US Democracy and participation Flashcards
invisible primaries
invisble primary - period during which potential candidates for a party compete with eachother to attract attention , money and endorsements for their campaign. is competition of candidates in the same party.
in 2016 17 different candidates aimed to be the nominee and now in 2024 15.
candidates have to use the invisible primary to attract public attention. this means gaining ‘name recognition’.
the success of this is often judged by the polls and lack of good polling can lead to withdrawal.
get attention with range of events eg annoucing their candidacy.
eg jed bush annouced his candidacy to a great fanfare in 2015 but suffered critisicim from Donald trump and was attacked by him on twitter more than all the other republican candidates combined so he withdrew
also televised debates held between candidates of the same party.
eg republican debates in 2024 however trump didnt attend leading to the candiates attacking him during the debates eg Chris christie calling trump donald duck
also allows for canddates to attract finance. this might be donations directly from the voters themselves which the candidates call targeting the ‘grassroots’. PACS (political action committee) can donate directly to a campaign but only to a limit of 5000. however super pacs can spend unlimited amounts but they cannot coordinate directly with the candidate.
the rising cost of presidential elections means the invisible primary is increasingly important. the person who raises the most money is most likely to win the election. while Clinton raised more than trump it is estimated that trump benefitted from nearly 2 billion worth of free media attention due to his controversial nature, while cliton had gained just 746 million.
the importance of incumbency in a presidential election
benefit from considerable name recognition as they are well known. this can make it easier for them to attract the necessary funding far earlier than their competitors.
can also point to policy successes during their first term to broaden their appeal.
it is also likely an incumbent wont face a primary challenge. this means they dont have to spend time exposing divisions in their own party.
prevents them having to spend large amounts of money early on meaningthey have a large ‘war chest’ to spend later on.
however as lichtman points out ‘incumbents are difficult but not impossible to beat’
incumbents find themselves judged for their failures in office as Bush snr did for the weaknesses in the economy in 1992 election.
add examples
primaries and caucuses
in order to choose a single presidential candidate for each party. primaries and caucuses are held across the country
12 states hold caucuses and 38 hold primaries
caucus - public meeting in which people vote either by moving to a part of the room for a certain candidate or through a show of hands
primary - a state wide election In which people cast a ballot for the candidate of choice
also either closed, open or semi closed primaries
also difference in how the delegates are allocated- proportional, winner takes all, proportional until threshold reached
traditionally new hampshires and iowas caucus are always the first to happen
there is an increasing trend for primaries tp be held earlier - this is known as front loading. the reason for this is that for those states later in the calendar, the decision can alreadty finalised. in 2016 , trump gained a majority of delegates in may but seven states had not yet held their primaries including high populated states such as California.
the process of front loading has lead to lots of primaries on teh same day - known as super tuesday - the largest of these being in 2008 when nearly half decided - super duper tuesday
national party conventions
multiday day events held for each party and attended by the delegates
formally nominate the preseident and vice for their party and hold discussions on the party policy
convention sells the candidate - gives considerable media coverage - obamas 2007 speech had an audience of around 39 million tv viewers.
party unity - after the primary way to repair the damage of the battle
the election campaign
period between national party convention and election day is dominated by extensive fundraising, campaign events and presidential debates
states where the result is not easily preidctable (battleground states) are likely to get far more campaigning
in 2016 94% of events by the candidates took place in just 12 states
televised debates - candidates who are polling at an average of 15% in national polls are eligable to take part.
dont always matter - in 2016 hilary clinton appeared to win all of the debates through polling done after however lost the election
Election Day and the electoral college
after months of campaigning americans can go to the polls in november
people cast their ballot for the candiate of their choice however what they are really voting for is their states electoral college votes. for all but 2 states this is decided on a winner takes all basis - candidate with plurality of the vote in each state gets all the ECVS.
this allows for federalism but also controversy - the use of ‘butterfly ballots’ in 2000 caused such confusion that the election ended up being decided by the SC. these ballots have names down both sides with punch holes down the middle making it difficult for people to work out how to vote for there preferred candidate.
prevents direct election by the population which was feared by the founding fathers - nominated electors are who do it but vote with what the state population want. only 30 states have laws to enforce this - delegates who dont vote with who won the state vote are called faithless electors although the likelhood of these having an affect on the outcome is minimal.
should the electoral college be reformed
yes -
in 5 elections presidents had lost the popular vote but won the electoral college, undermining modern principles of popular sovereignty and underlining the outdated nature of the institution
it effectively excludes third parties from the electoral process as the ECVS are not allocated proportionally and third party votes tend to be thinly spread across the nation
small states are overrepresented. california has 55 ECVS and a population of nearly 40 million however wyoming has 3 ECVS and a population of 500,000 meaning each ECV in wyoming represents around 195,000 people while a californian ECV represents over 3 times as many people.
the bellwether states are effectively overrepresented as it is their votes that can change the election. the result is that a majority of states are almost ignored throughout the electoral process.
that faithless electors exist undermines the very basic principles of democracy. reform is therefore needed to maintain legitimacy in elections
NO
the electoral college ensures that small states remain represented. with the US population heavily concentrated in a few big states, the role, culture and traditions of smaller states could be ignored without the electoral college. it also helps maintain federalism by allowing differing electoral procedures in each state.
electoral college 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 the public.
there is no consensus on what should replace the electoral college. there are slight reforms suggested such as the proportonal allocation of the ECVS, right up to the abolition and replacing it with a national popular vote. this is espcially problematic given the difficulty of passing a constitutional amendment generally
broadly, the electoral college has produced a clear winner. given the use of FPTP for US elections, the resulting two party system means the winner has a clear majority of ECVS and therefore has a strong mandate to govern.
the 2 party system
the use of winner takes all - disadvantages third parties as they are awarded nothing for coming anything than first in a state. therefore despite the threefold jump in third party votes in 2016, they gained nothing for their achievements
the nature of america - the federal nature of america and states right to run their own elections make every election a small single seat election. using winner takes all gives 2 party system however given that USA effectively conducts a series of mini elections, this problem is further exacerbated
party ideology
the two main parties have such a breadth of ideology, it is difficult for a 3rd party to have any distinct policy that is not already covered and if they did the other parties could simply assume this policy (co-optation).
the expense of politics - US elections have become so expensive that only parties able to compete are those with money. smaller parties lack financial muscle or membership to gain success therefore reinforcing the 2 party system
the electoral rules - rules of presidential debate serve to exclude third parties so they dont get the popularity needed in polls. restricts there access to what amounts to free media and undermines their legitimacy as serious parties
campaign finance
in aaron sorkins fictionalised ‘west wing’ it is remarked that money in politics is like water on a pavemnet - ‘it finds all the cracks and crevices’
attempts to limit the influence of money in elections
1976 - buckley v valeo - ruling upholds the donation limits but rules that spending caps amount to a violation of free speech
1979 - congress ammends FECA - allows for development of soft money - money donated to and spent by a party rather than a candidate and therefore is not bound by campaign limits
2002 - bipartisan campaign finance reform act (main- feingold)
bans soft money donations to national party’s
raises individual contribution limits to 2000 (hard money) per candidate
corporations and labour unions are banned from funding issue advertisements
prohibits ‘electioneering communications’ referring to federal candidates within 60 days of a election by corporations and labour unions
‘stand by your ad’ provision requires candidates to endorse campaign adverts to discourage attack adverts or controversial claims
2010 citizens united V FEC - effectively determines that money is free speech, and therefore campaign limits placed on organisations are unconstitutional- this gives rise to the creation of super- PACS
2014 McCutcheon v FEC - rules that the aggregate cap placed on individuals limiting the number of candidates they can donate to in an election cycle is unconstitutional
contribution limits have remained however people can resort to other way s
PACS - can raise 5,000 dination per campaign
527s - unlimited amounts but cant call for the election or defeat of a candidate
super PACS - unlimited - just cant coordinate with president or the campaigns
achieving campaign finance reform because those in power benefitted from the system so are relectant as may make there re-election harder. where legislation has been created groups find way around this - super pacs, pacs, 527s. supreme court rulings also makes it difficult - have struck down legislation limiting finace as being a challenge to the 1st ammendment freedom of speech. the fact the constitution is entrenched also means the power of these SC rulings is unrivalled.
is the presidential election process effective
yes -
the lengthy process ensures that candiates are resilient enough to withstand the demands of being president
the electoral college provides a clear winner able to govern effectively despite the US nature of split political opinion.
the primary calandar 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 suitable
the speech at the national party conventions and good performance in televised debates highlight skills needed by a good president
it broadly works - controversies have been quickly overcome and president bush and 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 share of the national vote (like ross perot in 1992) or in trying to shape 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 invisble primary began yet they still triumphed.
NO
the electoral college has proven to be increasingly out of step with popular sovereignty and therefore needs reform
the primaries calandar effectively defranchises some states while overrepresenting the views of others, thereby creating an uneven form of federalism
the expected presidential televised debates have limited impact on the outcome of the election so are just a sideshow
the national party convention, while no longer tax payer funded, serves little democratic purpose for the voters
the money needed to become president makes the process inherently elitist
the volume of money required also gives undue influence to interest groups and corporations over the voice of the general population
the length of the process creates political apathy among the voters, which can depress turnout and undermine the legitimacy of an election
the vareity of differing voting methods has been criticised and caused controversy over the results
in terms of actual power 3rd parties are effectively excluded from the election, with the entire process creating a 2 party system where 3rd parties have little value
increasingly the role of the media is more influential than money spent, and yet this area is relatively unregulated
key principles of republican and democrat parties
democrats - liberal, believing in progressive rights and some level of government intervention in both social and economic policy
republicans - generally conservative, bellieveing in individual rights and a limited role of government in the economy and social policy, although a larger role in homeland secruity
the changing significance of parties
factors that can limit the signifcance of parties in congress
constituents - in a short election cycle, members of congress must be mindful of the views of their constituents as well as their party if they want to be re-elected. espcially true since constituents control who makes it on the ballot paper
congressional caucuses - group of people in congress who share a specific common interest and come together when voting irrespective of party lines eg womans caucus, black caucus and a steel caucus
since the middle of the 20th century the divisions between parties have widened. suggests that parties as a vechicle of ideologies have grown in importance.
intraparty conflicts and factions
given the breadth of ideology within US parties , factions develop. these factions are not fixed and often overlap with one another.
democrats - liberal, moderates and Conservatives
republicans - moderates, social conservatives and fiscal conservatives
from time to time named factions occur - within the republican party, the tea party movement and the freedom caucus both famously represented the more right wing elemant of the parties ideology
the freedom caucus is a group of right- wing republicans in the HOR. formed in 2015, they launched vocal challenges to obamas immigration policy and fought to repeal the affordable care act. it included enough members to make its voice heard and both speakers boehner and Ryan tried to control this faction but it was so disruprive that ultimately both left their post.
