Interpretations and debates around US democracy and participation Flashcards
What are the three main advantages of invisible primaries
Visibility and support for candidates
Allows for a range of candidates
Scrutiny
Explain visibility and support for candidates as an advantage of invisible primaries
They can help candidates gain visibility and build a platform for both support and campaign finance. High correlation between the person leading the polls at the end of the invisible primary and the person who actually goes on to win the nomination
Give an example of how invisible primaries can be advantageous by allowing a wide variety of candidates
The first D debate in June 2019 had 20 D candidates from all factions of the party
Explain scrutiny as an advantage of invisible primaries
Allow candidates to be scrutinised in all forms of media. Candidates can be road tested, enabling potential flaws or hidden scandals to emerge before the general election
Give an example of how the invisible primaries can be a good opportunity for scrutiny
In a 2011 debate governor Rick Perry of Texas forgot which three executive departments of state he would close if elected president and then went on to poll at less than 1% in the New Hampshire primary
What are the 4 main disadvantages of the invisible primary stage
Lack of serious debate
Dependent on fundraising
Voter apathy
Hidden scandals
Explain lack of serious debate as a disadvantage of invisible primaries
Particularly in the early stages, the debates have so many candidates that it is more about soundbites than serious political debate. The 2020 D primary race was especially crowded with 30 candidates bidding for nomination in 2019; 20 candidates participated in the first TV debate with the candidates split into two groups debating over consecutive evenings
Explain being dependent on fundraising as a disadvantage of invisible primaries
Candidate survival is heavily dependent on whether they can accrue enough funding to stay in the race. The ability to fundraise is often seen as being more important than being the best candidate
Explain voter apathy as a disadvantage of invisible primaries
The process is long winded and this can cause voter apathy. By the end of the invisible primaries, many voters have already been switched off by a steady stream of ads and debates
Explain hidden scandals as a disadvantage of invisible primaries
Not all scandals emerge at this stage. The ‘Hollywood Access’ tapes featuring Trump’s lewd comments about women only surfaced during the presidential campaign itself
What is the main advantage of primaries and caucases
That they maintain federalisn
What are the two main downsides of primaries and caucuses
Voter apathy
Undemocratic
Describe voter apathy as a downside of primaries and caucuses
Both have low turnouts. The 2020 Iowa caucus had a turnout of 9.1%, while the highest primary turnout, in Montana, was still only 46% turnout
Describe how caucuses are undemocratic
Critics say caucuses are dominated by a small group who are selecting individuals they are comfortable with rather than the best candidate, which is why fewer states are choosing them
Give an example of a state that ditched caucuses in 2020
Colorado
What are the two major upsides to national party conventions
They can publicise the candidate
They can set the narrative
Describe how national party conventions can publicise the candidate
The candidate can engage with the party faithful but also the nation as their acceptance speech will be broadcast throughout the nation on the TV and the internet. Usually leads to a short term boost in the polls and the candidate hopes this will snowball into national momentum in the weeks leading up to the election
Describe how national party conventions can set the narrative
The successful candidate will try and define both themselves and their opponent on the key issues
What are the two major downsides of national party conventions
Few major decisions are taken
Soundbite coverage
Describe how few major decisions are taken at NPCs
Most key decisions such as the selection of the running mate, the candidate and the party platform are decide beforehand
How do they only provide soundbite coverage
Often reduced to clips of acceptance and endorsement speeches from fellow politicians, family members and celebs, with little policy detail
What are the 4 main arguements in favour of the EC
Preserves the voice of small population states
Reflects the federal nature of the USA
Promotes a two horse race
Suggested alternatives have their own problems
Describe the arguement that it preserves the voice of small pop states
Small pop states worry that if it were abolished the votes of their people would be worthless, which was one of the reasons the FF set it up in the first place. This concern should be even bigger now than in 1787 as the big states are even bigger now in relation to the small states
Explain the arguement that it reflects the federal nature of the US
EC is very much state based, with each state having a certain leeway in how its electors are selected. For instance, Maine and Nebraska use the district method instead of the winner take all method
Explain the advantage that it tends to produce a two horse race
This is important in presidential elections as it means that the president will often achieve more than 50% of the national vote, which will be an example of national unity. In 27/40 elections between 1864 and 2020, the winner won a majority of the popular vote
Explain how suggested alternatives also have their own problems
Far easier to point out the flaws of the EC than the suggest viable solutions that would be far superior and that would command sufficient support from across the nation and from both the parties
What are the 5 main criticisms of the EC
Small states overrepresented
Winner take all system distorts the result and can lead to the winner of the popular vote losing
Unfair to national third parties
President and VP of different parties
Rogue voters/faithless electors
How are small states overrepresented within the EC
In 2020 California had 55 EC votes representing over 39.5 million inhabitants. Wyoming had 3 EC votes representing just over 0.5 million people. California therefore receives one EC vote per 720,000 people, while Wyoming receives one for every 190,000
Describe how the winner take all system distorts the results and sometimes leads to the loser of the popular vote winning
In 1996 Clinton won 49% of the popular vote but 70% of the EC votes. In the 8 elections between 1992 and 2020 five results could be described as seriously distorted by the EC. On two occasions the winner of the EC did not even win the popular vote. Clinton beat Trump by 48% to 46%, with 3 million more votes but Trump still won a comfortable EC victory, falling 70 votes infront of Clinton in the EC
Describe how it is unfair to national third parties
In 1992 independent Ross Perot won 19% of the popular vote. In 1996 as the Reform candidate, he won 8.5 % of the popular vote. In 2000 Green party candidate Ralph Nater won over 3 million votes. None of these efforts won a single electoral college vote. Regional third party candidates fare better. In 1968 independent third party candidate George Wallace won 13.5% of the popular vote and won 45 EC votes because of his concentrated support in the deep south
Why didn’t Perot’s seats convert into votes in 1992
Because his support was too widespread, having failed to get over 30% of the popular vote in any state except Maine
How could it lead to the president and VP being from different parties
In 2000 it could have been the case that the house would have chosen GWB as president while the senate would have chosen D Joseph Liebermann as VP
Describe the disadvantage of faithless electors/rogue voters
Many states have laws requiring electors to cast their ballots for the state wide popular vote winner, but others do not, leaving open the option of rogue voters. Seven of the 13 presidential elections since 1968 have seen this occur. However, on 6 of these occasions, there was only one elector who voted for a candidate other than the one they should have voted for. In 2016 there were multiple rogue votes. There could have been more as three Clinton electors in Colorado were dismissed and replaced when they refused to vote for the designated candidate. Five Clinton electors and two Trump electors did not vote for their designated candidate. Sometimes rogue electors vote for third party candidates, which explains why the EC votes don’t always add up to 538
How did the 2020 SC case Chiafalo v Washington relate to this issue
Unanimously decided that states are entitled to tell electors they have no right to reverse the votes of millions of citizens. The decision upheld Washington state’s power to fine the three electors who cast EC ballots for former secretary of state Colin Powell instead of Clinton. The court also overturned a circuit court ruling that Colorado had no power to control what electors can do
Make the case that the issue of rogue electors is minor
Of the 10 faithless electors in 2016, this constituted the highest number since 1872, and it still had no bearing on the outcome
Make the case that the EC should not be abolished
Preserves the voice of small pop states
Reflects the federal nature of the US
Usually promotes a two horse race with the winner receiving more than 50% of the vote - granting unity and democratic legitimacy
No consensus on what should replace it
Delivers the right result most of the time with 2000 and 2016 very much the exceptions
Faithless electors have never affected the final outcome
Make the case that it should be abolished
Small pop states are overrepresented
Winner take all system can distort the result
Possible for the pop vote loser to win
Unfair to national third parties
Potential problems and questions over legitimacy if the EC is deadlocked
Potential for rogue electors to distort the result
Members of which party tend to be more supportive of reform
Ds
Why were there renewed calls to scrap the EC in 2016
Because for the 2nd time in 5 years it gave the presidency to someone who lost the popular vote
What was the headline of the NY Times in 19 Dec 2016
Time to end the EC
What did the NY Times go on to say in this article
That the American people would prefer to elect the president democratically, not filtered through the antiquitated mechanism of the EC
What were the result when the Washington Post commissioned a nationwide poll on replacing the EC with direct election
72% supported with only 23% opposed
What would be the problem with the EC being replaced with direct election
Without the need to gain an absolute majority of EC votes, their would be multiple candidates who could possibly win, meaning presidents elected on 40% or less of the pop vote. This could be solved by a run off election between the top two candidates, but do Americans really want to add another stage to this seemingly neverending process
If direct election was adopted, the choice would be between a president elected on a substantial minority of the popular vote, or an additional an expensive election which would probably do little to raise participation levels
Why is replacement of the EC unlikely to happen
Only a constitutional amendment could bring about this reform, and this means that the small states would need to ratify this amendment
How could we update the EC by following the system used by Maine and Nebraska
Award 1 EC vote to the winner in each congressional district, and then an extra two for the state wide winner
How did both Maine and Nebraska split their EC votes in 2020
While Biden won Maine overall Trump won in its second congressional district and vice versa in Nebraska
Flaws of this system
Would lead to the results have being only marginally different in the last 7 elections. In 2000 the congressional district system would have brought about less proportional results, with Gore losing the EC vote by 38 instead of 4. Would not have helped Perot in 1992 or 1996. Would have exaggerated Bush’s 2004 margin significantly. If it was used in 2012, it would have led to Romney coming within 5 votes of Obama even though Obama won by more than 5 million votes. This is because Obama won fewer districts but won them by huge margins, but Romney won more districts by small margins. For instance, in Ohio, where Obama beat Romney by 51%-48% - Romney won 12 of the states congressional districts to Obama’s 4. In Pennsylvania Obama won 52%-46%, but Romney won 13 districts to Obama’s 5. Seems highly improbable the US would swap one flawed system for another
Part of the reason for this is because of the perverse congressional districts that come about because of gerrymandering. This would be changed if drawing up congressional district boundaries was handed over to an independent body within each state, as proposed in the For The People Act
Ananlyse whether we should allocate EC votes in each state proportional to the popular vote of that state
More equable allocation of EC votes. Would render the electors unnecessary
Would be fairer to national third parties, but would also encourage more voters to vote for such parties, thereby bringing us back to the issues of the winning candidate winning on a moderate proportion of the popular vote
Main reasons why the EC has not been changed
No agreement on a suitable replacement
Neither of the parties have an incentive to change the system that currently works for them
Current system reflects the federal nature of the US in a way that direct elections would not
Arguably there are other more pressing political reforms, such as campaign finance and issues around voter ID
EC reform only becomes a matter of debate when a rogue result like 2000 or 2016 occurs
Why have attempts to limit electoral spending been limited
Acts contain loopholes that are quickly exploited by donors and candidates, and recent SC decisions have diluted attempts to rein in spending on first amendment grounds
What do critics say about the current high spending levels
Critics of the current system argue that high levels of spending favour candidates who are either wealthy enough to self fund or have connections to the wealthy
Makes candidates too beholden to interest groups, which can be significant campaign donors
Give a statistic to show just how much super PACs spend during election campaigns
They spent over $1.2 billion in Oct 2020 alone
Make the case against this big spending by PACs and super PACs
Instead of elections being a race focused on the best candidate or the best policies, it becomes more focused on who can raise and spend the most. Political auction where the most effective fundraiser is most likely to win. PACs and super PACs exascerbate this problem
These organisations are often linked to powerful interest groups. Candidates effectively become sponsored by different companies and interest groups, which is hardly an effective advert for democracy, where the community is supposed to be served
Arguements that high levels of expenditure from PACs and super PACs can be beneficial
CU v FEC (2010) was good for democracy as it reinforced 1st amendment rights. It is not to role of govt to regulate free speech
Super PACs increase electoral competition, which is good. Incumbents in primary and congressional elections usually significantly outspend challengers, but super PACs will often support challengers. This has been good for democracy as it encourages incumbents to fight harder. There is even a super PAC specifically dedicated to fostering competitiveness (Campaign for Accountability), which supporters challenges to entrenched candidates. Josh Kraushaar of the National Journal has argued the that huge influx of campaign money paradoxically ‘ensures a stronger competitive balance in elections’
Super PACs may also benefit non mainstream presidential candidates, who no longer have to drop out when the smaller donations dry up. The 2020 D presidential candidates realised this and the initial united front, that none of them would use a super PAC, quickly collapsed. This made for a more interesting campaign as candidates like Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar were able to, with super PAC support ran much longer and more successful campaigns than they would have been able to otherwise
You could argue that increased super PAC spending increases knowledge of candidates and issues among voters. Political ads can be a better source of info for some voters than news coverage. The Chicago Tribune has reiterated this view arguing that the main function of super PACs is ‘one at the heart of democracy: spreading info and arguements that voters may find useful in casting their votes’
Their influence in presidential elections can also be diluted. In 2016 Trump was able to bypass traditional campaign advertising through his extensive use of Twitter, which was free. Clinton’s super PAC support dwarfed Trump’s but he still one
Why are the Ds in an awkward position in terms of their desire to reform campaign finance
Because they still need to work with super PACs if they want to win
How did D strategist Ian Sams summarise this predicament
‘All Ds want to get rid of dark money, but we have to win to reform campaign finance. Everyone is realising that in order win we need a shit ton of money’
Give some statistics to show how the Ds significantly outfunded the Rs in 2020
They raised $6.9 billion compared to $3.8 billion for the Rs
The role of PACs and super PACs in US elections is too great…
The funds raised by them are increasingly significant in campaign finance and favour well connected establishment candidates in both parties
Rich donors wield too much power and influence over elections, especially when compared with ordinary voters. Critics argue that they are legalised bribery
Congress is dependent on campaign finance and it too much in the thrall of powerful PACs and super PACs. The same is true of presidential candidates
PACs and super PACs undermine the role of political parties
The role of PACs and super PACs in US elections is not too great
Rich candidates like Trump and Bloomberg can partly or completely self fund, meaning they are there purely there to benefit democracy
Superior funding does not guarantee victory. Bloomberg spend over $1 billion or $23 million for each delegate he won and was nowhere near winning the nomination. Clinton outspent Trump in the presidential election and still lost
Overly simplistic to see members of congress as puppets that can be bought by interest groups - they still ultimately must be sensitive to the views of their constituents
Party allegiances and labels remain significant. Interest groups will often support parties that align with their views anyway - like the NRA supporting the Rs and LGBTQ+ groups like the HR campaign endorse the Ds
Why has campaign finance been so difficult to reform
The 1st amendment right to free speech makes Americans wary of attempts to regulate elections in a way that restricts the freedom of candidates to campaigns
SC decisions like CU have extended free speech into the right to raise and spend money for political campaigns, granting corporations and interest groups free speech rights
Regulation is in the hands of congress, the members of which have already been successful in raising campaign finance, often over decades in office. Don’t want to jeopardise a system that currently works for them
Reform would require a bipartisan approach. Such a politically contentious reform has little chance of happening in the current hyperpartisan era. Both Ds and Rs currently raise huge sums, so they would not want to handicap themselves
Any reforms would leave loopholes that would be exploited by eager candidates and donors. As justices Stevens and O’Connor said when ruling on the BCRA in 2003 ‘money, like water, will always find an outlet’
What methods will interest groups use to influence how members of congress will vote
