Presidential Elections Flashcards
Republican winner of Iowa caucus, 2016
Ted Cruz, with 27.6% of the vote.
Democrat winner of Iowa caucus, 2016
Hillary Clinton, with 49.9% of the vote.
Republicans who dropped out of race after Iowa caucus, 2016
Rand Paul and MIke Huckabee.
Democrat who dropped out of Iowa caucus, 2016
Martin O’Malley
Why are congressional elections so often uncompetitive?
Congressional elections are often uncompetitive because of the power of incumbency. Factors which support it include:
• gerrymandering of House districts creates safe seats
• incumbents have name recognition which is often more important than a party label
• the strength of incumbents means they may be unchallenged or challengers have no serious chance of success.
• incumbents’ fund-raising organisation is already in place and outraise
challengers typically 4 or 5-1 - PACs will often want to donate to the incumbent, irrespective of party label, because they are the likely winner
• perks of office such as free franking
• incumbency in the Senate is less potent than the House but some Senate seats are effectively safe seats because of the party composition of the state, e.g. the Republican Party’s dominance in Oklahoma
Why has the role of professional lobbyists been controversial?
The reasons the role of lobbyists has been controversial include:
• they concentrate power in a wealthy elite through promoting corporate interests at the expense of consumers, patients etc, who are unable to afford their services, and may be part of an ‘Iron Triangle’ with a congressional committee and federal agency.
• the donation of campaign finance by lobbyists’ employers creates the appearance of corruption
• the ‘revolving door’ – former congressmen & staffers become lobbyists and use contacts and knowledge to gain favours for wealthy clients; the prospect of a job as a lobbyist can influence the votes of members of Congress
• attempts at reform have been largely ineffective, even the Obama ban on lobbyists being employed by the administration was apparently diluted
• the difficulty in even defining exactly what lobbying is was evident in the controversy in the 2012 Republican primary over whether Newt Gingrich was ever a lobbyist
To what extent do initiatives and propositions promote democracy?
Initiatives and propositions could be argued to promote democracy because they:
- expand voters’ involvement with politics
- create a more engaged and aware electorate
- are a safeguard against corrupt politicians
- enable decisions to be made on controversial issues which risk-averse politicians would prefer to avoid.
Initiatives and propositions could be argued to undermine democracy because:
- the cost of campaigns means they are mostly promoted by interest groups/corporations who have the necessary funds, and enable them to circumvent elected politicians
- particularly on complex, low-visibility issues big business can frame the debate
- minority groups are likely to be disadvantaged as they won’t be able to mount viable campaigns
- they can lead to incoherence in policy-making, if voters vote for spending increases but not the taxes to pay for them
- they subvert the principle of representative democracy.
Why has campaign finance reform has had such limited success include:
- candidates want to spend as much as possible to gain an advantage over their opposition, and are constantly exploiting the loopholes and pushing the boundaries of legislation, e.g. the delay by Jeb Bush in 2015 in announcing his presidential run so that he could continue raising money for his super PAC. see e.g. http://tinyurl.com/kybawgk ; the presidential election financing system in both primaries and general election has collapsed because candidates can raise more money outside the system and both Obama and Romney self-financed in 2012
- donors want to donate; there is apparently a widespread belief that donations buy influence, and the bigger the donation, the bigger the influence
- the role of the Supreme Court and the strength of constitutional rights to free speech: Buckley made all limits on candidate expenditure (except where federally subsidised) unconstitutional in the 1970s and more recently Citizens United made the electoral activities of independent groups exempt from regulation and has led to the growth of ‘super PACs’
- the difficulty of enforcing regulation, e.g. candidates are not officially allowed to coordinate their campaigns with super PACs which are supporting them but coordination is hard to prove, and problems of enforcement are compounded by the ineffectualness of the FEC, whose six members are perpetually gridlocked at 3-3, see e.g. http://tinyurl.com/nkq5m6o
- lack of political will – congressional incumbents have almost always benefited from outspending their opponents and consequently have little incentive to introduce limitations on that spending
‘Local factors are more important than national factors’. To what extent is this true of the congressional midterm elections?
The outcome of the congressional midterms has always been decided by a mixture of local and national factors. In recent years, especially since the 1994 midterms and the Republican ‘Contract with America’, the national element seems to have become more significant; parties have run national campaigns and the party out of the White House tries to make the election a referendum on the president. Supporting the significance of national factors is the fact that the president’s party almost invariably loses seats in the midterms (1998 and 2002 were exceptions, otherwise only 1934 in the last century). As well as discussing factors which relate to specific elections, candidates can rewardably discuss general factors affecting congressional elections, such as the power of incumbency and the factors underpinning it, and the presence or lack of presidential coattails. Low turnout could be cited as indicating a lack of high profile national issues which motivate voters during presidential elections.
National factors in recent elections have included:
• 1998 – voters reacted unfavourably to Republican impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, leading to an unusual gain for the president’s party;
• 2006 – the souring of the public mood over Iraq led to the Democratic takeover of both houses
• 2010 – perception of Obama ‘big government’ (e.g. stimulus programme and ‘Obamacare’) a lethargic economy and energised Republican opposition led to the Republicans retaking the House.
Most candidates will concentrate on the 2014 result and the Republican retaking the Senate and increase of their majority in the House: national factors
• President Obama’s low ratings - at 40% two weeks before the elections, lowest point of his six year presidency, combination of the economy and other domestic problems, e.g. flawed rollout of HealthCare.gov, aftermath of Snowden disclosures, and foreign problems
• coordinated negative Republican message - Republican candidates campaigned on the ‘failure’ of President Obama, and promised to repeal health care reform, roll back new regulations on banks and Wall Street, and stop the Obama administration’s plans to curb coal emissions
• flat economy – despite a notional recovery being underway, it was not being felt by most voters; in national exit polls, 45% cited the economy as their chief concern
•lack of Democratic message – Democratic candidates feared any association with the president and his policies but had nothing positive to offer of their own
local factors
• carefully vetted Republican candidates - after defeats in 2010 in winnable Senate seats of candidates such as Sharron Angle in Nevada and Christine O’Donnell in Delaware (and Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin in 2012), Republicans made much more effort to select mainstream candidates and protect incumbent senators, none of whom were defeated in primaries
• successful local Republican campaigns - e.g. Joni Ernst’s ad in Iowa in which she described“castrating hogs on an Iowa farm” galvanised her campaign and helped her to victory in a previously Democratic seat
• disenfranchisement - new voting restrictions in 21 states depressed participation and in several crucial races in e.g. North Carolina, Florida, Kansas, and Virginia, the margin between the two candidates closely matched the numbers believed to have been deprived of the vote
• help from outside groups – the role of Super PACs could have been significant in tight races and e.g. made the Senate race in North Carolina the most expensive Senate race in US history, which the Republican Thom Tills won.
‘The Electoral College is no longer fit for purpose.’ Discuss. (45 marks)
Arguments that the Electoral College is no longer fit for purpose include:
- all of the original rationale for the Electoral College has disappeared and it is now a constitutional anachronism
- the winner is not guaranteed a majority of the popular vote (or may even lose the popular vote), and consequently may lack legitimacy
- the Electoral College gives some voters more clout than others; extra weight is given to voters in smaller rural states (alternatively - smaller states tend to be safe for one party or the other and are consequently ignored by candidates) and the campaign is concentrated in ‘swing states’
- the long history of ‘faithless electors’
- third parties are penalised
- the exaggeration of the winning margin of ECVs compared to the percentage of the popular vote gives the winner an artificially strong mandate.
Arguments that the Electoral College is still fit for purpose include:
o the Electoral College is an important element of the federal identity of the constitution
o •the Electoral College requires candidates to campaign across all regions of the US, when a national vote might enable them to concentrate on the major cities or regions of strength, or create an incentive to campaign in major media markets
o since the pursuit of ECVs determines the nature and course of the campaign, it is invalid to criticise the Electoral College for failing to reflect the popular vote
o since only one president is being elected, disadvantaging third parties is arguably not as significant as in an election for a legislature
o administration is simplified by being the responsibility of the states and problems such as recounts are confined within one state
o ‘faithless electors’ have never affected the result
o the concept of a mandate is of limited relevance in a separated system;
however ‘strong’ a president’s mandate, congressmen and senators will regard themselves as having their own mandate and will not feel any duty to support the president’s agenda.
Explain the issues that have influenced Latino voting in recent elections. (15 marks)
- immigration reform in recent years, e.g. the failed attempt by President Obama to get the Dream Act through Congress in 2010, DACA the Democrats have supported immigration reform; after the presidency of George W. Bush, Republicans have been hostile, and the 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney favoured a plan which entailed illegal immigrants ‘self-deporting’. Donald Trump statements with regard to immigration and the Mexican wall prompted widespread Latino registration for the 2016 primaries
- welfare provision, e.g. widening access to health care, maintaining food stamps spending, expanding the federal role in education, etc. Latinos are typically poorer than the majority population and Democrats have a more consistent record in promoting welfare provision
- social issues, such as gun control and contraception. Latinos are typically liberal on issues such as gun control and are fairly evenly divided about abortion
- foreign policy especially the relationship with Cuba: Florida Cubans in particular have tended to support the Republicans who have been more consistently hostile to the Castro regime.
To what extent are caucuses a better method of candidate selection than primaries? (15 marks)
The ways caucuses can be seen as a better method of candidate selection than primaries include:
• caucuses are a traditional form of civic engagement for local communities, and an active and participatory form of democracy
• in caucuses where voters can move from non-viable groups, they reduce the number of wasted votes (some primaries are winner takes all)
• from the point of view of parties, caucuses, unlike primaries, give close control over proceedings and who can vote – open primaries are subject to ‘raiding’
• caucuses are cheaper to run because they are staffed by volunteers, whereas primaries are financed by the state tax payer.
The ways caucuses can be seen as a worse method of candidate selection than primaries include:
• because of the time required, public nature and sometimes arcane procedure, caucus turnout is usually very low, often around 10%, and attract more ideologically driven voters – primaries attract a more representative cross section of the electorate
• because of the large number of meetings, candidates with extensive organisation and money may have an advantage
• the organisational problems of a voting format comprising many separate meetings.
• Primaries usually have a smoother vote count and a more reliable result.
• Public nature of caucus participation may influence voters whereas primaries use a secret ballot.
