US Democracy and participation Flashcards
-Evaluate the extent to which gender, geographic regions, class and education played a significant role in the way people voted in the 2020 presidential election
Evaluate the extent to which gender, geographic regions, class and education played a significant role in the way people voted in the 2020 presidential election
For:
Women voters won Biden the election due to policy differences e.g. Biden won the votes of 57% of women, compared to 45% of males. In comparison trump won 42% of women’s votes and 53% of mens votes
- Democrats retained the vote in the North East e.g. retained Virginia (54%) and NY (60%)
- In terms of class and education, the lower your economic class the more likely you were to vote Biden e.g. 55% of people who earn less than $50k a year voted for Biden, compared to people who were earning $100k plus a year where 54% voted Trump. This is due to the Republicans favouring a minimal state with low taxes, where Democrats believe in the increase in tax
Against:
Gender gap has been narrowed e.g. Trump won a slightly larger share on women’s votes in 2020 than in 2016 (44% vs 39%), while Biden’s share among women was nearly identical to Clinton’s (55% vs 54%)
- Republicans lost two of their strongholds in the south e.g. Trump lost Arizona getting 49.1% of the vote compared to Biden who got 49.4%
- The wealth and therefore class and education gap has been narrowed e.g. 51% who earn over $50k a year voted for Biden in 2020
Evaluate the view that campaign finance is the most significant factor determine the outcome of elections
Soft money is money not given directly to a candidate but spent on their behalf
⇒ Hard money is money given directly to a candidate
CITIZENS UNITED VS. FEC 2010
⇒ A landmark carse on campaign finance
⇒ The court declared unconstitutional key elements of campaign finance regulation
The court said unlimited corporate spending was allowed on political advertising
This case has made money vastly more important in US elections
⇒ In McCutcheon vs. FEC 2014, the court ruled (5 – 4) in banning ‘aggregate limits’ on individual donations- I.e. allowing donors to give to multiple candidates
⇒ Enabled the creation of super PAC’s
Super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates.
For:
Advantage of wealth can outrun other candidates regardless of experience e.g. influence of PACs and super PACs, super PAC spending in 2016 reached £1.2 billion
90% of candidates who raise more money win, eg Obama beat Romney and McCain
14 billion was spent on elections in 2021
Against:
Increasing examples of candidates winning on less funds e.g. The super PAC Trump Make America Great Again committee shelled out approx $600 million in the last election and he still lost to Biden
Trump raised more than Biden and lost. Trump raised $1.96bn compared to Biden’s $1.69bn. This shows that campaign finance is not the most significant factor because Biden became President in 2020 despite raising/spending less
Trump raised less than Clinton in 2016 and won. This can show that rather personality of a candidate is a more significant factor
lack of incumbency can be used to boost campaign by appearing as an outsider/underdog and relating more to disillusioned voters who feel outside of the political system
also, depends on the way presidents spend their camping funds and their advertising methods.
P2 = incumbency advantage and more experience can lead to more voter trust and comfort. used to boost campaign by appealing to voters’ needs + knowing voters on more personal level can make it hard for serious competition. Still, with only 13 consecutive two-termers out of 44 past presidents (roughly 31%)Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama were all reelected for vastly different reasons. What matters is that they all won second terms. It’s also worth pointing out, as we look to 2020, that they all beat opponents who were not particularly strong candidates.As an incumbent, Trump carries unprecedented advantages. A strong economy and a nation secure from foreign threats extricating itself from foreign wars adds to that advantage
lack of Incumbency can be used to boost campaign by appearing as an outsider/underdog and relating more to disillusioned voters who feel outside of the political system
Biden beat trump - appealed to minority voters with policies such as the affordable health care act. increased black enrolment in health care average by 49%, helping more black families than ever before.
P3 = personality and use of ‘grass-roots’ campaigning strategies can unseat incumbents and appeal to voters in a personal way. frequent contact with voters in person and with online presence can gather more popularity and recognition. personalities may appeal to voters and increase likeability
trump sent out more than 26,000 tweets as his thinking on different spectrum of issues. in 2016 he stunned the political word as he became the first president to be elected without no military or political experience. he was controversial with high cuts on corporation tax and removal of environmental regulations.
VS
grassroots campaigning may only reach a small amount of people and personalities can deter voters. Voters arguably can place experience and knowledge above personality
trump was an anomaly . 32 presidents had military experience. 18 presidents served as a US representative. Biden was a past senator and won the election against trump.
Evaluate the extent to which the presidential selection and election process is democratic
Paragraph 1:
Invisible primary- candidates announce themselves as nominees to run for President in both the Republican and Democrat party
Eg 2024 Presidential election, Trump, Ramaswamy, Desantis and Haley announced themselves as nominees
Allows candidates to gain converge by announcing themselves
Allows the ordinary voter to have a wide choice of candidates-makes it democratic
Voters can align themselves with a candidate
Stress tests through images on the media, shows whether candidates are capable and suitable
Background checks done
EVALUATION:
Can be somewhat undemocratic because it is dominated by fundraising, and can deter potential candidates
Ron DeSantis has dropped out of the 2024 Republican presidential election
Eg Clinton 2016, dominated as the Democrat candidate as she raised the most money
Eg Jeb Bush did not put himself forward in 2016 as he was unsure whether he was able to fundraise enough
Paragraph 2:
Primaries and caucuses
Primary- the party sets out their candidates eg Biden as the Democrat candidate in 2020
Parties will choose a candidate who has the highest chance of winning, who will implement policies to please and benefit the people
Allows voters to align themselves with a presidential candidate
Primaries allow voters to directly vote for candidates, making it democratic
EVALUATION:
Open primaries can cause party crashing/crossover voting- voters vote in a rival’s party primary to support a controversial candidate
This is undemocratic as it may result in an unrepresentative candidate
Caucuses: Meetings where participants express support
Caucuses have low turnouts and often unrepresentative- dominated by party bosses
Eg in the build up to the 2020 election in Iowa, Nevada, North Dakota and Wyoming
Results were delayed in Iowa due to a newly developed app, which led to a delay in results
This caused controversy as Bernie Sanders won all the delegates in Iowa
Paragraph 3:
Electoral College
Last stage of the presidential selection process, signifying it has a huge significance
Indirect vote between voters
Voters vote for an elector who will represent the voters in the state
Eg California has 55 electors as it is a huge state
Preserved system and content amongst the American people, showing its democratic as the people like the system
270 points needed to win out of 538
“Winner Takes All” system
Popular vote not needed to become President eg Bush in 2000, and Trump in 2016
Electoral College is disproportional
Eg Every 1 elector in Wyoming represents 180,000 voters, but in California, every elector represents 730,000 voters
EVALUATION:
No majority needed, only need one vote more than second place
Lots of votes wasted which makes lots of voters feel unrepresented
21 out of 50 states are not required by law to stick with the delegate vote- but this has not been an issue as of yet in a Presidential election
evaluate to which extent to which the electoral colleges advantages outweigh its disadvantages
strengths of electoral college
1. preserves the voice of the small population states
weaknesses
1. small states are over represented - by 2020, California had 55 electoral college voters representing over 39.5 million inhabitants. Wyoming had 3 votes representing over half a million habitants. thus, California receives one electoral college vote for every 718,000 people. Wyoming receives one electoral vote for every 192,000 people.
- winner takes all system - in 1996, Bill Clinton won only 49% of the popular vote, yet he won over 70% of the EC vote. in 2016, democrat Hilary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 48.2% to 46.1% - wining nearly 3 million more votes than trump, but trump still managed a comfortable win in the lector college.
- unfair to national third parties - in 1992, independent candidate ross Perot won 18.9% f the vote. in 1996, as the reform party candidate, Perot won 8.5% of the popular vote. in 2020, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader won over 3 million votes. but none of these candidates won a single electoral college vote.
evaluate the extent to which interest groups have significant influence in the US executive, congress and judiciary
In this way, they to some extent help compensate for tyranny of the majority and ensure that the voices of all people are accounted for rather than just the supporters of the politicians in government. Groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations give a voice to minority groups and help to articulate concerns overlooked by political parties. In this way interest groups create a dispersal of power in which it is spread more evenly which in turn enhances democracy. While individuals in the US are still able to air their grievances in the representative democracy by doing things such as writing letters to their local politicians, political institutions are more likely to respond to a collective rather than individual voice, making the role of interest groups essential in politics. Groups can help bring about substantive change that can help minorities; for instance, Pride at Work, a popular LGTB group helps prevent discrimination at the workplace. Therefore, we can see that interest group activity has helped persecuted minorities on numerous occasions and this is undoubtedly good for democracy.
However, it would be wrong to assume that all interest groups’ actions enhance democracy. Although they serve the positive function of providing representation, this does not forgive the fact that they simultaneously create an inequality of representation. Interest groups serve primarily to represent minorities in society, this prevents the ‘tyranny of the majority’. But this can sometimes lead to the opposite problem where the voices of the minority are given greater value than everyone else which is inherently undemocratic. Moreover, the first amendment of the Bill of Rights states that citizens have the right to ‘petition for a redress of grievances’. While this allows numerous access points for pressure groups to use to gain influence, not all scholars accept the premise that all groups have the same potential for access to decision makers. Elite theory argues that certain interests, typically those with close links to the government and wealth, are advantaged and policies more often reflect their wishes than anyone else. For example, while many Americans and Congressmen agree that there should be stricter gun control laws, the immense power the NRA has kept this from happening. Thus, interest groups place power in the hands of afew rather than many, opposing the notion that they enhance democracy.
Another way in which interest groups enhance democracy is by acting as a check on government. Arguably, they plug the gap in the electoral process; without pressure groups, people may not get the chance to hold government to account apart from every 2 years when they vote for Congress and every 4 years for the president. In this way they can help prevent government corruption and misuse of power and in turn pressure the government to carry out policy promises, thus maximising the wishes of the people. For example, the American Civil Liberties Union helps protect the civil liberties of various groups in society, ranging from LGTB rights to the KKK. By helping to hold the government to account, interest groups protect individual and minority groups’ rights and therefore are critical to enhancing democracy.
However, interest groups arguably add little democratic value through checks as there are already extensive checks in the system (eg. separation of powers), so democracy is already highly protected from self-interest and abuse of power.Moreover, another reason it could be argued that interest groups hinder rather than enhance democracy is that they restrict politicians. unlike politicians, interested groups, while they may have wide\
support, have no elected mandate yet attempt to stop government carrying out what they see best. This can be seen as undermining the representative process as their interference in government policy doesn’t hold a strong legitimate basis. For example, the American Association of Retired People attempted to stop Obama passing his Affordable Care Act even though it was one on the key policy promises he made to his supporters during the elections. In addition, unlike government, interest groups aren’t really accountable for their actions and are thus a threat to democracy. In particular, the behind the scenes actions of big groups aren’t subject to scrutiny so the way in which they influence politicians has little legal restrictions. For example, after Citizens United v FEC (2010) big groups are freely able to donate however much money they want to campaigns which allows them to have disproportionate amounts of influence.
On the other hand, interest groups still to some degree enhance democracy as they encourage political participation. Interest groups can be seen as an alternative to political parties which allow those who feel like they can’t identify with any party to still have an avenue to express themselves. This enhances democracy as it somewhat allows the issue of low turnouts at elections to be compensated for.
For example, groups such as PETA often run large scale online campaigns to raiseawareness for endangered animals. Furthermore, they help politically educate the public by raising awareness of issues which allows people to understand them and to react – a better informed electorate means that public policy will better reflect the needs of society. For example, the League of Conservation Voters, a popular environmental group, does a ‘Dirty Dozen’ campaign during election time to single out politicians who pose a threat to the environment so that the electorate can vote accordingly.
Despite this however, interest groups arguably do more damage to democracy than they enhance it. While some groups increase participation, this may not always be positive as they may encourage their members to partake in illegal or violent activity which inherently opposes democracy. For example, when the NAACP occupied the offices of a senior Republican politicians in North Carolina, they were disrupting the representative process. In addition, many wealthy groups are rumoured to take part in illegal behind the scenes activity such as giving bribes to Congress members in exchange for their support. Moreover, while the role interest groups play in educating the electorate can be useful, the information they give may be inaccurate or bias. For example, ‘pro-life’ interest groups often label their opponents as ‘pro-abortion’ rather than ‘pro-choice’, a distinction that can affect the way the public perceives the issue.
EVALUATE WHETHER POLITICAL PARTIES PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN CONGRESS
Political parties very clearly playing important role in Congress as in an age of partisanship, political parties are an increasingly important determinant of voting in Congress.
Representatives in Congress are pressured to vote according to the general party view as there is a sense of belonging that encourages politicians to vote together.
Team competition also encourages politicians from the HC Same Mannor, to SNP the opposing party.
This was strongly present in the 113th Congress were party unity was 92% of Republicans and 94 Democrats.
No Republican voted for Obama’s stimulus budget in 2009, arguably due to partisanship rather than an ideological believe that the academy should self stabilise and the government should not interfere.
Therefore, greater influence of parties in determining voting patterns strongly indicate that political parties playing important role.
However, views of constituents can often outweigh party considerations, especially for House members onto your terms.
Representatives must consider public opinion in their voting decisions or risk being voted out of office.
Separation of powers means that each representative has a mandate and is therefore directly accountable to the ‘Folks Back Home’.
In 2009, several Democrats dropped their support for ACA due to opposition from their constituents.
More recently in March 2014, 10 moderate Republicans opposed the party plan to repeal ACA with some representing constituents that voted for Clinton in 2016.
Therefore, despite greater partisanship, public opinion still offer significant influence on voting behaviour in Congress.
On the whole, party readers limited use of patronage can be a limitation on the role parties play in Congress.
2
In addition, political parties role in Congress is most definitely increasing as leadership is run by the parties and the nationalisation of midterm campaigns by speakers has led to greater party unity.
Nancy Pelosi’s 100 hour agenda in the 2006 midterms allowed her to schedule legislation which were opposed to President Bush’s agenda.
This included legislation detailing a timeline for the removal of troops from Iraq.
Similarly, Newt Ginrich’s contract with America detailed the actions that the Republicans would initiate if Republicans won a majority in the house.
He promised on the first day of house to bring up for those eight majority reforms.
The nationalisation of midterms have allowed house speakers to initiate legislation from a party wide perspective.
On the other hand, the executive powers of patronage are relatively weak, so their role in Congress is weak.
Due to separation of powers, the president cannot encourage members of the party to vote in a certain way with promotions.
A clear separation of powers means that no member of the legislation can be part of the executive.
Furthermore, whips in Congress have limited powers of persuasion if there are politicians who wish to vote against the party.
As a result, the influence of parties in Congress is limited to an extent.
Congress people and senators are elected ultimately on their individual mandate and are only loyal to the ‘folks back home’.
On balance, the limited powers of patronage and the weak power of whips act a strong hindrance in parties role in Congress.
3
Parties important role in Congress is strongly indicated by the need for a candidate to be aligned with a major party to be elected to Congress.
Due to the nature of USA politics and FPTP, it is highly unlikely for a Congress person.
There are currently only two independence in Congress including Bernie Sanders.
Furthermore, gerrymandering has also influence party advantage in some states and lead to less competence.
Operation Redmap was an example of partisan gerrymandering.
Incumbent repost sought to strategically redraw district lines to lead to a Republican majority in the house.
The effect of this was seen in the 2012 midterms Republicans were able to maintain control of the house, despite the Democratic candidate having more of the general vote.
Therefore, as party influence is important in influencing elections to Congress, they playing important role.
On the other hand, parties have little control over candidate elections due to primaries.
Party candidates to congress are selected by the people opposed to party leaders.
Voting Behaviour
Gender:
48% of men voted Biden v 50% voted Trump
55% of women voted Biden v 45% voted Trump
Race:
White: 43% voted Biden v 55% voted Trump
African American: 92% voted Biden v 8% voted Trump
Hispanic/Latino: 59% voted Biden v 38% voted Trump
Asian: 72% voted Biden v 28% voted Trump
Age:
18-29: 59% voted Biden v 35% voted Trump
30-44: 55% voted Biden v 43% voted Trump
45-64: 47% voted Biden v 53% voted Trump
65+: 48% voted Biden v 52% voted Trump
Religion:
Protestant: 40% voted Biden v 59% voted Trump
Catholic: 49% voted Biden v 50% voted Trump
Other: 64% voted Biden v 32% voted Trump
Income:
<$50,000: 57% voted Biden v 42% voted Trump
$50,000-90,000: 56% voted Biden v 43% voted Trump
$100,000+: 43% voted Biden v 54% voted Trump
