Democracy and participation Flashcards
When did the first presidential election occur
The first presidential election (PE) was held in 1788 and since then a PE has been held every four years - even if the president (P) dies in office, there is still no special election (When P John Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, Vice President Lyndon Johnson automatically became P and completed the remaining months of Kennedy’s terms).
The fact that America has fixed term elections that occur every four years is laid down in Article 2 of the constitution - but federal law goes even further stating that the election (E) shall be held on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November of every fourth year (in practice, this means that an Election occurs between 2nd and 8th November)
state the constitutional requirements to become P
Constitutional requirements -
- one must be a natural born American e.g. Trump questioned Obama’s eligibility
- one must be at least 35 years old
- there is a residence qualification of 14 years
Who were the two youngest presidents
The youngest ever P was Theodore Roosevelt who was just 42 when he became P following the assassination of P William McKinley in 1901. The youngest elected P was John Kennedy at 43. In contrast, Joe Biden is the oldest US president to be elected
When did the constitution limit the president to two terms in office
In 1951, the constitution was amended to limit P’s to two terms in office. The first P to feel the effect of the limit was Dwight Eisenhower in 1960 and subsequently, four more Ps have been limited: Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W Bush and Barrack Obama - therefore, a fourth constitutional requirement could be - not to have already served two terms as P.
State the extra-constitutional requirements of the president to get elected
Although not mentioned in the constitution, the additional elements are required for a candidate to stand a chance of making a serious bid for the presidency:
(a) political experience
(b) Major party endorsement
(c) Personal characteristics
(d) Ability to raise large sums of money
(e) effective organisation
(f) oratorical skills and being telegenic
(g) sound and relevant policies
Explain political experience in relation to extra-constitutional requirements of the president
Political experience - conventional wisdom would have stated that the most important of these extra-constitutional requirements is political experience. Two groups of politicians have tended to be good pools of recruitment for the presidency: state governors and senators.
Of the 19 people who were nominated as P candidates from 1968 and 2016, 10 had served in the senate and 6 has been state governors, 6 had also served as vice president (VP) - another office that may lead to the presidency. Of the declared candidates for the R and D presidential nominations in 2016, 11 had served as state governor and 8 in the senate. In 2016, Trump became the first person to be elected P without any experience in politics or the military - a political novice
Explain Major party endorsement in relation to extra-constitutional requirements of the president
Major Party Endorsement - It is vital to be chosen as the candidate for one of the two major parties, a third-party or independent candidates do not lead to the White House. Even Eisenhower, in 1952 had to become a R
Explain personal characteristics in relation to extra-constitutional requirements of the president
Personal characteristics - Given the pools of recruitment (vice presidency, state governors and US senators) it is hardly surprising that until 2008 - major party candidates had all been white males. A remarkable fact of the 2008 D presidential nomination race was that it came down to a white women (Hilary Clinton) and a black man (Barack Obama). It is also an advantage to be married, there has also been one single P - James Buchanan, elected in 1856
Explain the ability to raise large sums of money in relation to extra-constitutional requirements of the president
Ability to rise large sums of money - this is crucial as campaigns are so expensive. Only billionaire candidates such as Ross Perot (1992) and Steve Forbes (1996 and 2000) have been able to finance their own campaigns. Candidates need to raise large sums of money even before the primaries and caucuses begin, which means raising money in the year before the E itself. Clinton raised just over $700 million during her unsuccessful bid in 2016
Explain effective organisation in relation to extra-constitutional requirements of the president
Effective organisation - during the candidate selection process, the major parties cannot endorse specific candidates. A candidate is running to become the R or D candidate, so candidates cannot use the organisation, which is expensive, time consuming and demanding
Explain Oratorical skills and being telegenic in relation to the extra-constitutional requirements of the president
Oratorical skills and being telegenic - in the media age, the abilities to speak well and look good on TV are crucial. Trump’s mastery of the media was an important factor in his successful campaign in 2016, as it had for Obama eight years earlier
Explain sound and relevant policies in relation to the extra constitutional requirements of the president
Sound and relevant policies - There is a danger that PEs are portrayed as all style and no substance, however a candidate must have policies that are both practical and relevant - Trump was something of an exception in 2016 - although his campaign clearly focused on policy areas that appealed to key groups of voters, such as jobs and immigration reform. His campaign rhetoric was noticeably thin on policy detail and tended to focus on his much-repeated response to ‘Make America Great Again’
What are the seven distinct stages of presidential elections and when do they occur
1 - Invisible Primary - occurs in the calendar year before the E
2 - Primaries and Caucuses - January/February to Early June
3 - Choosing VP candidates - some days/weeks before convention
4 - National Party Conventions - Usually July/August (each lasts 4 days)
5 - General E campaign - September - first week of November
6 - E day - Tuesday after the 1st Monday in November
7 - Electoral College Voting (which determines who the P is) - Monday after the 2nd Wednesday in December
State the functions of the invisible primary
- candidates announcements
- increasing name recognition
- fundraising
- intra-party TV debates
state the functions of primaries and caucuses
- show popular support for candidates
- choose delegates to attend national party conventions
state the functions of choosing VP candidates
- presidential candidates announce the choice of running-mate
state the functions of the National Party Conventions
- confirm presidential and VP candidates
- approve party platform
- acceptance speech delivered by presidential candidate
State the functions of the general E campaign
- campaign between the candidates of the various parties
state the functions of E day
- registered voters go to the polls (although many may have participated in early voting) e.g. postal
State the functions of electoral college voting
- electors vote in their state capitals to choose P and VP
What is the invisible primary
There is no ‘official’ beginning to the invisible primary (IP). It is simply the period where potential candidates for a party compete with each other to attract attention, money and endorsements for their campaign. However, because these events take place before the official first stage: the primaries - and because there is very little to see, this stage is referred to as the IP
In the US, the candidates are chosen by ordinary voters. The competition at this point is intraparty - meaning it is a competition of candidates within a party.
The evolution and growth of the media and importance of money in Es have made this stage an increasingly important part of the P campaign. It is critical in this stage, for a candidate to gain name recognition and money and to put together, the necessary organisation - there is a correlation between who is leading in the polls at the end of the invisible primary.
Explain the announcement of their candidacy in relation to invisible primary
Announcement of their candidacy - This is often a big occasion drawing media attention, where candidates formally announce their entering of presidential race
The first major R candidate to announce his candidacy for the 2016 presidential race was Senator Ted Cruz - over 10 months before the Iowa caucuses - and by July 2015 there were 17 declared R candidates. Clinton announced her intention to run in April 2015 and in the next 3 months, 4 others Ds joined the race
Support at this stage is demonstrated by opinion polls. During 2015, polls published frequent head-to-head match ups between presumptive D nominee Clinton and possible R candidates such as Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. Bush suffered bruising criticism from Trump during the Invisible Primary being attacked by him on Twitter and withdrew from the race in February 2016
Explain televised party debates in relation to invisible primary
Televised Party Debates -
These are held between candidates of the same party, giving them a platform to advance their own view and policies while highlighting flaws in other conditions.
With so many R candidates in the 2015-16 invisible primary, they couldn’t fit on one stage and had to start by running two debates. The first debate in 2015 involved 10 candidates, before the first primary there were 7 and by the final debate the following March just 4 remained
Explain fundraising in relation to invisible primary
Fundraising -
The invisible primary also allows candidates to attract finance. Money brings the ability to campaign and advertise, which brings improved poll ratings, which brings more money - money is viewed as ‘the mother’s milk of politics’
Often the candidate who raises the most money is most likely to win an E but in 2016, fundraising during the invisible primary was no indicator of future electoral success: Clinton raised $130 million to Trump $25.5 million in the invisible primary, of which he added $18 million of his own money
Explain front-runners in relation to invisible primary
Front-runners -
Over many E cycles, the conventional wisdom has been that it was important to end the invisible primary as the front-runner - whichever candidate was leading in the polls just before the primaries and caucuses began was usually confirmed as the nominee. However, in 2008 Clinton was ahead of Obama and for the Rs, McCain was in the third place. Yet it was Obama and McCain who went on to win their respective party nominations.
In the 2016 cycle, Clinton and Trump fitted the more conventional pattern of the early front-runner being confirmed as the eventual nominee - by the end of the invisible primary in January 2016, Clinton enjoyed a 14-point lead over Sanders and Trump, a 16-point lead over his nearest rival, Cruz
So even before a single vote has been cast, the invisible primary is critical in discerning who the likely presidential candidates will be - however, this is more likely for the Rs where in seven out of eight cycles the R candidate leading the polls at the end of the invisible primary went on to become the party’s nominee compared to the Ds, who have failed to nominate the front-runner in four out of nine occasions. Clinton has been the invisible primary front-runner in 2008 and 2016, chosen only as the nominee once and has never won the ultimate prize
How are the single presidential candidates selected for each party
In order to choose a single presidential candidate for each party, primaries and caucuses are held across the country. These are organised and held by individual parties within each state between February and June of an E year.
This means that each party holds 50 each E year, where the public vote for the presidential candidate they prefer for their party. In reality, they are voting to determine whom the delegates to the National Party Convention from their state will vote for 12 states hold caucuses and 38 states hold primaries - these are simply different intraparty ways of working out how many delegates will be allocated to each candidate.
define primary
A primary is a state wide election in which people cast a ballot for their candidate (within the state which is open to everyone on electoral roll - although it varies to state to state)
define caucus
A caucus is a public meeting in which people will vote either by moving to a part of the room for a certain candidate or throw of hands (not a secret ballot)
Those who vote in a caucus tend to be party members or activists - more ideological committed to the party voting
Explain open primaries and caucuses
Open primaries and caucuses - allow all voters in a state to participate, even if they are not a registered member of that party. Voters can only participate in one, so they have to decide whether to vote in the D or R primary or caucus. This means that a D voter could choose a vote in the R opted to vote in D primaries/caucuses for Obama
Explain closed primaries and caucuses
Closed Primaries and Caucuses - allow only voters who are registered as a party member to take part and voters are sent out a ballot and no one else can participate
Explain modified primaries
Modified primaries - are like closed primaries, but allow those registered as independents to vote in either party’s primary or caucus
What three differences in how delegates are selected
- proportionally
- winner-takes-all
- proportional unless a threshold is reached
Explain how delegates are selected proportionally
Delegates can be selected proportionally as in all democrat primaries and caucuses and a large number of R ones, delegates are allocated proportionally to the vote that a candidate receives
Explain how delegates are selected through a winner-takes-all system
Delegates can be selected through a winner-takes-all system as in some R primaries and caucuses, the candidate with the biggest share of the vote is allocated all of the delegates for that state
Explain how delegates are selected through being proportional unless a threshold is reached
Delegates are selected through being proportional unless a threshold is reached as in some republicans primaries and caucuses, the delegates are allocated proportionally unless one candidate wins an overwhelming amount of the vote - which varies from 50% to 85% - they are allocated all of that state’s delegates
Explain how primaries are simple in their operation
Primaries are quite simple in their operation. The entire state goes to the polls, the results are counted and delegates are allocated accordingly. Caucuses is spread across a number of months in an Election year.
Traditionally, New Hampshire’s primaries and Iowa’s caucuses are always the first to happen and have come to be regarded as crucial. For many years it was said that a candidate could not win the presidential nomination, or even the White House, without first winning the New Hampshire primary.
However, this has been less true of recent elections. Clinton (1992), George W Bush (2000) and Obama (2008) failed to win their party’s New Hampshire primary, though Trump (2016) and Biden (2020) did.
For all the hoopla that surround the Iowa caucuses, their record in predicting the eventual nominee is mixed. For Ds, Al Gore (2000), John Kerry (2004), Obama (2008) and Clinton (2016) all won Iowa, However Biden (2020) came fourth. However, for the Rs, John McCain (2008) Mitt Romney (2012) and Trump (2016) all lost Iowa. However, as a state it has voted for the winning candidate in 6 of the last 8 Es.
Explain the trend of R primaries and caucuses being moved earlier (frontloading)
The trend for R primaries and caucuses to be moved earlier - a process known as frontloading. The reason for this is that for those states later in the calendar, the decision for each party can often have been finalised by the time they get a say.
In 2016, Trump gained a majority of delegates of 26th May, but 7 states had not held their primaries at this point, including highly populated states such as California. By the time California voted, all candidates except for Trump had suspended their campaigns. This process of frontloading has led to lots of primaries and caucuses happening on the same day - this has become known as ‘Super Tuesday’. The largest of these was in 2008, with nearly half of the delegates for Ds and Rs decided on this day - leading to it being dubbed ‘Super Duper Tuesday’
How do primaries operate when an incumbent P is running
When an incumbent P is running for re-election as Obama was in 2012, the primaries for the Ps party go on with little or no coverage at all and many states don’t hold them e.g. Virginia, South Carolina, Florida and New York were among states that dispensed with a D presidential primary.
Incumbents are usually re-nominated by their parties without any serious opposition - this was the case for Reagan (1984), Clinton (1996), George W Bush (2004) and Obama (2012).
Do incumbents in primaries always get re-nominated by their parties without any serious opposition?
Incumbents are usually re-nominated by their parties without any serious opposition - this was the case for Reagan (1984), Clinton (1996), George W Bush (2004) and Obama (2012).
That said, Obama was somewhat embarrassed during the 2012 democrat primaries to receive less than 90% in 14 states, failing to reach 60% in 4 of these - however, he gained 92% of the total D primary vote - which was line with other incumbent Ps who went on to win.
However, Gerald Ford (1976), Jimmy Carter (1980) and George H W Bush (1992) faced much opposition -it is not coincidental that although each of these Ps saw off challenges from within their own party in the primaries, they all went to lose in the E.
When the president faces a strong primary challenge what does it make the president appear as?
A strong primary challenge for the P makes him appear as damaged goods and vulnerable before facing his real opponent, therefore it is so important than incumbent P avoids any significant challenge in the primaries.
Explain voter turnout in primaries
Voter turnout in primaries -
There is no doubt that since McGovern-Fraser reforms of the nomination process in the later 1960s (reforms established as a result of a democrat party commission following the 1968 presidential election - wanted to make the system more democratic and transparent because previously party activists/leaders had more influence than the general electorate). This led to a significant increase in the number of states holding primaries from 1972 onwards.
In 1968, 12 million people participated in the primaries compared to 61 million in 2016. Turnout does vary from state to state e.g. 52% turnout in New Hampshire to 18% in Louisiana, the lowest turnouts were in caucus states with the Kansas caucus attracting just 5.5% - low as only party activists voting
What factors affect the primaries turnout
- demography
- type of primary
- how competitive the nomination race is
- whether the nomination has been decided
Explain demography as a factor affecting the turnout of primaries
Demography - better education, higher-income and older members of the electorate are much more likely to vote in primaries. There is also a belief that they attract more ideological voters
Explain the type of primary as a factor affecting the turnout of primaries
Type of primary - open primaries, which allow any registered voter to vote in either primary, attract a higher turnout than closed primaries where only self-identified party supporters can vote
Explain how the more competitive the nomination race is affects the turnout of primaries
How competitive the nomination race is - In 2008 and 2016, when both parties had a competitive (close race) nomination race, turnout was significantly higher than in 2004 and 2012, when only one party had a competitive race
Explain whether the nomination has been decided affects the turnout of primaries
Whether the nomination has been decided - Primaries scheduled early in the nomination calendar attract a higher turnout than those at the end of the cycle when the identity of the nominee is already known e.g. California - frontloading/media
How have primaries become more important since the McGovern-Fraser reforms
Since the McGovern-Fraser reforms, primaries play a much more important role in the process of choosing candidates. In the past, parties preferred to control candidate selection through a series of state party conventions where only certain selected party members could participate and decisions were dominated by powerful state party leaders such as city mayors.
It was they, and not the ordinary voter who decided who should become the party’s presidential candidate. This system was deemed undemocratic, elitist, non-participatory and potentially corrupt
Explain the strengths of the new nomination process
Increased participation - in 1968, the last year before the reformed system, 11% of the voting-age population took part in primaries compared to 30% in 2016.
Increased choice of candidates - In 1968, there were just 5 presidential candidates to choose from (3 Ds and 2 Rs), in 2016, there were 22 candidates (17 Rs and 5 Ds)
Open to outsiders - the process is opened up to politicians who do not have a national reputation
A gruelling race - The primaries are seen as an appropriately demanding test for a demanding job, rather than winning the candidacy without a fight
Explain the weaknesses of the new nomination process
Widespread voter apathy and boredom in a year - When an incumbent P is running from re-election, turnout is low as only one party has a genuine nomination contest
Voters are unrepresentative of the voting-age population - low turnout wouldn’t be as much of a problem if those who did vote were a representative cross-section of the voting age population, but they are not - so ideological candidates often do better
Process is too long - The reforms have extended this stage of the E process
Process is too expensive - Candidates need to raise large sums of money, so need to start their campaigns early and they are much longer as a result. Clinton has raised $275 million (Trump $90)
Process is too media dominated - voters are over-reliant on the media for information about candidates - they have become the new ‘king-makers’ - poll ratings are dependent on how candidates perform in TV debates and it is increasingly difficult to distinguish political significance from entertainment and spectacle
Primaries can develop into personal battles - Nomination battles have become more personal, particularly on the R side in 2016, where Trump traded insults with his fellow Rs
Lack of Peer Review - In the pre-reform era candidates were largely selected by other politicians, who were qualified to choose presidential candidates . Primaries test campaigning rather than presidential qualities. If Trump had been subject to peer review, it is doubtful whether he would have survived as the R candidate
How did peer-review into the selection process be introduced again with delegates
in effort to bring back some peer review into the selection process, the Ds introduced super-delegates at their 1984 convention: D members of congress, governors and D national committee members would play a greater role in the nomination process. A number of additional reforms have been identified to further improve the nomination process.
These are mostly concerned with the timing of primaries and attempts to increase the role of professional politicians without losing the democratic elements of the current system. Possible reforms include a move to regional primaries in which states in one region - the South, the Midwest etc. would all vote on the same day
What David Atkins suggest for his five-point plan to reform the nomination process of delegates
David Atkins (2016) suggested a five-point plan to reform the nomination process:
(a) Abolish Caucuses and replace with primaries, thereby increasing participation and making voters more representative of the electorate as a whole
(b) Abolish closed primaries, thereby encouraging voters not allied to a party to participate
(c) Rotate the order of primaries to increase geographic and demographic diversity
(d) Tie super-delegate votes to the primary results in their respective states, thereby stopping them from potentially overturning the will of the electorate
(e) Allow candidates to select their own delegates, thereby preventing the possibility of what was witnessed in 2016 - where some Trump delegates failed to support the candidate at the convention
Explain how the vice-president is chosen
Until 1980, the VP or ‘running mate’ was chosen (official declaration) and announced at the national party convention, the next major stage of the Election cycle - how it is a stage in itself
Strategies for choosing VP tickets include the following:
- balanced ticket
- potential in government
- party unity
Explain the strategy of a balance ticket in choosing a vice-president
Balanced Representative Ticket -
When choosing the VP candidate, the presidential candidate looks for a balanced ticket in terms of factors such as geographic region, political experience, age, ideology, gender, race, religion etc.
In 2008, Obama chose Senator Joe Biden as his running-mate 65, he was a balance too Obama’s youthful 47, he had served in the Senate for 36 years compared with Obama’s 3 years, he brought significant foreign policy expertise having served as the chairman of the senate Foreign Relations Committee and there was also a balance of race.
In 2020, Biden chose Senator Kamala Harris as his running-mate. At 54, she provided a balance in terms of age, gender and ethnicity (her parents had emigrated from India and Jamaica)
Explain the strategy of potential in government in choosing a vice-president
Potential in government -
The presidential candidate may think more long-term and chose a running-mate not for what they bring to the campaign but for what they might bring to the White House for governance - executive/expert experience - lacked political career experience
This was the strategy adopted by Governor George W Bush in 2000 in choosing Dick Cheney. Bush had no Washington experience at all and was generally thought to lack gravitas. Cheney would help him not only run the White House, but the whole executive branch of the federal government. He had served as White House Chief of staff to P Ford government and secretary of defence to Bush’s father, he had been a member of congress, rising to become the R whip in the HoR - the no2 spot in the House R leadership team. He also brought gravitas to the R ticket.
It was probably this strategy that Trump adopted in choosing the Governor of Indiana and former congressman Mike Pence for his running-mate in 2016
Explain the strategy of party unity in choosing a vice-president
Party unity -
One way of reuniting the party after the primaries is for the eventual nominee to choose a former rival as his/her running mate
This was the strategy adopted by Reagan in choosing his rival George H.W Bush in 1980. Had Obama adopted this strategy in 2008 he would have chosen Clinton and had Trump and Clinton used it in 2016, they would have chosen Cruz and Sanders.
However, this strategy is rarely employed as rivals are often politically incompatible and it is somewhat implausible for some, given the personal and bitter nature of the primaries - representing different ideological wings of the party but some members may be unwilling to walk with their former competition
Explain the changing role of the vice president through examples of different presidents
The role of the vice president has changed significantly since the 1990s. Al Gore and Dick Cheney were actively involved in the Clinton and George W Bush governments.
Cheney was especially influential and the role of the vice president reached a new level of importance. Due to Bush’s lack of experience in the federal government, the president gave Cheney responsibility for several key policy areas, including the War on Terror stemming from Cheney’s experience serving as defence secretary and chief of staff. However, Cheney’s influence did decline during the final years of Bush’s presidency. It is unlikely the level of influence that Cheney had during the Bush years will apply to future vice presidents.
President Trump placed Mike Pence in charge of leading the coronavirus response but overall Pence was not as high profile as Joe Biden, despite successfully encouraging Trump during a cabinet meeting to call off a secret meeting with the Taliban.
President Obama allowed Biden to take charge of the post-economic crash stimulus package, lead congressional negotiations and during his second-term lead a national effort to end cancer. Unlike Cheney, Biden remained influential throughout his time in office. His vast experience in the Senate was instrumental in securing several key votes for Obama, including the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010.
Explain the influence of the vice president in the senate
While most of the vice president’s power is reliant on the president being willing to allow the vice president to take charge of an area of policy and be involved in decision making, every vice president has the constitutional power to cast tie-breaking votes in the Senate in relation to both legislation and appointments.
Although this is rare, and Joe Biden never got to cast such a vote, Mike Pence broke 13 ties - the seventh most in history. This included being the first vice president to break a tie to confirm a member of president’s cabinet, when the vote to Confirm Betsy DeVos who Trump nominated as education secretary was tied 50-50 in February 2017.
While Dick Cheney only cast eight such votes, he did cast the deciding vote on highly contested tax-cut bill, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, as well as the 2004 budget. As the current composition of the Senate is split 50-50 along party lines it is highly likely than Harris will be just as influential in casting tie-breaking votes in the senate
Explain Kamala Harris as vice president
Although, Harris has less political experience than many political experience than many previous vice presidents, President Biden has given responsibility for two important areas of policy - preventing the passage of restrictive voting laws and stopping the flows of migrants at the southern border of the USA.
Biden asked Harris to coordinate with the countries in Latin America to help deal with this issue and she made first trip to Mexico and Guatemala in June 2021.
Harris is also challenged with preventing the voting reforms that several republican states have introduced since Biden was sworn in as president. Over 380 bills have been introduced by Republican Senators and state legislatures to restrict voting rights. Harris criticised a Texas elections bill, among others that would ban voting on Sunday mornings.
She is working with voting rights organisations to try to stop the proposed reforms. However, Harris will find this task difficult as state legislatures have a great deal of autonomy over elections and in the senate, due to the filibuster, Democrats will need 60 votes to pass a bill improving voting rights. This would require the support of 10 republicans and all 50 democrat senators which is highly unlikely.
What is one of the most important potential roles of the vice president
The most important potential role of a vice president is taking over the presidency themselves. While this has only happened eight times due to death of the president - and once due to Nixon resigning - given Biden’s age, Harris may well get the opportunity to do this.
Explain National Party Conventions
National Party Conventions are held by the democrats, republicans and third parties between July and September of an election year, lasting 3-4 days and organised by the party’s national committee, it is attended by the delegates most chosen in the primaries and caucuses and much media. Each day has a theme and a prime time speaker and the tradition is for the challenging party to hold their convention first.
state the functions of national party conventions
Formal functions of national party conventions
- selecting the party’s presidential candidate
- selecting the party’s VP
- deciding on the party platform
Informal functions of national party conventions
- promoting party unity
- enthusing the party faithful
- enthusing the ordinary voters
Explain selecting the party’s presidential candidate as a function of national party conventions
SELECTING THE PARTY’S PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE -
Today the vast majority of delegates arrive at the convention as ‘committed delegates’: committed that is to vote for a particular candidate in the first ballot. The number of which is known as they decide at the primary or caucus. Therefore, the result of the convention confirms rather than chooses the presidential candidate. If no candidate wins an absolute majority on the first ballot balloting continues until one arises in what is called a brokered convention
Explain the function of selecting the party’s vice president in national party conventions
Selecting the Party’s VP - although a traditional formal function of the convention, the role of choosing and announcing the vice president has also been lost
Explain the function of deciding on the party platform in national party conventions
Deciding on the party platform -
Theoretically the convention allows for discussion on and amendments to the party platform: this is the American equivalent of a party manifesto - a document containing the policies that the candidate intends to pursue if elected. The convention provides a ‘rubber stamp’ for the platform and most of the policy is created by ‘platform committees’ just before the convention in collaboration with the nominee
Explain the function of promoting party unity in national party conventions
Promoting party unity - the invisible primary and primary season can be bruising as candidates battle it out for supremacy and party divisions are exposed. The convention provides the opportunity for repair so that the party are ready to compete against an opposing party. Both Clinton in 2008 after losing to Obama and Sanders in 2016 losing to Clinton, used their speeches to endorse the nominee
Explain the function of enthusing the party faithful in national party conventions
Enthusing the party faithful - It is a rally call to enthuse and inspire the party faithful to return home and to fight in the 9 week campaign
Explain the function of enthusing the ordinary voters
Enthusing the ordinary voters - with extensive TV coverage, the candidate delivers his/her acceptance speech to enthuse the electorate. Obama’s 2007 speech had an audience of 39 million of TV viewers. Trump used his to reinforce his message of making a violent, threatened, humiliated America ‘great again’. The convention is something of a spectacle serving to attract further media attention.
Explain how opinion polls can show the immediate effect of the conventions
Opinion Polls register the immediate effect of the conventions, showing what if any increase the candidate has enjoyed as a result of the speech. Any increase is known as ‘bounce’ and the average bounce is 6% points. Trump scored below average: 1%.
Conventions are also a forum for identifying the rising stars of the future. In 2004, a little-known senator from Illinois wowed the democrat conventions with his impressive address. Just 4 years later, Obama returned as the presidential nominee.
state 3 reasons why national party conventions are not important
IMPORTANT -
- enthuses the ordinary voter as large press coverage
- forum for identifying the rising stars of the future
- selects the party presidential candidate
NOT IMPORTANT -
- vp is only formally declared
- media attention is largely performative more of a spectacle
- small function with little significance, other functions arguably more significant
Explain the presidential general election campaign
The period between the national party convention is dominated by extensive fundraising campaign events in states and nationally televised presidential debates. Battleground states, where the result is not easily predictable, are likely to see far more events and spending by each campaign.
Bellwether states are those which historically have tended to vote for the candidate who ultimately will win the presidential Elections - for this reason, these states see far more interest from candidates.
In 2016, 94% of events by nominees and their running-mates took place in just 12 states, thus making Governor Scott Walker’s 2015 comment all the more prescient: ‘The Nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president - twelve states are’.
Explain how presidential debates operate
Role of televised debates -
A pattern has developed: 3 90-minute debates between the 2 major parties presidential candidates and 1 90-minute debate between the vice president candidates occurring between late September and mid-October. Over the years, different debate formats have evolved from the initial format where candidates stood behind podiums and were asked questions by a moderator, this then developed into a panel of up to 3 members of the press. Then in 1992, what has become known as the Town Hall style of debate emerged and is used in 1 of the 3 debates, where candidates sit on bar stools, facing an audience of undecided voters who put questions directly to candidates. The 2000 debates saw another format - the roundtable discussion in which the candidates talked to each other emerged, but this was not used for Trump and Clinton.
Explain the significant role of televised presidential debates
There is only one clear example of a debate having a significant effect on the final result, the debate between the presidents Carter and Reagan, where governor Reagan closed with a series of questions which managed to shape the way voters would make up their minds in the last vital days of the campaign.
However, the importance of these debates has been called into question. In 2012, the first debate between president Obama and Governor Romney turned the polls in favour of Romney with 72% believing he had won and only 20% believing Obama had. The President looked disengaged, bored and flat and his performance was judged to be inept - but he was swept to a comfortable victory on election day. Clinton outperformed Trump in all 3 debates - that a candidate could perform so badly in debates yet come out the winner an Election day, should question the debates importance - they are not ‘game-changing’ events.
All evidence suggests that debates do more to confirm than change voters minds, however, they might also convert passive supporters into active voters. Four rules of thumb worth noting about the debates. 2 of which were illustrated in the 2016 debates are
Explain how style is more important than substance in presidential debates
Style is often more important than substance - What you say is not as important as how you say it and how you look. Trump was widely criticised for his abrasive tone. In the first debates he repeatedly shouted into his microphone as Clinton was speaking, telling her she was ‘wrong’, ‘no, you’re wrong’.
When in the second debate, she responded to a Trump answer saying, “It’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law of our country’. He immediately blurted out “Because you’d be in Jail”. And in response to Clinton’s proposal in the third debate about her proposed Social Security Trust Fund, Trump leant into his microphone and called out “such a nasty woman!”
Explain how verbal gaffes can be costly in presidential debates
Verbal Gaffes can be costly - When in 1976, President Ford mistakenly claimed that Poland was not under the control of the Soviet Union, it was an expensive error. However, while Trump made a number of gaffes, they seemed not to worry his supporters, indeed they may have enhanced his standing among them - another piece of evidence that he was not just ‘another professional politician’
Explain how good sound bites are helpful in presidential debates
Good sound bites are helpful: many voters do not watch the full debate but see the soundbites the next morning on the breakfast shows. In the 1996 debates, President Clinton was asked whether he thought 73-year-old Dole was too old to be President, his answer provided a perfect soundbite: “I don’t think Senator Dole is too old to be President. It’s the age of his ideas that I Question”.
Explain how debates are potentially more difficult for incumbents than for challengers
Incumbents have a record to defend and the words they have spoken over four years can be thrown back to them. They mainly go into debates as the frontrunner, hence expectations are high - this was a problem for Obama in 2012, yet they enter the debates rusty, whereas the challenger has perfected their technique throughout the primaries. Also, the debate format is a great leveller; the challenger shares the same platform as the P, who is brought down to the level of an ordinary politician.
Explain the ‘October Surprise’
The term ‘October Surprise’ has been used in America politics for some 40 years. It refers to an event occurring late in the presidential campaign to the disadvantage of one candidate , leaving little or no time to recover before Election Day. On the 28th October 2016, just 11 days before E day, FBI director Comey sent a letter to members of congress stating that he was re-opening his investigation into Clinton, which had been closed in early July - because of new information.
The saga revolved around Clinton, while secretary of state (2009-13) had passed classified material through her personal email. This news was met with glee by the Trump team. Just 9 days later, a second letter was issued stating that nothing significant had been found after all. This ‘October Surprise’ halted Clinton’s chance to erode Trump’s in key swing states during the final week of the campaign and proved Trump with another round of allegations from ‘Crooked Hillary’
Explain the significance of campaign finance during the general election campaign of the president
Mark Hanna, a wealthy late (19th R political operative, famously remarked that ‘There are two things that are important in politics: ‘the first thing is money and I can’t remember what the second one is’). Nixon’s re-election campaign in 1972 was run on this principle and the vast majority of the money that poured into his campaign funds come from so-called ‘fat-cats’ - wealthy folk who donated huge sums of money. When the campaign was discovered to have been mired in corruption, Congress set about changing the law on campaign finance.
The federal Campaign Act of 1974, a direct result of the Watergate scandal which brought down President Nixon, made a number of significant changes by limiting contributions that individuals, unions and corporations could give, reducing candidates reliance on a few, very wealthy donors and to equalise the amount of money spent on both the major parties.
State and explain the loopholes given by the reforms of the Federal Campaign Act of 1974
The objectives of these reforms were praiseworthy and partly successful but they were found to have too many loopholes and were weakened by both the SC and Congress:
(a) In 1976, in Buckley v Valeo, the SC ruled that limitations on campaign finance on what individuals or political action committees could spend either supporting or opposing a candidate infringed First Amendment rights and were therefore unconstitutional
(b) In 1979, Congress further weakened the law by allowing parties to raise money for such aspects such as voter-registration and party-building activities etc. This so called ‘soft-money’ would soon be regarded by most observers as out of control leading to the need for further reform - congress allowed parties raise money unregulated
How were presidential elections since 1976 and 2008 funded?
Between 1976 and 2008, presidential elections were funded largely through what were known as matching funds federal money administered by the new formed Federal Election Commission (FEC) and given to presidential candidates who met certain criteria and agreed to certain limitations. In the 1976 election, the FEC paid out $72 million in matching funds but by 2000, this had increased to $240 million.
In 2008, Obama opted out of matching funds which left him free from fundraising and spending limitations imposed by the FEC and as a result was able to significantly outspend his R opponent McCain, who took the $84 million matching funds.
This was viewed as being crucial to Obama’s win and set the pattern for subsequent Election cycles. In 2012, neither Obama or Romney took matching funds - the first time that both major-party candidates had opted out of public financing for the whole E cycle. In 2014, P Obama signed legislation to end public financing of the party’s national conventions and only 2 candidates signed up for matching funds in 2016 - it would appear that the days of public funding of PCs are finished
When did further reform of campaign finance occur
Further reform came in 2002, mainly though the endeavours of two senators. R McCain and D Feingold. This was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BICRA), commonly called the McCain-Feingold law which regulates finance.
- National party committees were banned from raising or spending ‘soft money’ - regulates campaign finance by getting ride of unregulated donors
- Labour unions and corporations were forbidden from directly funding issues adverts and broadcast adverts that mention a federal candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary
- It increased individuals limits on contributions on candidates
- Contributions from foreign nationals were banned
- The ‘Stand by your Ad’ provision resulted in all campaign ads including a verbal endorsement by the candidate - to make candidates more responsible but does not prevent critical or lying adverts
What has limitations on candidates and political parties led to?
The limits on contributions to candidates and political parties, new organisations were formed that made independent expenditures on their own. These were known as political actions committees (PACs) and gave money to candidates they supported or spent money against those they opposed. Most PACs represent business, labour groups, ideological groups or single-issue groups.
Then the landmark SC decision in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (2010) granted corporate and labour organisations the same rights of political free speech as individuals, thereby giving groups the right of unlimited independent political expenditure. This, along with another decision by the United States Court of Appeal, Speechnow.org v Federal Election Commission (2010) led to the setting up of independent expenditure-only committees (IEOCs) - they became known as Super PACs - political committees that may solicit and accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, labour organisations or other political committees.
They spend money to achieve their desire objectiveness but are forbidden from making any direct contributions to federal parties or candidates - hence they are ‘expenditure only’
How have supporters of super PACS viewed deregulation of campaign finance of election campaigns
Supporters of Super PACs see them as a positive consequence of deregulation providing an outlet for political speech, advocating independent calls for the election or defeat of certain candidates - however, critics argue they are another outlet for unlimited money in electoral politics, while legally independent, are merely functional extensions of campaigns.
Three Super PACs dominated in 2016: ‘Priorities Action’ raised over £192 million for Clinton and for Trump ‘Rebuilding America Now’’ raised $22.6 million and ‘Our Principles’ raised £19 million.
