Democracy and participation Flashcards

Question

Explain front-runners in relation to invisible primary

Answer 1

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

Answer 2

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.

Answer 3

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)

Answer 4

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

Answer 5

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

Answer 6

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

Answer 7

Modified primaries - are like closed primaries, but allow those registered as independents to vote in either party's primary or caucus

Answer 8

- proportionally - winner-takes-all - proportional unless a threshold is reached

Answer 9

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

Answer 10

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

Answer 11

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

Answer 12

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.

Answer 13

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'

Answer 14

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).

Answer 15

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.

Answer 16

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.

Answer 17

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

Answer 18

- demography - type of primary - how competitive the nomination race is - whether the nomination has been decided

Answer 19

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

Answer 20

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

Answer 21

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

Answer 22

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

Answer 23

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

Answer 24

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

Answer 25

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

Answer 26

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

Answer 27

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

Answer 28

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

Answer 29

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)

Answer 30

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

Answer 31

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

Answer 32

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.

Answer 33

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

Answer 34

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.

Answer 35

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.

Answer 36

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.

Answer 37

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

Answer 38

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

Answer 39

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

Answer 40

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

Answer 41

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

Answer 42

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

Answer 43

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.

Answer 44

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.

Answer 45

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

Answer 46

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'.

Answer 47

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.

Answer 48

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

Answer 49

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!"

Answer 50

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'

Answer 51

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".

Answer 52

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.

Answer 53

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'

Answer 54

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.

Answer 55

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

Answer 56

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

Answer 57

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

Answer 58

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'

Answer 59

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.

Answer 60

- organisation - campaigning - media

Answer 61

Organisation refers to staff and field offices - offices spread throughout the country, but mainly in swing states - Clinton had 489 and Trump had 178 field offices

Answer 62

Campaigning involves candidates travelling from state to state - costs would include venue hire, travel, hotel accommodation and costs of internal polling. When Trump's polls showed significant movement towards him in Michigan and Wisconsin - states which had previously been safe for Clinton, he headed to both states for last minute campaigning

Answer 63

The Media - Throughout the campaign, Trump had less to spend on media as he had raised far less money. However, in the final weeks of the campaign, both candidates burned through the stockpiles of cash on media coverage. Trump increased his spending on TV and cable ads and social media advertising including negative ads targeted at states such as Florida and North Carolina and 'Blue Wall' states in the rust belt, including Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan. In the end, he won all five

Answer 64

Finally, after almost 18 months after the first candidacy announcement, through the invisible primary, caucuses and primaries. Super Tuesday, the securing the nominations, the choosing of a VP, the national conventions and a 9-week campaign - E day arrives: the Tuesday after the first Monday in November when eligible voters may go the polls to choose between the candidates. However, around one-third (early voters) will have voted before E day with 34 states now permitting some form of early voting. Making the last days of the campaign less significant than they used to be. Nearly 100 million took advantage of early voting in 2020 - a record number

Answer 65

The result of a presidential election is decided principally in the swing states - A large number almost always votes democrat: Massachusetts, New York, California and Illinois and others are nowadays solidly Republican such as Texas, Kentucky, Kansa and South Carolina - Others are known as swing states such as Ohio, Florida and Virginia. Ohio has now voted for the winner in the last 14 presidential elections, stretching back to 1964 - significant state After peaking in 1960, with 67% voter turnout dropped in the next 5 elections to 54.7% in 1980. After some small increases turnout fell to just 51.4% in 1996. The next 3 elections all registered increases in turnout, reaching 62.3% by 2008 but by 2016, the figure was back to 54%. 2020 - 66.8% - highest as it was very polarising election

Answer 66

Of the last 11 elections, 8 have featured on incumbent P seeking another term - 5 were successful, suggested the power of incumbency is strong - president's incumbency power is strong Putting this in a wider perspective, since 1796 31 Presidents have run for re-election. Of these 22 (71%) have won, therefore trying to beat an incumbent is difficult as the default position appears to be to re-elect an incumbent, unless he fails to have the undivided support of his own party. 3 out of 4 modern-day Ps to be defeated for re-election, faced significant opposition in the primaries and were therefore damaged goods by the time of the election: Ford (1976), Carter (1980) and George H.W Bush (1992). Significantly, they all presided over failing economics - early in the process finding it difficult In contrast, most incumbents Ps such as Clinton (1996), Bush (2004) and Obama (2012) - could conserve the energy, time and money during the primaries while the candidates of the challenging party expended vast sums of money and energy

Answer 67

It is also worth noting that only twice since the American Civil War has a P who has completed 2 full terms been followed by a president of the same party: in 1877 when Republican Ulysses Grant was followed by Republican Rutherford Hayes and in 1989 when Republican Reagan was followed by R George H.W Bush. Therefore, Clinton should have known she was battling against the odds in 2016 when up against the Republican Trump

Answer 68

The Electoral College (EC) was included in the Constitution as a compromise. It prevented a direct election by the population, which was feared by some of the Founding Fathers. It also served the purposes of federalism ensuring that both law and high population states would have a voice at a national level, in much the same way the Senate would protect this in Congress. Each state was therefore to be given a number of Electoral College Votes (ECVs). The number each state would be the same as the number of people that the state had representing it in Congress. This meant every state had a minimum of 3 ECVs, as every state has at least one House of Representatives member and 2 senators. The number of House of representatives members that a state is allocated is proportional to its population, therefore allocating ECVs in this way meant that it was broadly proportional. In 2012, California had 55 (53+2) and Wyoming had just 3 (1+2)

Answer 69

Before the election, each party selects people who exercise the ECVs in each state, there are often faithful party activists. After the national vote, the state declares which candidate its ECVs will be allocated. The nominated electors of the winning party cast their vote in the state capital on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. 30 states have laws that require their delegates to cast their vote for the candidate who won the state vote, the rest do not. Delegates who do not vote as their state did are called 'faithless electors'. The likelihood of these having an impact on the final outcome is minimal but in 2016, there were 10 faithless electors: 3 had their vote invalidated as they broke state law and had to vote again, but 7 successfully cast their ballot.

Answer 70

To win in the electoral college, a candidate needs a majority of ECVs, with 538 ECVs a winning candidate needs at least 270. While the winner of the E should be evident after the national vote, it is not official until the ECVs have been cast in December - results are sent to the vice president who formally counts the votes and announces the result. Therefore, the President is not elected by the popular vote, but through the electoral campaign. In the 48 states that allocate their ECVs on a winner-takes-all basis, (Maine and Nebraska do not follow this rule), it does not matter by how much a candidate wins. Clinton won California by over 4 million votes than Trump but this received no recognition in the number of ECVs recieved

Answer 71

To win in the electoral college, a candidate needs a majority of ECVs, with 538 ECVs a winning candidate needs at least 270. While the winner of the E should be evident after the national vote, it is not official until the ECVs have been cast in December - results are sent to the vice president who formally counts the votes and announces the result. Therefore, the President is not elected by the popular vote, but through the electoral campaign. In the 48 states that allocate their ECVs on a winner-takes-all basis, (Maine and Nebraska do not follow this rule), it does not matter by how much a candidate wins. Clinton won California by over 4 million votes than Trump but this received no recognition in the number of ECVs received

Answer 72

- Small states are over-represented - Winner-take-all system distorts the result - Unfair to national third parties - Rogue electors - Bellwether states are overrepresented - President and vice president of different parties

Answer 73

Small states are over-represented : By 2016, California had 55 ECVs representing its 39.2 million inhabitants. Wyoming had 3 votes representing its 500,000 inhabitants - thus California receives 1 ECV for every 713,000 people and Wyoming receives 1 ECV for every 195,000 people

Answer 74

Winner-takes-all system distorts the result - In 1996, Clinton won only 49% of the popular vote, yet he won just over 70% of the EVCs. In the 7 Elections between 1992 and 2016, the EC could be said to have seriously distorted the result on 5 occasions. In 2000 and 2016, the candidate who won the popular vote lost the ECV. The fact that Clinton, with 3 million more votes, would fall over 70 votes behind Trump in the electoral college, was regarded by many as a scandal - there were renewed calls for the institution to be strapped. This undermines modern principles of popular sovereignty and underlines the outdated nature of the institution.

Answer 75

Unfair to national third parties - It effectively excludes them - in 1992, the independent candidate Ross Perot, won 18.9% of the popular vote. He and other independent and/or third-party candidates in other years have not won a single ECV.

Answer 76

Rogue electors: As previously identified, many states have state laws requiring electors to cast their ballots for the state-wife popular vote but others do not - leaving open the possibility that rogue or faithless electors will cast their ballots some other way. These undermine the basic principles of democracy. Reform is needed to maintain legitimacy in US elections

Answer 77

Bellwether states are overrepresented - It is their votes that can change the election. A large majority of states are almost ignored throughout the electoral process.

Answer 78

President and Vice President of different parties - At the beginning of the Republic, when political parties in the way they are understood today did not truly exist, it did not matter if the P and VP were of different parties. In 2000, it was possible that the House of Representatives could have chosen Republicans George W Bush as President and the Senate could have chosen Democrat Joseph Lieberman as VP

Answer 79

- It preserves the voice of the small population states - It guards against tyranny of the majority nationally - It also helps to maintain federalism - It tends to promote a two-horse race - Lack of consensus of reform

Answer 80

It preserves the voice of the small-population states - the inhabitants of these states worry that were the electoral college abolished, their votes would be swept aside by large states such as California had 55 ECVs - more than 18 times as many as states such as Wyoming and Alaska with just 3

Answer 81

It guards against tyranny of the majority nationally - the founding fathers were not convinced about the wisdom of popular sovereignty and this indirect form of election disperses power away from this people

Answer 82

It also helps to maintain federalism: by allowing differing electoral procedures in each state

Answer 83

It tends to promote a two-horse race - the EC helps to produce a clear winner. In a 2-horse race the winner will therefore tend to receive more than 50% of the popular vote, with a clear mandate to govern and a definite aid to uniting a nation. However, in only 3 out of the last 7 Es has the P won with more half the votes than.

Answer 84

Lack of consensus on reform - there is no agreement on what should replace the electoral college or how best to reform it

Answer 85

- direct election - congressional district system - proportional system

Answer 86

Direct election - The Washington Post commissioned a national poll in 2007 and found that 72% supported a popular vote election with only 23% opposed. However, with the need to gain an absolute majority gone, there would be a multiplicity of candidates making it likely that the president would be elected with well below 50% of the vote (elected on a reduced majority) - is this what the electorate want? The solution could be to have a run off election between the top 2 candidates - but do the electorate want to add yet another stage to the process - may make the system too complex, complicated and lengthy

Answer 87

Congressional district system - The most widely advocated reform would be for the other 48 states to adopt the system used in Maine and Nebraska, which involves awarding 1 ECV to a candidate for each congressional district (the constituencies used to elect members of the House of Representatives) that they win and 2 electoral votes to the candidate who is the state-wide winner. However, this reform would lead to the results being only marginally different in most of the last 7 elections. Indeed, in 2000 this system would have produced a less proportionate result - had it been used in 2012, Romney would have won more districts but by small margins. It seems highly improbable that America would swap one flawed system for another

Answer 88

Proportional system - this would lead to a more equitable allocation of the electoral college votes. It would render the electors themselves unnecessary, as the result would be determined by a mathematical computation rather than electors casting ballots. In reality, this system would also abolish the EC as such. However, it would be a fairer system to third parties, but would make it more likely that no candidate would gain an absolute majority. After more than a year of candidate declarations, primaries and caucuses, conventions, campaigns, debates, the raising and spending of thousands of millions of dollars and millions of votes cast, the presidential inauguration is finally held on the west steps of the Capitol at noon on 20th January of the year following the election and another election cycle is complete - only for the next one to start

Answer 89

- the lengthy process ensures that candidates are resilient enough to withstand the demands of being the president - the electoral college has served to produce a clear winner able to govern effectively despite the split nature of the US political opinion - the primary calendar ensures that the voice of smaller states is upheld, protecting the principle of federalism - the ability to attract large amounts of money speaks to the character and breadth of appeal of a candidate, making them more suited to the job - speaks volume on their popularity - the expectation of an acceptance speech at the National party Conventions, plus a good performance in TV debates, highlight a skill that a good president would be expected to have - commanding and persuasive public speaking - tests their skills - It broadly works - controversies have been quickly overcome and President Bush and President Trump who both won the electoral college but not the popular vote, have been able to lead while being kept in check by opinion polls and congress - Third parties can have a role, whether in the shape of the national vote (as Ross Perot in 1992) or in trying to shape the debates of an election (as Jill Stein and Gary Johnson in 2016) - Primaries allow voters a genuine choice. Neither Obama nor Trump were the frontrunners when the invisible primary began and yet triumphed - allow competition/choice

Answer 90

- The electoral college has proven to be increasingly out of step with popular sovereignty and therefore needs reform - The primaries calendar effectively disenfranchises some states while overrepresenting the views of others, thereby creating an uneven form of federalism - The expected presidential TV debates have limited impact on the outcome of the election and are therefore a sideshow - style more than substance - The national party convention, while no longer taxpayer funded, serves little democratic purpose for the voters at large - The amount of money required to become the P makes the process inherently elitist - The volume of money required also gives undue influence to interest groups and corporations over the voice of the electorate - The length of the process creates political apathy among the voters, which can depress turnout and undermine the legitimacy of an election - 7 stages of political indifferences - The variety of differing voting method has been criticised and cause controversy over election results - In terms of actual power, third parties are effectively excluded from the election, with the entire process creating two-party system in which third parties have little value - Increasingly the role of the media is more influential than money spent and yet this area is relatively unregulated when it comes to elections - social media soundbites

Answer 91

When Americans cast their ballots for the US president, they are actually voting for a representative of that candidate’s party known as an elector. There are 538 electors who then vote for the president on behalf of the people in their state. Each state is assigned a certain number of these electoral votes, based on the number of congressional districts they have, plus two additional votes representing the state’s Senate seats. Washington DC is also assigned three electoral votes, despite having no voting representation in Congress. A majority of 270 of these votes is needed to win the presidency. The process of nominating electors varies by state and by party, but is generally done one of two ways. Ahead of the election, political parties either choose electors at their national conventions, or they are voted for by the party’s central committee. The electoral college nearly always operates with a winner-takes-all system, in which the candidate with the highest number of votes in a state claims all of that state’s electoral votes. For example, in 2016, Trump beat Clinton in Florida by a margin of just 2.2%, but that meant he claimed all 29 of Florida’s crucial electoral votes. Such small margins in a handful of key swing states meant that, regardless of Clinton’s national vote lead, Trump was able to clinch victory in several swing states and therefore win more electoral college votes. Biden could face the same hurdle in November, meaning he will need to focus his attention on a handful of battleground states to win the presidency.

Answer 92

While the number of electoral votes a state is assigned somewhat reflects its population, the minimum of three votes per state means that the relative value of electoral votes varies across America. The least populous states like North and South Dakota and the smaller states of New England are overrepresented because of the required minimum of three electoral votes. Meanwhile, the states with the most people – California, Texas and Florida – are underrepresented in the electoral college. Wyoming has one electoral college vote for every 193,000 people, compared with California’s rate of one electoral vote per 718,000 people. This means that each electoral vote in California represents over three times as many people as one in Wyoming. These disparities are repeated across the country.

Answer 93

Several alternative systems for electing the president have been proposed and grown in favour, as many seek to change or abolish the electoral college. Two states – Maine and Nebraska – already use a different method of assigning their electoral college votes. The two “Senate” votes go to the state-wide popular vote winner, but the remaining district votes are awarded to the winner of that district. However, implementing this congressional district method across the country could result in greater bias than the current system. The popular vote winner could still lose the election, and the distribution of voters would still strongly favour Republicans. The National Popular Vote Compact (NPVC) is another option, in which each state would award all of its electoral college votes in line with the national popular vote. If enough states signed up to this agreement to reach the 270 majority, the candidate who gained the most votes nationwide would always win the presidency. However, the NPVC has more practical issues. Professor Norman Williams, from Willamette University, questioned how a nationwide recount would be carried out under the NPVC, and said that partisanship highlighted its major flaws. Only Democratic states are currently signed up, but support could simply switch in the future if a Republican candidate faces winning the popular vote but not the presidency. The NPVC is a solution that would elect the president with the most votes without the difficulty of abolishing the electoral college that is enshrined in the constitution. The current system is also vulnerable to distorted outcomes through actions such as gerrymandering. This practice involves precisely redrawing the borders of districts to concentrate support in favour of a party. The result being abnormally shaped districts that disenfranchise certain groups of voters. Today, an amendment that would replace the college with a direct national popular vote is seen by many as the fairest electoral system.

Answer 94

The outcome of the US electoral process is a two-party system across America - which is difficult to overcome. In all of the last seven elections, two major parties: republican and democrats have won more than 80% of the popular vote, on four occasions exceeding 95%. Every P since 1853 has been a democrat or a republican After 2016, two major parties controlled 533 of 535 seats in congress (senators Angus King and Bernie Sanders being too exceptions through both vote with the democrats) - 1849-53 Millard Fillmore - 13th P-Whig independent Even polices at state level is dominated by two parties. By 2017, 49 out 50 state governors were either democrat or republican (Bill Walker of Alaska: an independent).

Answer 95

The use of a winner-takes all system The nature of America Party Ideology The Expense of politics

Answer 96

The use of winner-takes-all: This significantly disadvantages third parties as they are awarded nothing for coming anything other than first in a state or district. - essentially no chance to have some success Therefore, despite the threefold jump in the third-party votes in 2016, they gained nothing for their achievements - no proportion

Answer 97

The nature of America - The federal nature (shared autonomy) of America and the guarantee of state's right to run its own election, make every election a small-single seat election. - Using a winner-takes-all electoral system in itself cause a two-party system. - However, given that the US effectively conducts a series of mini-elections on any Election Day, this problem is further exacerbated. - not only voting for the president but also senators and representative/state mayors

Answer 98

The two main US parties have such a breadth of ideology (right wing vs left wing spectrum), it is difficult for a third-party to carve out any distinct policy area that is not already covered - to stand out If it were able to it, it would not take much for one of the two main parties to simply assume this policy a process known as co-optation - parties embrace policy/agencies from small parties/dependent. It is hard for 3 parties to be different. This means that candidates running as independents also struggle to carve out a distinct policy platform. - to persuade the electorate which is difficult

Answer 99

The expense of politics - US elections have become so expensive -(money is a huge factor - less likely to sponsor independence) that the only parties able to really compete are those with money which shows how it is not an equal playing field for all parties. Most smaller parties lack the financial muscle or membership to gain success, therefore reinforcing the two-party system

Answer 100

The electoral rules - The rules of the presidential debate serve to exclude third parties which struggle to achieve the popularity needed in the polls This restricts their access to what amounts to free media and undermines their legitimacy as serious parties - not all candidate have a national platform/debates - need popularity/money as independents are unlikely to be included

Answer 101

Other than presidential elections, both houses of congress: the House of Representatives and the senate - are now directly election. Until the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, the Senate was indirectly election - senators were appointed by the state legislatures. But from 1914, there have been direct elections to the senate as well as to the House of Representatives (HOR) Congressional elections (CEs) are held every two years and on alternate occasions these elections coincide with the presidential election

Answer 102

Timing of congressional elections - Members of the House of representatives serve two years while senators serve six year terms but one third of senators are up for re-election every two years. Therefore, in every two year cycle of congressional elections, the whole of House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate are up for re-election. These elections, like those for the president are held on a Tuesday after the first Monday in November. In years divisible by 4 (2012, 2016 etc.) Congressional elections coincide with the presidential elections. Elections in the years between presidential elections (2014, 2018 etc) are therefore called midterm elections, as they fall midway through the presidents four year term of office. - significant

Answer 103

Constitutional requirements: The constitution lays down certain requirements (formal rule), regarding age citizenship and residency for those wishing to be election to the House and the Senate: Candidates for the HoR must be at least 25 year old have been on American citizen for at least 7 years, resident of the state they represent - some states also include a locality rule, where members are required to be resident in the congressional district they represent Candidates for the senate must be at least 30 years old on American citizen for at least 9 years and a resident of the state they represent

Answer 104

The nomination process - To gain a seat in Congress, the nomination of one of the two major parties must be secured through congressional primaries - secure their nomination to progress. These differ from president primaries in that the winner of the congressional primary automatically becomes that party's candidate, congressional primaries are held between May and September of the election year or midterms

Answer 105

Incumbents rarely face a serious challenge. In a 34 year period (1982-2016), only 8 senators were defeated in primaries: one had filled the vacancy of a retired senator and another was a senator who had switched parties. In this period, 72 House members were defeated in primaries - considering every 2 years around 400 house members seek re-election, only 4 or 5 primary defeats per election cycle is not high. Often incumbents who lose, do so as they are running in primaries where two incumbents are running where districts have been redrawn

Answer 106

Congressional elections coincide in every alternate cycle with the presidential election - people may be voting at the same time for the president, senator, representative - it is difficult to separate voting intentions in these elections from the votes that are cast for the presidency. Because of this, most analysis of congressional elections come from the midterm elections, in which votes are not casting a presidential ballot. Five trends are discernible to congressional elections: - The power of incumbency is significant - The coattails effect is limited - Split-ticket voting is declining - There are fewer competitive House districts - The presidents party tends to lose seats in midterms elections

Answer 107

The power of incumbency is significant: There is strong support for incumbents in Congressional elections, especially in the House. Between 2000-2016, House re-election rates ranged from 85% (2010) to 98% (2000). During the same period, senate re-election rates ranged from 79% (2006) to 98% (2004). Most members of congress leave by voluntary retirement or through seeking election to a higher office, rather than by electoral defeat. Reasons for high rates of re-election are linked to the advantages of incumbency: - They have the ability to provide federal funding for constituency/state projects and/or help to get legislation passed that brings benefits to the state or district - They have high levels of name recognition in comparison to a challenger, plus replacing an incumbent in Congress means losing the seniority that the member may have gained over their years in Capitol Hill - seniority which may bring significant benefits to their electorate - Fundraising advantages: incumbents can usually raise an average seven times as much as challengers can

Answer 108

The coattails effect is limited: A coattails effect occurs when a strong candidate for a party at the top of the ticket - for president or in midterms elections for state governor - can help other party candidates for lower office get elected at the same time. The picture is, of these candidates riding into office clutching the coattails of the presidential or gubernatorial candidate - governor of the state. Few modern-day presidents have enjoyed much in the way of a coattails effect since 1980, when Ronald Reagan helped his party gain 33 seats in the house and 12 seats in the Senate, where 9 incumbent democrat senators were defeated. There was some of this effect for Trump in the 2016, Senate races: 3 incumbent Republicans won seats they were expected to lose in states where Trump ran unexpectedly well. However, of the 21 winning Republican Senate candidates of 2016 - 16 won a higher share of the vote in their states than did Trump

Answer 109

There is evidence of split-ticket voting, which occurs when someone votes for the candidates of different political parties for different offices at the same election, e.g. people might vote for a Republican president but a Democrat member of Congress. Because Elections in the US are more candidate and issue orientated that simply party-orientated, ticket splitting does not seem odd to Americans. There is some evidence that voters think in terms of divided government: a president of one party but congress controlled by the other party. In presidential elections, evidence of split-ticket voting can see in two ways through states either supporting a presidential candidate from one party but a different senatorial candidate from the other or congressional districts supporting a presidential candidate from one party but a house member from the other

Answer 110

In presidential elections, evidence of split-ticket voting can be seen in two ways: A state may support a president candidate, from one party but the same election, a senatorial candidate from the other, e.g. in 2004, four states voted for Republican George W Bush in the presidential race but elected a democrat to the senate. However, in 2016, when the same senate seats were being contested in the same states, all 34 states voted the same way in both presidential and senatorial elections. This suggests as partisanship grows in the electorate, split-ticket voting declines. It may result in a congressional district supporting a president candidate from one party but a house member from the other - these are called 'split districts'. In 2016, there were 23 districts that elected a republican to the House but voted for Clinton for president and there were 12 districts that voted for Trump but elected a House democrat. However, the number of split districts has declined over the last three decade, indicating that voters are increasingly voting straight ticket. Related to split-ticket voting is the phenomenon of split Senate state delegations - one senator from each party. However, this has also declined as voting has become more partisan

Answer 111

There are fewer competitive House districts - A competitive district is one in which the winner won by less than 10% points at the previous election. The number has fallen from 111 (1992) to 31 (2016). This is significant because: - It makes it much harder for party control of the House to change hands. In 2016, the democrats needed to make it much harder for party control of House to change hands. In 2016, the democrats needed to make an overall gain of just 30 seats to win back control of the House - but of all seats being contested, only 43 were competitive after the previous election cycle giving the democrats little chance of gaining enough. - Members from safe districts are more likely to cast party-line votes/vote in line with their party rather than seeks deals with the opposing party, than are those from competitive ones. Whereas, in competitive districts members will have to keep the views of both parties supporters in mind when deciding issues in congress. Fewer competitive districts increases level of partisanship

Answer 112

The presidents party tends to lose seats in midterm elections: In the six congressional/midterm elections in the 1994-2014, the presidents party lost an average of 25 house seats and around 4-5 in the senate. In the House, this ranged from a gain of 5 seats (1998, 2002) to a loss of 63 (2010). In the senate, this ranged from a gain of 2 seats (2002) to a loss of 9 (2014). The reasons include: - without the winning presidential candidate on the ticket, House members from the presidential party do less well - votes see midterms as an opportunity to register disappointment/disapproval with the previous two or six years in office

Answer 113

The organisation of united states political parties reflects the federal structure of government. Political power is divided between a national government and state governments, each having their own area of substantive jurisdiction - authority Federalism is a decentralised form of government: if government is decentralised, political parties are likely to reflect that For most of the (19th and 20th American parties were much more evident at the state and local levels than at the national level. With little ideological cohesion between the state organisations of the same party, being a democrat or republican meant little outside of the presidential election cycle - only during election time is when democrat or republican significant or have a different audience

Answer 114

Since the 1970s, a number of factors have led to the strengthening of national party structure: - New campaign finance laws have meant that money is flawed more to the national parties and the presidential candidates themselves rather than being raised locally - past-local politics more significant - Television provided a medium through which candidates could appeal directly to voters - a role that that state and local parties had traditionally played through rallies, whistle-stop, tours and torchlight processions egg Lincoln - The emergence of more sophisticated and widely available opinion polls allowed candidates to 'hear' what the voters were saying without actually meeting them - The adoption of new technology allowed the national parties to target voters with political and fundraising messages in the homes through computerised direct mailing and late through social media - Parties become more ideologically cohesive and politics because more parties resulting in more centralised control of both the message and the messengers - National parties established systems to recruit and train state and local party candidates offering them legal advice, media training, financial advice and analysis of voting trends along with national advertising campaigns, especially during the election cycles

Answer 115

The organisational structures of the two main parties are today more 'top-down' than they were in the past when they were clearly more 'bottom up' That said, there is still a clear divide between the national and state parties. This can best be seen by asking the questions: Who is the leader of the republican party and who is the leader of the democrat party The former question might elicit the answer of 'president trump' but that is highly questionable. After all, the republican party hierarchy made it very clear throughout his election campaign that they did not want him even as their presidential nominee. The president may be able to exercise little leadership in congress. Trump was elected as President in the a nationwide election, not as party leader in an internal party election - like British prime ministers

Answer 116

National Committees - The only manifestations of permanent party structure at the national level are the national committees of each party. The democrat National Committee (DNC) and the Republican National committee (RNC) Both have offices in Washington, each has a choir, normally elected by members of the respective national committee through by tradition incumbents Ps recommend the choir of their own committee These national party choirs are usually anonymous party bureaucrats or former elected officials who are selfdom in the public eye. The national committees raise money, hire staff and coordinate election strategy for their party's candidates for local, state and national office. They are also responsible for organising the national party convention that meets during the summer of election year. The national party is really nothing more than the coming together of the state parties. There is no separate entity called the national party. The democrat national convention is made up of the choir and vice-chair of each of the 50 state, democrat parties plus a further 200 elected members apportioned to the state parties on the basis of state population. All DNC members are admitted as super-delegates to the democrat national convention The RNC consists of the chair of each state republican party, plus two committee members from each state party - one man and one woman

Answer 117

Congressional leadership and committees - At the national level, each party also has its congressional leadership as well as committees to oversee elections to each house of congress: The democrat senatorial campaign committee: the democrat congressional campaign committee; the national republican senatorial committee and the national congressional committee

Answer 118

state and local party organisation - - everything else to do with political parties is at the state level where there is bewildering variety of organisation, laws and customs/traditions - considerable power is vested state governors and big city mayors - There are state party committees (headed by the state party chair) as well as state party conventions - in capital of the state Below that exist the party committees at congressional district, country, war and precinct levels

Answer 119

The two-party system has become a hallmark of US politics. However, they do not have a distinct coherent party ideology. All of US politics is conducted within a more conservative part of the ideological spectrum than in the UK - more coherent compared to the past. Explaining the difference between the democratic and republican parties in 1980, Democrat congressman Mike Barnes stated 'We have the Republican Party that is rather than like your conservative party, and then we have the Democrat party that is rather like - your conservative party - inherently right-wing. He is showing how the american political parties are inherently both conservative and they tend to differentiate on number of issues. The Washington Post in 1997, political commentator Mark Shields stated that 'as of today, the country has two republican parties, separated by the issue of abortion. There are breadth of ideas and opinions within each party. Senator Susan Collins is a pro-choice republican who sits on the left-hand edge at the party. Senator James Inhafe, in contrast sits on the very right-hand edge of the republican party and sees very few circumstances in which abortion should be allowed; he introduced a bill into congress that would not allow abortion to be funded by the taxpayer

Answer 120

The names of the two major parties suggests that there are not ideologically exclusive parties for 'democracy' and 'republicanism' are two all embracing ideologies - it ideologies they are Some ideologies such as fascism and socialism are narrower in their compass but this is not so with the two being considered here. Because the parties names do not necessarily suggest an ideolgical colour, commentators and politicians themselves attach ideological labels ahead of the party names. There are 'conservative democrats' and 'liberal democrats' , 'conservative republicans and 'moderate republicans, George W Bush ran his 2000 election campaign himself a compassionate conservative

Answer 121

In the US ideology and region are often linked. The south tends to be more conservative; the Northeast and the West coast tend to be more liberal or libertarian. Thus, for both parties to be viable in all regions of the country, they need to take on the ideological shades of the region Southern Democrats, such as Senator Bill Nelson of Florida tends to be more conservative than New England Democrats such as Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut. Similarly, New England Republicans such as Senator Susan Collins of Maine are more liberal than southern Republicans such as Senator Richard Burr at North Carolina

Answer 122

Growth of ideological differences - It is used to be conventional wisdom that there was very little ideological difference between the two major parties, as stated by professor Clinton Rosetter " They are creatures of compromise coalitions of interest in which principle is muted and often silenced. When asked the question in 1972, 'Do yoyo think there are important differences in what the Republicans and Democrats stand for? 44% said 'no' and 46% said 'yes'. The trend has however, been towards Americans seeing the parties as far more distinct and this has accelerated since 2000, so that by 2012, 81% though there were important differences between the two parties - more partisan/polarised differences

Answer 123

A similar change is evident in terms of ideological difference between the two parties. Over the past three decades numbers seeing the Republican Party as the more conservative has increased significantly from 53% in 1984 to 73% in 2012 Certainly, the ideological pattern of Democrats - support for abortion and gay rights, opposition to prayer in state-run schools is one that could be described as 'liberal'. Equally, the ideological pattern of Republicans - support for cutting taxes, for the death penalty and opposing abortion rights, is one that could be described as 'conservative'. Such ideological leanings can be clearly seen in the way Americans vote for the two parties according to their ideological position: 84% who identify as liberal voted Democrat in 2016 and 81% who identify as conservative voted Republican - cohesiveness ideological with voters ideology. The party political world has changed somewhat over more recent years and there are identifiable trends within the two parties that can be seen to be their 'principles' or ideology This might not equally apply to every party member, but it does not give a broad understanding of the parties

Answer 124

The democrat party draws heavily on liberal thinkers - envisaging a larger role for the state and adopting a more progressive approach to social and moral issues than republicans. However, not all democrats can be correctly described as liberals, especially those that live in the South or the Midwest. Many will be more likely to identify themselves as moderate democrats or even conservative democrats, through in the current era of hyper-partisanship, the number of people within the democrat party who call themselves moderates, centrists or conservatives has diminished. Certainly, their presidential candidates in the last four election cycles: Kerry, Obama, Clinton and Biden would not have attached such adjectives to their party label

Answer 125

Many commentators saw the contest between Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders (and then Biden and Sanders), in the Democrat primaries in terms of ideology, with Sanders out on the left and Clinton (and Biden) appealing more to the centrist or moderate wing of the party. Indeed, Sanders usually talked of his challenge in such ideological terms, presenting what he called a 'democratic socialist alternative' - to the safer, centrist and establishment approved politics of the democratic party elites. His campaign was often presented in terms of a 'movement' separating the 'Sandersista' from the Clinton and Biden centrists

Answer 126

However, it is difficult to find much evidence for this scenario in the 2016 exit poll data. Collectively, the exit polls showed liberal democrats preferring Clinton over Sanders by 53% to 46%, while non-liberals preferred Clinton by 61% to 36%. The difference in vote share between the two ideological sub-groups thus stood at 8% points for Clinton and 10% points for Sanders - much less than one might have expected. What the exit polls showed was that, rather than being a battle for the 'ideological soul of the democrat party', the democrat primaries were part of a wider anti-establishment agenda that seemed dominant in both parties primaries and in the general election

Answer 127

More generally, Democrats adopt a more progressive attitude on social and moral issues, advocating change and reform with respect to civil rights, LGBTQ+ rights, female reproductive rights and environmentalism. In dealing with crime, democrats favour a mixture of punishment and rehabilitation. In the aftermath of the death of George Floyd, they called for a Justice in Policing Act to address what it perceived as the institutional racism that exists within many police departments across the US. They have long argued to rectify the racial dimensions of crime, as this quote from their 2016 platform demonstrates: "We understand the disproportionate effects of crime, violence and incarceration on communities of colour". They are strong supporters of pro-choice over abortion - what was one of the few remaining leading pro-life democrats, Dan Lipinski from Illinois, lost his primary race in 2020. The Obama administration was the most pro-LGBTQ+ in US history passing the Hate Crime Prevention Act 2010, repealing 'Don't ask, don't tell' 2020, ending the legal defence of the Defence of Marriage Act 2011 (DOMA), ensuring hospital visitation rights for LGBT patients and ensuring equality for LGBT federal government employees

Answer 128

Since the last 1960s, the democrat party have been influenced the ideas of modern liberalism and the ideas of an enabling state. Unlike the republicans who favour negative freedom, democrats prefer positive freedom - which implies a positive and empowering role for the state within the economy. As most liberals, democrats wish to rectify the negative consequences of economic downturns because mass unemployment negates individual freedom. These ideas reflect Keynesian economic management - where the government directly intervenes to stimulate the economy to achieve full employment and economic growth. This can be seen ins some economic measures supported by Democrats today: Obama's passing of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009) (a $787 billion stimulus package in the aftermath of the 2008-09 financial crisis) and the fact that the democrats were instrumental in the passage of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (2020) (provided $2.2 trillion economic stimulus for the Covid ravaged US economy)

Answer 129

Key republican principles are a mixture of neo-conservative and neo-liberal ideas, which while acknowledging the need for state intervention in both society and the economy, broadly envisages a smaller role for the state than the democrats do.] The republican party is significantly more traditional in its attitude to social and moral issues than the more liberal democratic party and draws heavily on key conservative thinkers. However, not everyone in the republican party can be correctly identified as conservatives - especially those who live in the Northeast or on the West Coast - regional differences

Answer 130

Some will qualify their conservatism (define themselves) - hence labels such as social conservatives, who are conservative on social issues, rights etc but may be moderate in other areas. Social conservatives are those who are against 'permissiveness' conservative on social, moral and religious issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, women's rights and school prayer but who may be moderate on economic issues. These are republicans who would have naturally gravitated towards the 'Moral Majority' in the 1980s, and nowadays to what is loosely referred to as the Christian Right: conservative Christian groups linked to Protestant evangelicals, seeking cultural and social changes favouring 'family values', pro-life policies, parental rights and prayer in public schools. Their attitude to social and moral issues is heavily influenced by neo-conservatism. Trump became the first sitting P to attend an anti-abortion rally in January 2020 and Republican Senator Rand Paul argues that 'full personhood' should be given to all embryos and foetuses - fully supportive therefore of outlawing abortion

Answer 131

Those are those who would call themselves 'fiscal conservatives' and who joined the Tea Party movement to fight for a reduction in the national debt and the federal budget deficit as well as a reduction in government spending a lowering of federal taxes. The neo-liberal principles that underpin republican thought mean that they instinctively favour laissez-faire economics and limited government intervention. There was also George W Bush's compassionate conservatism which sought to use traditional conservative beliefs in order to improve the lives of those who felt abandoned and neglected by government and society (to gain the support of the economically of disadvantaged). So called 'moderate Republicans' are a dwindling bread as the party has become much more conservatively homogeneous in its ideology at a national level.

Answer 132

Trump appeared to be an almost 'post ideological' (not a distinctive republican) in his campaign - (to utilise one of his own adjectives for the media, many saw him as a fake republican). He was not a conservative in the mould of Senator Ted Cruz or former House speaker Newt Gingrich. He did not make speeches about limited government or the sanctity of the constitution - he actually opposed Republican principles such as free trade, Wall street financers and corporate executives who moved jobs abroad. He even wanted to protect entitlement programmes from budget cuts (hard to call him politically republican but can be viewed as a populist republican). However, trump was neither a moderate or liberal Republican in the mould of Mitt Romney or John McCain, the party's two previous presidential nominees. He promised to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court, he courted leading evangelical leaders and constantly extolled his admiration for President Regan. His attraction to those who supported him had more to do with what he was not - a politician - than what he was in ideological terms.

Answer 133

His attraction to those who supported him had more to do with what he was not - a politician - than what he was in ideological terms. More controversially, when condemning the violence surrounding some of the protests following the killing of George Floyd in May 2020. Trump tweeted "When the looting starts, the shooting starts". During the ensuing protests are Missouri Couple (Patricia and Mark McCloskey), gained notoriety by standing outside of their million-dollar home on a private street, brandishing their legally held guns shouting at protesters to go away. For many republicans, this epitomised the right of law-abiding Americans to protect their home and family - they later featured at the Republican national convention in that summer.

Answer 134

Democrats ideology are generally liberal, believing in progressive rights and some level of government intervention in both social and economic policy. This can be contrasted with Republican ideology which is generally conservative, believing in individual rights and a limited role for the government in the economy and social policy, although a larger role in homeland security

Answer 135

Democrats believe in the general ideological principles: - An unerring belief that we can make it (America) better - 'Out of many, we are one' - a responsibility of society to ensure that government works for everyone - A constitutional belief in liberty and equality for all - Government intervention to ensure equality for all, in both economy and social welfare - Being strong enough to defend the nation while seeking peace

Answer 136

Republicans believe in the general ideological principles: - American exceptionalism (the idea that the USA is uniquely 'free') - The rights of the individual, 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' - An originalist interpretation of the Constitution - Limited government, separation of powers and federalism - Political freedom and economic freedom are indivisible - Being strong enough to defend the nation while seeking peace

Answer 137

General Policy beliefs that democrats support: - Women's right to choose in the case of abortion - Same sex marriage - A level of social welfare (including healthcare) - Reform of immigration - Pro-environmental policies - Gun-control - Larger government, even if that occasionally encroaches on state's rights - access to free or debt-free education - abolishing the death penalty

Answer 138

General policy beliefs that Republicans support: - Restrictions on provision of and funding for abortion - Opposition to same-sex marriage - Stricter immigration policy - Pro-business policies - Gun Rights - Smaller government to allow greater rights of individual states - State and parent run education - Tax cuts over the provision of social welfare including universal healthcare - Death penalty

Answer 139

The ideological principles of a party will often inform its policy. The 2016 party platforms provide a useful insight into understanding specific policy differences between the democrats and republicans. In explaining why republicans opposite universal health, it is important to note that they believe in individual freedom. The provision of such healthcare would therefore remove this choice from the individual and go against Republicans ideological conservative beliefs. It is possible to discern some clear differences between the two parties when it comes to policies.

Answer 140

Key policy: Increased spending on social welfare programmes - (Democrats tend to support) / (Republicans tend to oppose) A 'get tough' policy on crime - (Democrats tend to oppose) / (Republicans tend to support) Death Penalty - (Democrats tend to oppose) / (Republicans tend to support) Gun control - (Democrats tend to support) / (Republicans tend to oppose) Cut federal taxes - (Democrats tend to oppose) / (Republicans tend to support) Women's right on abortion - (Democrats tend to support) / (Republicans tend to oppose) High levels of defence spending - (Democrats tend to oppose) / (Republicans tend to support) Gay rights & Same-sex marriage - (Democrats tend to support) / (Republicans tend to oppose) Stricter controls on immigration - (Democrats tend to oppose) / (Republicans tend to support) Prayer in state-run schools - (Democrats tend to oppose) / (Republicans tend to support) Stricter environmental controls - (Democrats tend to support) / (Republicans to tend to oppose) The federal government should do less - (Democrats tend to oppose) / (Republicans tend to oppose) 'Obamacare' - (Democrats tend to support) / (Republicans tend to oppose) The table above demonstrates how the parties stand on several high profile issues. However, it needs to be read with caution as not all Democrats oppose the death penalty or not all Republicans support prayer in state-run schools, but in general most Democrats tend to oppose the death penalty and most Republicans tend to support school prayer. This can be seen in the positions taken by presidential candidates as well as in the voting patterns on these issues in congress and in the wider electorate.

Answer 141

The table shows that democrats tend to be more progressive on social and moral issues, as well as on issues relating to law and order. They favour greater governmental intervention both in the economy and on social and welfare issues such as education and healthcare. Republicans, on the other hand, tends to focus more on individualism with government playing a much more limited role in the economy, as well as in social and moral issues.

Answer 142

Death penalty - 'We will abolish the death penalty, which has proven to be a cruel and unusual form of punishment. It has no place in the USA'

Answer 143

Same-sex marriage - 'Ds applaud last year's decision (2016) by the SC that recognised that LGBT people, like other Americans have the right to marry the person they love. But there is still much work to be done'. 'We will fight for comprehensive federal, non-discrimination protections for all LGBT Americans'

Answer 144

Abortion - "We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should have access to quality reproductive healthcare services, including safe and legal abortion". 'We will fight efforts to roll back the clock on women's health and reproductive rights'

Answer 145

Environment - 'Climate change is an urgent threat and defining challenge of out time' 'Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 80% below 2005 levels by 2050'. 'We are committed to getting 50% of our electricity from clean energy sources within a decade' 'Democrats believe that carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases should be priced to reflect their negative externalities'

Answer 146

Guns - 'We will expand and strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws,,, and keep weapons of war, such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAMS) off our streets'

Answer 147

Immigration - 'Democrats believe we need to urgently fix our broken immigration system.. and create a path to citizenship for law-abiding families who are here'

Answer 148

Death Penalty - 'With the murder rate soaring in our great cities, we condemn the supreme courts erosion of the right of the people to enact capital punishment in their states'

Answer 149

Same-sex marriage - 'Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation of a free society... We condemn the supreme courts ruling in U.S v Windsor which wrongly removed the ability of congress to define marriage policy in federal law'

Answer 150

Abortion - 'We assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution' 'We call for a permanent ban on federal funding and subsides for abortion'

Answer 151

Environment - 'We support the development of all forms of energy that are a marketable in a free economy without subsidies, including coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear power and hydropower.' 'We oppose any carbon tax'. The environment is too important to be left to radical environmentalists whose approach is based on shoddy science'

Answer 152

Guns - 'We support firearm reciprocity legislation to recognise the right of law-abiding Americans to carry firearms to protect themselves and their families in all 50 states... We oppose ill - conceived laws that would restrict magazine capacity or ban the sale of the most popular and common modern rifle'

Answer 153

Immigration - 'Our highest priority, therefore is to secure our borders and all ports of entry and to enforce our immigration laws'

Answer 154

Tax - 'We believe the wealthiest Americans and the largest corporations must pay their fair share of taxes. Democrats will claw back tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, eliminate tax breaks for big oil and gas companies'

Answer 155

Minimum wage - 'we should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour over time and index it, give all Americans the ability to join a union regardless of where they work'

Answer 156

Banking - 'Wall street cannot be an island unto itself gambling trillions in risky financial instruments and making the huge profits, all the while thinking that taxpayers will be there to bail them out again'

Answer 157

Tax - 'Republicans consider the establishment of pro-growth tax codes a moral imperative... Whenever tax rates penalize thrift or discourage investment, they must be lowered'

Answer 158

Minimum wage - 'Minimum wage is an issue that should be handed at the state and local level'

Answer 159

Banking - 'Republicans believe that no financial institution is too big to fail. We support legislation to ensure that the problems of any financial institution can be resolved through the Bankruptcy code'

Answer 160

Healthcare - 'D's believe that healthcare is a right, not a privilege and our healthcare system should put people before profits'

Answer 161

Healthcare - 'It is time to repeal Obamacare and give America a much-needed tax cut... we will reduce mandates and enable insurers and providers of care to increase healthcare options and contain costs'

Answer 162

Education - 'Democrats are unified in their strong belief that every student should be able to go to college debt-free and working families should not have to pay any tuition to go to public colleges and universities'

Answer 163

Education - 'the federal government should not be in the business of originating student loans, In order to bring down college costs and give students access to multitude of financing options, private sector participation in student financing should be restored'

Answer 164

While parties in the US have a breadth of ideology within them, the general trend is that over the last few decades the divisions (ideologically coherent) between the parties have widened. This serves to suggest that parties, as a vehicle for ideologies have grown in importance. Their role and significance is clear (voting records, laws) when looking at the actions in Congress. It is easy to identify party-line voting on significant issues - for example, the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 - (controversial nomination) He was originally appointed to the Court of Appeal for the Columbia District in 2006 by GW Bush. The senate voted 50-48 to confirm his nomination (RP: Yes 49/No 0 and DP: Yes:1/No: 46). (I: Yes 0/No 2). The voting of members of both the senate and the house of representatives fall increasingly into party blocs. The sharper the divisions within congress, the more important parties become more polarised in the last decades.

Answer 165

- Constituents - Congressional Caucuses - Interest groups

Answer 166

Constituents: In a short election cycle, members of congress must be mindful (loyalties are divided e.g. party vs constituent demands) of the views of their constituents as well as their party if they wish to be re-elected This is especially true given the nature of primaries in the US which allow constituents to control who makes it on the ballot paper Therefore, the awareness of their constituents, limits the significance of parties and the power of ideological differences (mindful of constituents)

Answer 167

Congressional causes - These are groups of congressman and congresswomen (factions or groups that reflect their priorities) who share a specific common interest and come together when voting on that issue, irrespective of party lines There is, for example, a Women's Caucus, a Black Caucus and a Steel Caucus - in relation to the latter, this is for those who represent states in which heavy manufacturing is a crucial part of the state economy This reflects the importance of movements in the US - rather than parties. Both parties are influenced by the power of these

Answer 168

Interest groups: It would be rare that the role of an interest group would be the publicised reason a member of congress voted against their party. However, in an age of such expensive elections, the role of interest groups in funding both parties and individual candidates is crucial and can sometimes explain their voting behaviour - if funded by NRA then oppose gun control reform

Answer 169

Given the breadth of ideology within the US parties and the importance of state-level party organisations, it is not surprising that factions develop within them (groups within a party that share an ideological agreement that might be different to other groups within the same party). These factors are not fixed, however and often overlap with one another and evolve into new allegiances and groupings reflecting key issues of the day, central to the national agenda. Some might be formal membership groups, while others might be just loose coalition of the like-minded. Factors can be constructive in providing new ideas and policies or they can be destructive - as members of different intra-party factions struggle for control and indulge in party in-fighting e.g. speaker McCarthy (2022)

Answer 170

- to accentuate certain policies e.g. income equality, free trade, low taxes, moral issues - to focus on a particular aspect of ideology e.g. conservative democrats, liberal democrats and hard-left - to reflect geographic, ethnic, economic, generational, religious or ideological groups within the party e.g. The Christian Right, Southern democrats - to widen voter appeal e.g. The tea party - to extol the party 'greats' e.g. R

Answer 171

- to accentuate certain policies e.g. income equality, free trade, low taxes, moral issues - to focus on a particular aspect of ideology e.g. conservative democrats, liberal democrats and hard-left - to reflect geographic, ethnic, economic, generational, religious or ideological groups within the party e.g. The Christian Right, Southern democrats - to widen voter appeal e.g. The tea party - to extol the party 'greats' e.g. Reaganites - to offer diversity within a party that stresses unity: e.g. political parties are broad churches - not all committed to the same level - to offer personal support and encouragement to those politicians/voters of a similar view e.g. representation of the interests of others - to challenge the party establishment e.g. the freedom caucus, the tea party

Answer 172

Broadly, each party can be divided into three blocs or factions that share common ideas: Democrats: liberals, moderates and conservatives Republicans: moderates, social conservatives and fiscal conservatives It is often possible to see where an individual 'sits' within a party by looking both at their voting record and their support from interest groups. From time to time, named factors occur. Within the republican party, the Tea Party movement, and the Freedom Caucus both famously represented the more right-wing element of the party's ideology.

Answer 173

DEMOCRATIC FACTIONS - Looking at the ratings that interest groups give to members of Congress can help to illustrate their views and where in the party the belong. The 2018 ratings below demonstrate that the conservative wing of the democrat party is more business friendly, while the liberal wing is more focused on rights and environment. None, however has been awarded 0% by any of these groups, showing the breadth of ideology of each individual. Faction and Ratings within the DP 2018 : US chamber of Commerce supporting business - Liberal (Elizabeth Warren) - 31%, Moderate (Dianne Feinstein) - 49%, Conservative (Joe Manchin) - 59% Americans for Prosperity: supporting conservative values - Liberal (Elizabeth Warren) - 5%, Moderate (Dianne Feinstein) - 3%, Conservative (Joe Manchin) - 32% American Civil Liberties: supporting individual rights - Liberal (Elizabeth Warren) - 94%, Moderate (Dianne Feinstein) - 70%, Conservative (Joe Manchin) - 41% League of Conservation Voters: supporting environmental issues - Liberal (Elizabeth Warren) - 94%, Moderate (Dianne Feinstein) - 89%, Conservative (Joe Manchin) - 44%

Answer 174

Liberals or progressives within the democrat party are those who are on the left of their party. They are more comfortable with government intervention, if it can help achieve equality in the US and fight for the protection of the rights of everyone and favour universal state sponsored health care, a broader scope of welfare provision, increase in state affordable housing and free college education. They support the abolition of the death penalty, legislation of marijuana, gun control, closing down of existing nuclear power plants, banning fracking and reducing carbon emissions to tackle climate change. They favour reforming campaign finance and limiting the maximum amount that can be raised and spent by candidates

Answer 175

Notable recent figures in this wing of the party have been Bernie Sanders, who ran against Clinton in 2016, and the Elizabeth Warren, a potential presidential candidate for 2020. Sanders 2016 campaign saw him advocate for free education, reversing Citizens v FEC, universal healthcare and increased taxes. In 2015, Warren led to charge against the Trans-Pacific Trade deal, calling an other progressive members of the party to rally with her against this deal. She stated 'America shouldn't be signing lousy trade deals. Period... TPP isn't about helping American Workers set the rules. It's about letting giant corporations rig the rules'. While they did not prevent the deal, her actions made headlines and led to numerous new stories assessing the impact of the TPP. In 2018, 28 years old Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (AOC) caused a 'political earthquake' within the democrats by defeating the incumbent Congressman Joe Crowley in the New York 14th district Democrat primary. She had worked on Sanders campaign and described herself as a socialist. As a member of the Democrat socialists of America, she is the youngest women ever to serve in the US congress

Answer 176

There is tension between the liberals and other wings of the democrat party, which is largely because most of the president candidates in recent years have come from the party's moderate base (Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Clinton and Biden). AOC put it bluntly when discussing the moderate president candidate Biden: 'In any other country, Joe Biden and I would not be in the same party, but in America we are.' Liberals believe that moderates lack the progressive radical drive needed to solve US problems.

Answer 177

Moderates are those democrat members who sit in the centre of their party. This group is likely to hold liberal values but be willing to compromise on some of the specifics. Practically, moderates doubt whether a liberal candidate would have broad enough appeal to win a presidential election. They feel that too many of the liberal faction's policies are best described as socialist Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer sit almost in the centre of their party. Feinstein, a senator from California, opposes the death penalty, supports the environment but does not support the government takeover of healthcare. In a 2017 town hall meeting, she was booed by attendees when she suggested she did not support single-payer healthcare. She previously supported the death penalty before changing her view. Considering she is the senator for California, a notably left-leaning state, her stance as a moderate is all the more interesting.

Answer 178

Moderate democrats such as Biden favour adding a public option to healthcare and curbing prescription drug prices. They are against wealth inequality - Biden favoured an increase to a $15 minimum wage and higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy. They are concerned with the plight of the homeless and Biden's successful campaign included a commitment to spend $640 billion on affordable housing as well as providing protection against eviction and predatory mortgages. They do respect the liberal wing of the party, but there is some mutual exasperation between the two wings, with moderates arguing that liberal policies are not costed.

Answer 179

Conservative democrats (Blue dog Ds) are those on the right of the party. In an era of hyper-partisanship, members in this area are increasingly uncommon. These are members who would tend to be socially and morally conservative but share agreement with the democrats on fiscal and economic policy. Joe Manchin, the senator for West Virginia has advocated for a measure of gun control despite his right-leaning state, but was the only democrat who voted for Brett Kavanaugh to be appointed to the supreme court in 2018 (yet voted against the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett and voted to impeach trump in 2020). He supported the construction of a wall along the southern border of the US, voted against repealing the 'Don't ask, don't tell' and opposed same-sex marriage and Obama's health care reforms. One of the reasons there are fewer of these members is the anger they cause among their membership in a time of partisanship - for example, Manchin was briefly suggested as a cabinet member for Trump. However, they were at their powerful as a grouping in 2009-10 when they were strong enough to influence the Obama administration.

Answer 180

The 2018 ratings demonstrate that the moderate wing of the Republican Party is more willing to compromise over the issue of rights as viewed by liberals, while the social conservative wing is more focused on rights from a conservative standpoint such as anti-abortion and anti-same-sex marriage US chamber of Commerce: Supporting Business: Moderate (Lisa Murkowski) - 91%, Fiscal Conservatives (Mitch McConnell) - 92%, Social Conservatives (Ted Cruz) - 72% Americans for Prosperity: supporting conservative values - Moderate (Lisa Murkowski) - 75%, Fiscal Conservatives (Mitch McConnell) - 92%, Social Conservatives (Ted Cruz) - 98% American Civil Liberties Union - supporting individual rights - Moderate (Lisa Murkowski) - 64%, Fiscal Conservatives (Mitch McConnell) - 41%, Social Conservatives (Ted Cruz) - 5% League of Conservation Voters: supporting environmental issues - Moderate (Lisa Murkowski) - 19%, Fiscal Conservatives (Mitch McConnell) - 7%, Social Conservatives (Ted Cruz) - 3%

Answer 181

Moderates - Moderates within the Republican Party tend to favour more conservative fiscal policy, looking for lower taxes and more business-friendly policies. This is often balanced, however, with a greater acceptance or tolerance of more liberal views on the issue of rights. In 2018, two republican members of the house of representatives opposed a provision that would ban abortion after 20 weeks, while four others in Congress supported same-sex marriage. Before Trump, the last two presidential nominees, McCain (2008) and Romney (2012) were both moderate republicans. Like conservative democrats, however, there are increasingly fewer of these republicans. Party polarisation has squeezed moderates republicans as the party has become more ideological homogenous and the conservative faction now dominates

Answer 182

Fiscal conservatives - They have a keen focus on the size and cost of government, mostly with a view to cutting it down to reduce taxes and allow greater economic freedom for businesses and American. It is not that this faction will have either conservative or liberal views on social and moral issues, rather that these issues do not concern them in a significantly way. It was these Americans who were strongly represented by Trump's promises to free the economy from government regulation, lower taxes and renegotiate those trade deals that were not in the best interests of the US. Both the Tea Party and the Freedom Caucus have some features of fiscal conservatism, arguing for a reduction in government spending on issues such as a healthcare, due to their costs rather than their moral implications. They are also prepared to cut the prison population due to its vast cost Trump showed sympathy for this brand of conservatism and the 2020 election budget saw $4.4 trillion of proposed spending cuts in Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance, the Environmental protection Agency and Centre for Disease Control and Prevention

Answer 183

They have a keen focus on social and moral issues and are sometimes known as the religious right and or the Christian right. They take a conservative view on these matters, favouring the death penalty and gun rights and opposing abortion and social welfare. The opposition they have is based not on the cost of these issues but on the moral implications of them. As the 2016, republican platform identifies they believe in the sanctity of life, including that of an unborn child and speak out against abortion (gaining success in bringing the supreme court case leading to the over-turning of Roe v Wade) They are also staunch defenders of gun rights on constitutional and religious grounds. Ted Cruz has argued that the Bible supports individuals liberty to defend themselves and their families from those who would commit crimes, quoting Exodus 22:2 'If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed'. From a more pragmatic view, social conservatives might be deterred from making concessions to gun control as this would risk lowering their approval ratings from NRA.

Answer 184

The Freedom Caucus - The freedom caucus is a group of right-wing republicans in the House of Representatives. Formed in 2015, they launched vocal challenges to Obama's immigration policy and fought to repeal the Affordable Care Act. While there was no membership list released for the group, it included enough members to make it voice heard. Speaker Boehner and his successor Speaker Ryan both tried to control this faction but it was so disruptive that ultimately both speakers left this post - Boehner through resignation and Ryan through retirement from Congress. Boehner resigned in 2015, having battled with the Freedom Caucus which considered him too moderate. He described the leader of the caucus: 'Jordan was a terrorist as a legislator going back to his days in the Ohio House and Senate. A terrorist. A legislative Terrorist' When ryan took over the role of speaker, dealing with the freedom caucus proved just as problematic and he left the role in January 2018. That this factor is a well-known political entity in the media highlights the significance it has.