about our election process is that elections are regularly scheduled. The elections held here are not delayed or cancelled for any reason. Regardless of what is transpiring in the nation or the world, elections must go on. A notable example took place during the Presidential Election of 2012, when Superstorm Sandy hit the New York-New Jersey area, causing massive damage and large amounts of snowfall which prevented many people from voting.
Elected offices in the United States also have fixed terms, a specific amount of time that person can hold office before facing re-election. Additionally, the terms for the United States Senate are staggered, so that no more than one-third of the Senate can be voted out of office in any one election. This guarantees some consistency in leadership.
The fact that terms of office are fixed leaves some candidates creates a possibility for what we call lame ducks. These are politicians who have only a limited amount of time left in office and know they aren't coming back (because they're retiring, not running, or have lost the election).
Most American elections also work on a winner-take-all system. The system rewards only the candidate who receives a plurality (the most) of the votes. When we elect candidates, we elect them in what's called a single-member plurality system. This means a single individual represents an entire district based on receiving a plurality of the votes.
Many European nations use a model that works opposite to the American system. Instead of a winner-take-all principle, they use proportional representation. This concept usually works on a system where voters cast ballots for a political party instead of a single person. Voters make their choices for certain political parties, and when the ballots are counted, that particular party gets a certain number of seats in the lawmaking body based on the percentage of votes they receive.
For instance, imagine that a nation's lawmaking group has 100 seats available. When the votes are counted for each party, here is the result.
The Birthday Party - 40%
The Toga Party - 25%
The Communist Party - 5%
The Gangsta Party - 30%
The Birthday Party would receive 40 out of the 100 seats available in the law making group. The Gangsta Party would receive 30, the Toga Party 25, and the Communist Party would get 5. This system is more representative of what the people want. It also rewards parties who don't win the election, but still receive a large amount of support from the people. Proportional representation tends to encourage a government with multiple political parties, whereas a winner-take-all system tends to breed a two-party system.
Congressional Elections
When people elect members of the Senate and House of Representatives, there are certain trends that have developed. One of these is that incumbents tend to win re-election from 80%-90% of the time. Many incumbents hold what are considered to be safe seats, where they don't face any real threat of being defeated in an election.
In the House of Representatives, elections and election strategy differ slightly than Senate races. During the primary elections, when multiple Democrats square off against one another and multiple Republicans do the same, they are attempting to find the one candidate to run against the other major party's candidate.
In these primaries, the biggest focus for any challenger is gaining visibility. As someone who is not an elected official already, it will be difficult to receive as much media attention or have access to as many resources. Getting your name to become a more frequently used household name is the great challenge, and candidates must also appeal to their base, meaning Democrats must take more liberal positions and Republicans tend to take more conservative positions. Most incumbents usually don't face serious challenges in their primaries.
If a candidate is fortunate enough to win his or her primary election, they move to the general election and the focus of the campaign changes. At this point, candidate usually have to soften their positions and move towards the middle to appeal to the more moderate voters who don't strongly identify with either major political party.
During the general election, incumbents hold most of advantages and thus, they tend to win more often. Incumbents win because:
- They have the franking privilege, which allows them to send out pieces of mail to their constituents without paying postage (the taxpayers pick up the tab for that).
- They have more access to the media. Reporters want to talk to people who are already in office because their decisions have a direct impact on citizens.
- They have more name recognition. Most Americans are likely to be more familiar with the people on the ballot who are already in office because they've been mentioned more often than challengers.
- They receive more money in campaign donations. In House elections, incumbents usually outspend their opponents by a 2 to 1 margin. They spend more money because people and groups are more likely to give to an incumbent -- someone who is a proven winner.
 |
| Just sign your name if you're a member of Congress! |
Presidential Elections
Held once every four years, presidential elections have taken on a life all their own. They're complex, they have tradition, and the outcome determines who will become the most powerful person in the free world.
If a person wants to run for president as a candidate for one of the two major parties, they must first receive that party's official nomination. The nomination must be won through primary elections and caucuses throughout the nation's 50 states and other territories.
States typically hold their primaries or caucuses at different times of the year. Traditionally, in the January of the election year, Iowa holds the first caucus and New Hampshire holds their primary within the few days following. Though tradition holds that these two states hold these top spots, the political parties must officially sanction when any state holds their primaries. When states attempt to move up their primary dates to make their presidential primaries more relevant, it's referred to as frontloading.
 |
| Iowa and New Hampshire are that important to the primary system ... |
Other states become particularly annoyed with Iowa and New Hampshire holding these first two positions because of the enormous amount of media attention and money that come into these areas. Candidates spend much of their time and energy into these two states because it sets a tone for the rest of the nation. Winning one or both of these two states sets a trend for a candidate as a frontrunner.
The presidential primary season lasts from January to June, and often, the states whose primaries are at the end of that season find that their votes don't really matter because a candidate has typically secured enough votes to have officially won the party's nomination by that date. Not only are their votes disregarded, they receive little to no attention from the candidates, the media, or the financial benefits.
When a candidate receives a certain percentage of votes, they receive a certain number of "pledged delegates" who will go to the national convention and vote for that candidate when the party asks for nominations for president. At the national convention, the candidate who receives the majority of delegates voting for them will receive the party's nomination for president.
Typically, the more popular candidates start to distance themselves from the field after Super Tuesday, a date usually in late February or early March where a large number of states hold their primaries.
Once its time for the national party convention that summer, the pledged delegates will travel there to help select the president. The pledged delegates cast most of the votes at the national convention, but both parties allow for a portion of the delegates to be what the Democrats call "superdelegates" and the Republicans refer to them as unpledged delegates. These delegates are not obligated to vote in any particular manner. They are usually individuals who are important to the party. For instance, in 2008 and 2012, former President Bill Clinton was a superdelegate at the Democratic National Convention. In most campaigns, being a superdelegate or unpledged delegate just means that a person receives a nice trip to the party's national convention. They have rarely decided the outcome of a party's nomination process. However, in 2008, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton went through the entire primary season while virtually splitting the pledged delegates. At the party's convention, the superdelegates helped tip the balance in favor of Obama receiving the nomination.
The National Party Convention
Every four years, each party holds a national convention to take on multiple tasks. At the convention, the delegates will cast their votes (as their states instruct them) for their preferred candidate. Whomever receives the majority of the delegates' votes will be the party's nominee for the presidency. In some rare instances, no candidate receives a majority of the votes from delegates. If that occurs, then a brokered convention must take place. In these situations, supporters for each candidate must attempt to woo delegates to change their votes. (After the first round of voting, pledged delegates are no longer obligated to their state's choice.) The party delegates will continue voting until one candidate receives a majority of votes.
By the time of the convention, the party's nominee is usually known and they have selected a running mate, who will also be officially nominated at the convention. When a candidate selects a running mate to potentially be their vice president, they find someone who has strengths where they are weak. You want someone who complements you and creates a stronger 'team'.
For instance, President John Kennedy selected Lyndon Johnson as his running mate despite the fact the two men had very little in common. Kennedy was from the Northeast, relatively young, from a wealthy family, and had an Ivy League education. Johnson was an older, foul-mouthed Southerner who came from a poor family in Texas. What did the two have in common? Kennedy couldn't really appeal to Southerners on his own.
When picking a running mate, it's also wise to select someone who will not attempt to upstage your candidacy for president. In 2008, John McCain gambled by selecting Sarah Palin, then a little known governor from Alaska. He hoped that a younger, more conservative woman would give him a broader level of support. McCain's gamble backfired, as Palin was making the news with all sorts of witty banter, wild statements, and one-liners. She became more of the story than McCain, particularly when became more evident that McCain was not going to win the election.
Winning enough primary elections to receive the party's nomination can be extremely time consuming and difficult, which is why some candidates opt to not run with any party and skip the primaries to run in the general election as an independent.
The advantage of not running in a primary is that a candidate could focus his or her funds and attention towards the general election. The major problem with running as an independent (or third party) candidate, is that you must go to each individual state and fulfill their requirements to be placed on the ballot for president. Each state has a different standard for a candidate's name to be placed on the ballot. Some simply require a fee to be paid, while others require large numbers of signatures from citizens. Most independents or third-party candidates have difficulty marshaling the manpower and money to fulfill these requirements.
The General Election and the Electoral College
Once the two major parties have nominated their candidates for president, the campaigning becomes more intense. A key portion of the campaign season are the three presidential debates that take place in the month prior to the election. During the debates, candidates have a great chance to articulate their positions on policies and to answer any criticisms that have been levied against them. Additionally, the vice-presidential nominees engaged in one debate.
Since 1988, the presidential debates have been arranged by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), which was created and maintained by the two majority parties. They negotiate the specifics of each debate and the two sides consider every practical detail. Will the candidates be standing or sitting? Are the questions known ahead of time? Where will each debate be held? Who will moderate the debate? Will there be a town hall format? Can the candidates bring notes or take notes during the debate? These are the types of considerations each party works to negotiate so they can attempt to create a more advantageous atmosphere for their candidate.Independents and third-party candidates can become involved in the presidential debates, but the criteria for being invited prevents most candidates from being involved. Candidates wishing to be a part of the debates must:
- The CPD requires that the candidate qualify to have his/her name appear on enough state ballots to have at least a mathematical chance of securing an Electoral College majority in the 2012 general election.
- The CPD requires that the candidate have a level of support of at least 15% (fifteen percent) of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly-reported results at the time of the determination.
Gaining more than 15% support in the national polls almost always excludes third-party candidates. Voters typically don't support these candidates because they know the two major parties almost always win elections. And third party candidates don't win because they don't receive support.
Can you answer: Should the requirements to be a part of the presidential debates be eased to allow more access? Why or why not?
One of the unique and sometimes misunderstood facets about presidential elections is the fact that we do not use a popular voting system. The United States selects its president through a body of people known as the Electoral College. The sole purpose of the Electoral College is to choose the president and vice-president. To win the presidential election, a candidate must receive a majority of the votes from Electoral College members (which is currently 270 out of 538).
The number of Electoral College members is always the sum of members in the House of Representatives, the members of the Senate, and three votes for Washington, D.C. Each state receives a different number of members for the Electoral College based on its House and Senate membership.
For instance, California has 53 members in the House and 2 senators, therefore they have 55 total members in the Electoral College. West Virginia has 3 members in the House, and 2 senators, so the total is 5 members in the Electoral College.
Each state has their own method for determining how they will choose their members of the Electoral College. In almost every state, a popular vote is taken among the people and whomever receives the most votes in the state will receive all of the Electoral votes for that state. It works on a winner-take-all principle. If a candidate wins the state of California by one vote, they would still receive all 55 Electoral votes.
What most Americans find frustrating about the Electoral College is that members have no legal obligation to vote in the way their state tells them to. When a member of the Electoral College deviates from what their state selects, they are said to be a faithless elector. While faithless electors have gone against the wishes of their state from time to time, none have ever changed the outcome of a presidential election.
Americans become frustrated with the Electoral College because citizens are accustomed to voting for nearly every other office. There is no Constitutional right or guarantee that a person has the right to vote for president. The Electoral College was written into the Constitution as a means of choosing the president to compromise between competing groups.
At the Constitutional Convention, some had suggested a popular vote for president while another faction hoped to have Congress select the president (a model similar to British Parliament). The compromise was to create a small body of people whose sole job was to choose the president.
When a candidate is in the general election, the strategy and tactics are based upon winning what are called battleground states (sometimes labeled 'swing states'). These states are ones that have a fairly even split of Democrats and Republicans that could be tipped in either direction in winning the election.
Democrats don't spend much time campaigning in states such as California or New York because those states are traditionally far more liberal and almost always vote Democrat in presidential elections. Why would you bother campaigning in a state you know you'll win? That logic holds true for states that you know you probably won't win. For a Democrat, why would you bother campaigning in Texas when you know it's most likely to vote Republican.
With that in mind, candidates spend time and money in the battleground states. Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida are three states that traditionally end up being swing states. Each one is also worth a significant number of electoral votes.
If no candidate receives a majority of the votes in the Electoral College, the president and vice-president will be chosen by the House of Representatives, whereby each state would receive only one vote. The states would all vote until one candidate receives a majority of the states' votes.
Twice in American history, the House was responsible for choosing the president -- in the Election of 1800 and against in 1824.
No comments:
Post a Comment