midterm Flashcards
(263 cards)
novel aspects of the 2008 presidential-election campaign-why novelties?
- They help us learn history: novelties are a departure from patterns of the past, after all.
- They help us begin to predict and explain new directions.
- They are intellectually interesting – at bottom the only thing that motivates serious study of any subject.
- they serve as natural experiments to help us refute and thereby test hypotheses. For example, two novelties in that election could refute the hypothesis that American voters are not willing to elect a black to national office or the comparable hypothesis about a woman.
novel aspects of the 2008 presidential-election campaign-
- both candidates for president were mere senators – not current or former legislative leaders and not former executives of any sort. Rarely has a senator, mere or not, been elected president – only twice in the 20th century. The modal prior job of presidents has been governor. Why? Perhaps because governors have to lead and decide, appoint and delegate and take responsibility, whereas mere senators have to do naught but flap their jaws.
- one candidate was black. That never happened before. Would it make a difference? Consider the “Bradley effect” hypothesis. When Democratic LA mayor Tom Bradley ran for governor in 1982 against Republican George Deukmejian, polls wrongly predicted Bradley’s victory. The hypothesis is that some voters who were polled about gubernatorial or racial preferences lied in Bradley’s favor because they were embarrassed to express their racial prejudices. Can you think of a rival hypothesis? Maybe some nonprejudiced Republican voters told pollsters they liked Bradley lest they seem racially prejudiced.
- there was a woman on a ticket. Well, that did happen once before: in 1984 Democrat Walter Mondale tapped NY congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro, who recently died, as his running mate. They lost, of course, but against a very popular opponent.
- no member of the incumbent administration was running. The President was not, of course, but nor was the Vice President or any Cabinet secretary. The last time that happened was 1952.Yes, McCain was of the same party as President Bush, but those one¬time rivals were not close and had not always agreed on policy.
Retrospective Economic Voting Hypothesis
good or bad economic conditions help or hurt the incumbent
Problems with the Retrospective Economic Voting Hypothesis
- President Reagan won an easy victory in 1984 despite presiding over the deepest recession since the Great Depression. BUT: The economy was rapidly improving during the year before the election. So maybe it is only recent economic conditions that count.
- What constitute good and bad conditions? In the past, these have been reckoned in terms of historically abnormal inflation or unemployment and sometimes economic growth and worker productivity. But in Fall 2008, for all the news about a credit crisis, there was not yet a recession.
- Is it bad news or personal pain that influences a voter? We heard some dramatic bad news in fall 2008, but it was still pretty abstract. How many voters had been hurt by Wall Street failings? Credit was threatened, but for most voters it was not—or not yet —impaired.
- Is it the incumbent party or administration that draws praise or blame for economic conditions? We did not really know. Why? Because that was the very first election since 1952 in which no one from the incumbent administration was running.
Why so much attention to the president, not Congress? It is Congress that passes laws, gives the president much of his authority and all of his budget, and represents the full diversity of the country? 2 hypotheses:
- The president has some peculiar powers. (Think about what they are.)
- Presidential votes have considerable down-ballot influence: you are likely to support your presidential candidate’s fellow partisans for lower offices.
Can the candidate who wins the most primary votes or the most convention delegates but falls short of a majority be denied the nomination?
Consider the 2 rules?
a) Majority Rule: Pick the candidate who wins a majority of votes.
b) Plurality Rule: Pick the candidate who wins the most votes, even if less than a majority
In most states, Plurality Rule is used in congressional general elections. But because the candidates are almost always two, the plurality winner is almost always the majority winner.
-Nominations are another matter. Often the serious candidates are more than two. If none wins a majority of primary votes, a runoff is often held. Or in a convention, delegates keep voting and negotiating until a majority is reached.
-if no one has majority going in, some say best to pick plurality since closest to majority-but that’s not true
-the moderate candidate, who isn’t loved but least objectionable to both liberal and conservatives in the party, will get the majority-no majority opposes the moderate
First Continental Congress in 1774
Sam Adams counted-conciliatory conservatives outnumbered radical revolutionaries overall but revolutionaries were a majority in a majority of colonial delegations. He then proposed unit rule: each delegation would cast one vote. That sounded reasonable on its face. So a majority of delegates voted for it. But as a result, Congress encouraged revolution by passing a harsh rather than a conciliatory statement of grievances to the British government, although a majority of delegates preferred a conciliatory statement-majority of delegates favored C but a majority in a majority of colonies favored R, which passed thanks to unit rule
In American politics at all levels, often the most effective way to complain and seek redress is to call your elected representative (councilman, assemblyman, congressman). Why would he – or his staff – help you?-2 hypotheses
Hypothesis 1. It’s his duty.
Hypothesis 2. Every time he helps a constituent he picks up a vote.
Hypothesis 2 is based on an institutional incentive, but why, if that hypothesis is right, has our nice incentive system not ameliorated the problem of excess demand for classes at UCLA? Hypotheses:
H1. It has, to some degree, but the problem is huge.
H2. Legislators don’t directly run UCLA. Regents do.
H3. You have scant incentive to complain: You will finish your high-demand courses
before the problem can be cured, and then you no longer care.
two kinds of political theory
- normative theory
- positive theory
normative theory
examines how to justify or evaluate political institutions and policies (e.g., What kind of government should we have?).
positive theory
seeks to explain and predict political behavior, policies, and institutions (e.g., Why do we have the kind of government that we have?)
(sometimes what kind we should have and why we have it match)
Why have government?
Plato-The Republic-3 answers
- justice is simply the will of the stronger, hence that there is no transcendent standard of justice. The underlying assumption is that governments are put in place to serve the interests of the rulers - - who are few compared with their subjects. (To impose the rulers’ will. )
- government helps people achieve mutual security by protecting them from each other and also from foreign invaders: you are a net loser if you can prey on others but they in turn can prey on you, so you prefer protection from predators (murderers, rapists, thieves, frauds) to the chance to prey (to murder, rape, steal, defraud). More generally, government fosters mutual advantage, or mutual cooperation. That both justifies government and explains its existence. (To help subjects attain their own goals by solving cooperation problems. They arise when something is costly enough to the doer that no one wants to do it but beneficial enough to others that everyone wants it done. )
- A third answer to the question of why government exists is that government helps individuals to solve coordination problems (To help subjects attain their own goals by solving coordination problems. They arise when a common goal requires that all follow the same plan, but the feasible plans are more than one and incompatible. )
2-problem with government
Government coerces. It limits our liberty. It stops us from doing things we want to do. How can one benefit by being stopped from doing what one wants to do?
2-How can one benefit by being stopped from doing what one wants to do?
-The answer: Everyone benefits from having his liberties limited, provided everyone else has his liberties likewise limited. That way everyone is protected. Strictly speaking, what benefits you is not the limit on your own liberty but the limits on everyone else’s liberty
2-Prisoner’s Dilemma and gov.
- Prisoner’s Dilemma-gov. forces both to keep quiet-arrange not to confess-because otherwise better to confess so both will and not get good outcome overall
- a PD is a situation where two players would both be better off cooperating or helping each other (here both play “Don’t Confess”) but are led by their individual interests to defect (not to cooperate, here to play “Confess”).
- PDs are examples of cooperation problems-the purpose of government is to get people to cooperate. This requires that government be allowed to use coercion, including taxation, to ensure that individuals act in a socially preferred way.
3-coordination problems-cars example
Two people drive toward each other on the street. Each can stay either on the left or the right side of the road. This illustrates the need for some kind of rule to avoid crashing. Here government provides the arbitrary rule – the convention-that ensures coordination-the players do not particularly care which rule of the road is chosen, left or right, as long as they can be assured that all drivers abide by the same rule. This characteristic is the mark of a pure coordination problem.
-solved by convention
3-coordination problems-“Battle of the Sexes”
A husband and wife are trying to pick a place for the evening’s entertainment. Above all, each would like to be with the other, but each also has a preferred destination. The husband prefers a wrestling match; the wife, ballet.
This too is a coordination problem. It differs from the pure coordination problem of the “Rule of the Road” game because the players are not indifferent about how to coordinate - - about which coordinating solution is finally chosen.
-solved by communication and agreement
One of the greatest coordination problems, exemplified by the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel, is…..
is communication. If you and I speak different languages we cannot communicate. To communicate we must coordinate round a common language: we must both speak English or both speak Old Etruscan or whatnot.
Conventions
the (somewhat arbitrary) rules of coordination.
How do we succeed in coordinating what we do?
- communication and agreement
- conventions
- Sometimes one possible coordinating solution is especially salient: it stands out as the focal solution, the one everyone thinks of first.-when say meet in Santa Monica, assume the pier because landmark
difference between cooperation and coordination
- Cooperation and coordination differ in a notable way. In cooperation problems, even if someone knows that others will cooperate, he will not: force may be needed. But in coordination problems, if someone knows that others will coordinate in a certain way, he will too: force is not needed.
- another difference: Agreement between players can always solve coordination problems. If you agree to coordinate with others, you will keep your word because it is in your interest to follow the same plan they are following. But in a cooperation problem, if you agree to cooperate with others, you are better off breaking your word.
Social contract theory
propounded in the 17th and 18th centuries, notably by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The basic idea is that government is the creature of a unanimous agreement, a “social contract,” to solve cooperation problems by coercing us all to cooperate with each other-In its positive version the theory says: Government is the creature of a social contract. In its normative version the theory says: Government ought to be the creature of a social contract
How realistic is the social contract?
Apart from a few odd examples, such as the Mayflower Compact, have real governments ever been founded by social contracts? Locke thought that by doing such things as voting, not emigrating, etc., citizens implicitly endorsed the social contract. Alternatively, one could construe the contract as hypothetical and argue that citizens would consent if asked.
Hobbes saw the absence of government, or “state of nature,” as a prisoners’ dilemma (PD) to be solved by unanimously contracting to obey a king, or “sovereign.” But this approach to cooperation spawns a coordination problem:
cooperation is fully secured only if we somehow coordinate by obeying the same king. That problem we would solve by singling out the most salient pretender to sovereignty, the strongest warlord around – the Santa Monica Pier among candidates for king. But the contract itself was a simple agreement among citizens to surrender their freedom to the same sovereign.