5. us democracy and participation Flashcards
1
Q
primary definition
A
- a state based election to chose a party’s candidate for presidency, it shows support for candidates amongst ordinary voters
- they are the most popular way to select a party’s nominee
2
Q
caucus definition
A
- a series of sate based meetings to choose a party’s candidate for the presidency
- they attract unrepresentative and low turnouts
- less favoured
3
Q
when did primaries first begin
A
- in the 1950s and 1960s, caucuses were the favoured method as it gave powerful party bosses a say in the nomination
- in states where they did hold primaries, parties often overrode the decision of the people and selected a different candidate (e.g. in 1968)
4
Q
the 1968 democratic nomination
A
- senator Eugene McCarthy had 38.7% of the total popular vote in the primaries
- vice president Hubert Humphrey (the eventual nominee) had 2.2% of the total popular vote in the primaries
- Humphrey was selected by the party even though he had a poor showing in the primaries
- he had a bad party convention and was eventually beaten by Richard Nixon
- this led to the democrats holding the Frazen-McGovern commission, which recommended that primaries be more widespread and that parties should select a candidate based on their results
5
Q
caucuses
A
- in 2016, the republicans held caucuses in 10 states and the democrats in 14
- however, in 2020, the democrats only held them in 4 states
- the only states that usually hold caucuses are geographically large and thinly populated, e.g. north Dakota and Nevada
- in states that hold caucuses, would be voters must physically attend the meetings to put forward their preferences
- as only the hardcore voters bother, caucuses tend to favour more ideological candidates
6
Q
Bernie Sanders
A
- runs as a democrat but is an independent senator
- the closest thing america has to a real socialist candidate
- very liberal member of the democrat party and therefore the 2020 caucuses favoured him greatly
- came first in Nevada and North Dakota and second in Iowa and Wyoming
7
Q
2020 Iowa democratic caucus
A
- the state introduced an app which was designed to simplify the process
- it didn’t work effectively and the result was initially delayed by three days
- democratic national convention leader was furious and demanded a recount
- some voters had not even been counted which meant the final result came out three weeks later
8
Q
primaries
A
- held by states and so can vary greatly from place to place
- they are mainly an election to show preferences for the nomination and to be confirmed at the national party convention
- timings of primaries: mid January - June
- super Tuesday: a day usually in March) where lots of states choose to hold their primaries
- states usually try to shift them earlier in the year so their primary has more weighting on public opinion - this is called ‘frontloading’
9
Q
different types of primary
A
- closed primary: only those who are registered member of a party can vote in these types of primary, it ensures that only loyal party members get a say
- open primary: anyone can vote in either primary and this means that cross over voting can occur
- modified primary: this means that some can register as ‘independent’ and can use this to vote in either party’s primary (New Jersey, 2020)
- primaries can also be classified according to how delegates for the party conventions are chosen; in most states, candidates win delegates to represent them proportional to the votes they get in that state’s primary - known as proportional primaries
10
Q
national party convention
A
- NPCs meet for about 4 days during the late summer of the election year
- traditionally, the challenging party goes first
- delegates are chosen by primary or caucuses, the democrats use superdelegates
11
Q
the formal functions of NPCs
A
- choosing the party’s presidential candidate
- choosing the VP candidate
- deciding the party platform
12
Q
choosing party’s presidential candidate
A
- nowadays, the candidates is largely chosen by primaries and caucuses
- the last time that there was any doubt before the convention was in 1976, where Ford beat Reagan by 17 votes
13
Q
choosing a VP candidate
A
- since and including 1984, when Walter Mondale made the announcement 4 days before the convention, the Democrats have always announced their choice before the convention
- republicans have followed suit since 1988
14
Q
deciding the party platform
A
- more recently, parties have tended to avoid heated debates in policy issues at their conventions
- the media often portrays such debates as evidence of a divided party
- the party platform is now put together by the platform committee under the direction of the party’s national committee
- the platform committee holds hearings around the Jan-June of the election year
- in 2020, the democrats had around 1,600 listening sessions in all 50 states in which 30,000 participated
- the republicans invited visitors to their website to share thoughts
15
Q
post convention bounce
A
- the increase in popular support for a candidate between immediately before and after the convention
- e.g. 2000, Al Gore - +8% PCB
16
Q
informal functions of NPCs
A
are now significantly more significant
- promoting party unity
- enthusing the ordinary voters
- enthusing the party faithful
- give future nominees a platform to impress
17
Q
promoting party unity
A
- the convention gives a prime opportunity for the president and vp candidates to appear unified before the people, following their opposition in the primaries
- 2016 convention was not particularly successful at this, as many prominent Republicans refused to endorse Trump as the presidential candidate
- Ted Cruz, Trump’s main rival in the primary, refused to endorse Trump as nominee, instead telling party members to ‘vote your conscience’ instead of ‘vote for Trump’
18
Q
enthusing the party faithful
A
- the convention provides a prime opportunity to enthuse the party faithful through speeches and appearances to help entice them to help with the vast amount of work required in running the campaign
- an example of this was Michelle Obama’s speech at the 2020 democrat convention
19
Q
enthusing the ordinary voters
A
- as ordinary voters are not present in the convention hall, they must be enthused over the television
- many voters will have paid little, if any, attention to the primaries, so the convention may be many voters’ first serious look at the candidates and their policies
20
Q
national party conventions are still important
A
- public announcement is an important function
- introduce potential candidates for future years, e.g. Obama 2004.
- enthuses ordinary voters and increases participation / interest in the election
- strengthens party unity which acts as good PR
21
Q
national party convention are no longer important
A
- the vp candidate is now decided and announced before the convention
- party platform is not as important in America – Trump didn’t change his for 2020
- party unity/affiliation/importance is weaker than in the UK, the concept of a ‘national party’ is a strange
- more style over substance – fail to perform their traditional functions
- TV viewership is declining
22
Q
from party conventions to election day
A
- the campaign intensifies
- TV and social media are used primarily
- rallies are held in potential ‘swing states’ identified in 2020 as Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Arizona
- televised presidential debate and vp debate
- election day is the Tuesday after the first Monday of November
- polls open in every state and Washington DC until 7pm, the count can take a while
23
Q
the electoral college
A
- the electoral college is an institution created by the founding fathers to elect the president and the vice president indirectly
- it was thought out to avoid the ‘tyranny of the majority’
- 538 electors in total - 435 (house members) + 100 (senators) + 3 (DC)
- Wyoming has 3 electors, the minimum number, whilst California has 55; this is reviewed every 10 years following federal census
- Washington DC has 3 electors
- 270 EC votes needed to win, therefore it is the electoral college votes not the popular vote that wins office
- in all but 2 states, the winner takes all, however this rule is not in the constitution as it is purely a convention that developed in the 19th century
- Maine and Nebraska are the exceptions where they split their votes between popular winner and the winner in each district
- if no candidate gets more than 270 votes, then the president is elected by the house of representatives
- each state would have one vote and would need an absolute majority (26/50)
- each state sends their votes to the vp, who announces the result to a joint session of congress (this was the moment of the infamous 2021 capitol building storming)
23
Q
the electoral college is undemocratic
A
- near impossible for 3rd parties to win as they usually have more spread out sporadic support and therefore get no EC votes, especially as 48/50 states use a plurality system of distribution - e.g. Perot (a 3rd party independent candidate) won 18% of the vote in 1992 and got 0 EC votes because no single state voted for him - reduces voter choice, often making people vote tactically, views go unrepresented
- EC overrepresents voters in smaller states - Wyoming has 1 elector for every 195,000 people in the state population, whereas California has 1 elector for every 719,000 people
- winner takes all, the opposition has a complete loss in representation - in 2000, Bush (50,456,582 - 271) V. Gore (50,996,582 - 267) - Bush still became president despite loosing the popular vote
24
Q
the electoral college is still democratic
A
- EC is flexible to changing times - e.g. 1972, California had 42 electors and now has 55 as the population has grown more that any other state, ensures fairer representation of the population
- produces a clear winner - e.g. when Biden won in 2020, more legitimacy, governing more effective and excludes extremist ideological parties
- EC requires popular support across the US in order to win <270 EC votes, Nixon (1960) announced at the republican NPC that he was going to campain in all 50 states
25
Q
campaign financing
A
- in 2020, the total cost of elections was close to $15 billion
- campaign finance: all funds raised to promote candidates, political parties or political initiatives
- it is a huge part of the political system but is very controversial
26
Q
hard money
A
money donated directly to a political party or an individual candidate’s campaign, these donations are capped by federal law
27
Q
soft money
A
money donated indirectly to political parties and political action committees, and therefore not tightly regulated by the law
28
Q
campaign finance laws
A
- federal election campaign act (1974)
- Buckley V. Valeo (1976)
- congress (1979)
- financing (1976 - 2008)
- McCain - Feingold act (2002)
- citizens united V. FEC (2010)
- McCutcheon V. FEC (2014)
29
Q
federal election campaign act 1974
A
- a direct result of the watergate scandal
- it reduced the amount of hard money that could be donated to a candidate, aiming to reduce the reliance on one or two very wealthy donors
- the law had many loopholes and was weakened by congress and the supreme court
30
Q
Buckley V. Valeo 1976
A
the supreme court ruled that limitations on what individuals or political action committees could spend either supporting or opposing a candidate infringed on first amendment rights
31
Q
congress 1979
A
- congress further weakened the law by allowing parties to raise money for such aspects as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives as well as ‘party-building’ activities
- this so-called soft money would soon be regarded by most as out of control, leading to the need for further reform
32
Q
1976-2008 financing
A
- between 1976 and 2008, elections were largely funded through what are known as matching funds – federal money administered by the FEC and given to presidential candidates who met certain criteria and agreed to certain limitations
- however, in 2008, democrat nominee Barack Obama opted out of matching funds, which left him free of the FEC’s fundraising and spending limitations, and was therefore able to significantly outspend his opponent, John McCain
33
Q
McCain - Feingold act 2002
A
- further reform to campaigning happened in 2002, where senators John McCain and Russel Feingold created the bipartisan campaign reform act, commonly known as the McCain-Feingold act
- it had a number of provisions, limiting contribution to individual candidates to $2300, banning national party committees from raising or spending soft money and banning contributions from foreign nationals
34
Q
citizens united V. FEC 2010
A
- this case was brought to the supreme court by the non-profit organization citizens united
- they wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton in 2008, but the district court of Colombia ruled this to be in violation of the McCain-Feingold Act, as it prohibited broadcasts that mentioned a political candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary
- however, when the case was taken to the supreme court they ruled in favour of citizens united, saying that the McCain-Feingold act violated the first amendment right to free speech
- this case granted corporate and labour organizations the same rights of political free speech as individuals, thereby giving such groups the right of unlimited independent political expenditure
- along with another judgement, speechnow.org v FEC, lead to the setting up of independent expenditure-only committees, which were soon deemed, super PACs
35
Q
McCutcheon V. FEC 2014
A
- In several subsequent cases, the supreme court has continued to favour first amendment rights over legal caps on political donations
- the 2014 McCutcheon case concerned how much and individual could donate in total to candidates and political parties
- both the McCain-Feingold Act and FECA before it only placed limits on how much could be donated to individual candidates but also placed a limit on how much one individual could donate in any election cycle to their favoured candidates
- in the 2011-12 cycle, this was set to $117,000, which was less than if someone decided to donate the maximum to all democrat or republican congressional candidates
- this was challenged successfully in the courts, meaning that individuals are now free to donate the capped amount to as many candidates as they like
36
Q
the size and nature of the USA makes campaigning expensive
A
- the increasing importance of the invisible primary means money raising is crucial to get a big enough ‘war chest’ to contest the primaries
- the salaries of campaigners, office workers, consultants, media and image advisors etc. racks up huge sums of money
- citizens united v FEC 2010 allowed for the growth of something called ‘super-PACs’ which have now become vital for success
37
Q
types of PACs
A
- PAC (political action committee): a committee which raises money and spends it on defeating or supporting a candidate
- superPAC: a political committee which makes independent expenditure in support/against a candidate, they do not make direct contributions so are unlimited
- 527: a niche PAC that is named after the tax loop-hole that allows them to donate money without limits by bypassing tax law
38
Q
election fundraising since 2016
A
- elections have become more and more expensive
- wealthy donors: Koch brothers for republicans and Bloomberg for democrats
- the 2020 election campaign saw a total spending more than the entire GDP of Armenia
- rich, elite individuals dominate fundraising; in 2020, one thousandth of the population donated one-fifth of all campaign money
- both parties benefit from this as big liberal tech owners support the democrats
39
Q
the rise of dark money
A
- dark money is money that has been donated by a secret donor
- this increased dramatically in 2020
- the pro-republican senate leadership PAC received $63 million from its allied dark money group, one nation
- across independent expenditure, only 30% came from groups that fully disclosed their donors
40
Q
money does influence elections
A
- in 2020, Biden out-fundraised Trump and won
- superior funding leads to more airtime on TV and a bigger team of campaign employees
- it is far too risky for an individual to neglect the importance of good fundraising, especially if you are an
incumbent facing a tough opponent - in the 2020 senate race for Arizona,
republican incumbent Martha McSally was outspent by $30 million by Mark Kelly and lost her seat
41
Q
money’s influence is limited
A
- money seems to follow strong and viable candidates as those who are incumbents or strong challengers tend to raise more money, it seems to confirm than create viable candidates
- in 2016, Clinton significantly outspent Trump and still lost
- money is just one factor in determining electoral success along with personality, incumbent advantage etc
- in the 2020 South Carolina senate race, republican incumbent Lindsay Graham was outspent by $40 million by the democrat challenger and still got re-elected
42
Q
features of a democratic electoral system
A
- high turnout
- all votes are counted fairly and consistently
- no discrimination against candidates
- pluralism
- multi party system
- no restrictions on who can vote
- accessibility to voting
- equal access to political education
- secret ballot
- no gerrymandering
43
Q
undermined by money
A
- variety of candidates (excludes poor politicians ad a base line of wealth in needed)
- pluralism (more wealthy are more able to run because their voices are heard more)
- high turnout (more money = more participation because they can spend more on a better campaign)
- multi party system
44
Q
money spent in elections does undermine democracy
A
- not everyone has the money required to run, as fundraising is the key to success
- bribery
- influences the range of political parties - democrats and republicans can raise more money whereas third parties can’t
- advertising and media exposure is expensive but has the biggest influence on low income and less politically educated households, candidates with more money to spend on this and can therefore ‘buy’ support
- people might not be able to afford access to information on candidates
-the rise of dark money is affecting the transparency of elections - there is correlation between money and success, e.g. Biden in 2020 outspent his opponents and was successful
- there have been successful attempts to restrict campaign finance, e.g. McCain-Feingold
45
Q
money spent in elections does not undermine democracy
A
- Hillary Clinton outspend Donald Trump in 2016 and still lost
- there are multiple other factors that affect the outcome more: candidate popularity, issues and events, the incumbency advantage etc
- campaign finance restrictions infringe upon the first amendment right to free speech
46
Q
incumbency advantage
A
- executive control and experience
- resources and access
- no need to run in the primaries
- fundraising advantage
- name recognition and media coverage
47
Q
executive control and experience
A
- got reputation and proof of the basis to their promises
- presidents can target key groups with policy shifts before an election: Obama rewarded key blocs such as hispanics with an executive order on illegal immigrants, stopping them from being deported
- then in 2011, he withdrew troops from Afghanistan, these policy successes were not available to his challenger
48
Q
resources and access
A
- the incumbent has an established campaign teach and typically outspends his opponents:
- the use of airforce 1 to get around the country
- the presidency as a permanent campaign
49
Q
no need to run in the primaries
A
no one in their party will try to run against them because it would be futile (most times)
50
Q
fundraising advantage
A
- usually the incumbent has money left in the pot from the previous election and therefore money at their disposal
- Obama had raised a lot of money in 2008 and he was able to use it in 2012 (as did Biden)
- the exception to this is often self funded candidates (e.g. Trump), who was not able to use this to his advantage in 2020
51
Q
name recognition and media coverage
A
- they do not have to worry about the invisible primary, which often depletes and exhausts presidential challengers
- the presidency almost becomes the campaign
- need to do less campaigning as they are already well known
- airtime and TV time is expensive, the serving president gets that automatically through fulfilling their role
52
Q
are americans just risk adverse, instead of there being an incumbency advantage
A
- americans tend to want to stick with what they already know
- this only really changes if there is an unforeseen event or crisis, such as the covid 19 pandemic where Trump’s response was widely criticised
53
Q
what limits the incumbency advantage
A
- being president gives you a chance to demonstrate doing a good job, but the reverse is also true, a bad presidency will make re election harder
- higher level of scrutiny for serving president, compared to a challenger
- voter fatigue - they might be bored of the current presidency and look for a change
- presidential record can used against you by the challenger
- surprising or negative events can work against you (e.g. Jimmy Carter and the iranian hostage crisis in the last year of his presidency)
- a strong third party challenger (e.g. George H. W. Bush (sr) faced a 3rd party challenge from an independent candidate called Ross Perot)
- the economy - a poor economic record can be fatal for re election (e.g. George H. W. Bush said ‘read my lips, no new taxes’ and then imposed new taxes; and Trump’s failure to kickstart the economy)
