US Politics - Electoral Process and Direct Democracy

Question 1

The timing of elections

Answer 1

• President every 4 years , HoR every 2 years and ⅓ of the Senate every 2 years - midterms occur in the middle of the Presidential term and indicate the popularity of the President
• Elections for President are indirect; done via the Electoral College - each state has an allocation of these equivalent to the size of the Congressional delegation - every state has at least 3 ECV’s - Washington DC has 3 ECVs despite no Congressional representation, and California has the largest amount at 55 (21st amendment)
• As a reflection of the federalism in the US, the organisation of elections is the responsibility of each state (Voting Rights Act creates consistent local elections) and the Constitution and this means there is some variation between states over voter ID laws, primaries and direct democracy
• Often described as a system of constant campaigning due to the frequency of elections

Question 2

Focus of elections

Answer 2

• US elections are more dominated by personality as they are often responsible for their own policy platform and fundraising - much election advertising does not mention the party
• All politics is local - former House Speaker O’Neill stated that many elections, including Congress, focused on local issues and the promises of the candidate to the local area such as funding for transport
• Increasingly, especially for the President, the focus is also on the party and its national platform
  Although much of the focus is on getting voters to change allegiances, getting out the vote is also important - natural or potential supporters who stay at home often cost elections

Question 3

Format of elections

Answer 3

• Use of televised debates - 3 main debates between Presidential candidates often become central to the campaign but they are becoming less important as voters become more partisan
• Much of the campaign involves promoting candidates characters - religious background, family, armed services experience and success in business are often used
• Attack ads - denigrating opponents by using marital scandal, exposing corruption in business, avoiding military service and being inattentive to voters wishes are used as insults against the opponents, which even happens amongst parties at primaries

Question 4

Candidate selection and nomination - Primaries

Answer 4

Greater opportunity for voter involvement and reduced role for the national party

Primaries -
- A secret ballot to select each party’s candidate - used in over two-thirds of states, including the biggest and most urbanised
- Categories -
-> open; voters can choose on the day which parties’ primary to vote in
-> closed; voters can only participate in the primary for the party they registered for
-> non-partisan blanket / jungle (congressional elections) - no party primaries, just a single vote between the top two candidates for who will go forward to the next general election
- Examples - New Hampshire - first primary of the season, South Carolina is the first in the South, Alabama uses open primaries, New York uses closed, and California uses the non-partisan jungle
- Advantages - allows ordinary voters to choose their party’s candidate, preferable to ‘smoke-filled’ rooms where party bosses made these choices traditionally, test candidates qualities for office (media, fundraising, stamina and grasp of policy), staggered length of campaigns enables a range of states to influence the outcome, especially with larger states voting later
- Disadvantages - adds to cost of campaigns, increases focus on candidate rather than policy or party, open primaries encourage voters to opt for the weakest candidate for the opposition party (raiding) and jungle primaries can result in two candidates from the same party being elected (California in 2016 election between two Democrats)

Question 5

Candidate selection and nomination - Caucuses

Answer 5

• An informal series of party meetings which ultimately select delegates for the national nominating convention - voting is open, and each caucus can last several hours - used in a minority of states, commonly the rural and less populated ones
• Iowa - first caucus of the season
• Advantages - enables more thorough discussion and debate among party activists of candidates strengths and weaknesses and no opportunity for raiding
• Disadvantages - length and timing often discourages voters from participating (especially those in shift work or with childcare responsibilities), no secret ballot and attracts mainly strong party activists / more ideological and extreme voters

Question 6

Candidate selection and nomination - National Nominating Convention

Answer 6

• Held after each parties’ caucus and primary elections in the summer before Presidential election in November
• Formally nominate the party’s candidate - election is a coronation
• Often characterised by celebrities and television coverage often shows delegates wearing hats featuring party symbols (Meryl Streep in 2016 at the Democratic convention)
• Important in terms of media coverage and presenting a united front after divisive primary campaigns (Sanders and Clinton in 2016)
• Often held in ‘swing states’ - Republicans used Cleveland and Ohio in 2016, and the Democrats used Pennsylvania and Philadelphia
• Provides a chance for the candidate to put forward their vision and priorities to energise their party members
• Convention can be politically important if there is no clear primary winner, leading to a ‘brokered convention’
• Successful convention often leads to a short term boost in the polls and greater momentum for the candidate - Trump and Clinton both received this in 2016

Question 7

The debate over the electoral college - what is it?

Answer 7

• It is only used to elect the President
• Indirect form of election based on 538 voters selected by each state and Washington DC
• Number of ECVs per state is calculated by the size of each states congressional delegation
• Nearly all states use a winner takes all format - in 2000 and 2016, this distorted the final vote as the winning candidates lost the popular vote but secured more ECVs because of the spread of their votes
• Maine and Nebraska use slightly different systems to allocate their ECVs - two EVCs go to thee winner, and one is allocated to the winning candidate in each district - Clinton one 3 in Maine in 2016 and Trump won one
• A simple majority is needed for victory - in the event of a tie, the House chooses the President and the Senate chooses the Vice President

Question 8

The debate over the electoral college - arguments against it

Answer 8

1) Winner of popular vote may not become president
2) Smaller states are over-represented e.g. California has one electoral vote ber 712,000, whereas Wyoming has one per 195,000 people
3) Drawn up by the Founding Fathers in a very different political era e.g. before mass communication, gender and racial equality and when direct elections were deemed suspicious
4) Encourages candidates to focus on swing states rather than safe seats
5) Faithless electors can decide to vote against their state
6) Depresses turnout, especially in safe seats due to the winner takes all system
7) Public opinion poll shows popularity for reform or abolishment of this system
8) Discriminates against third parties and independents, causing ‘wasted vote’ syndrome

Question 9

The debate over the electoral college - arguments for it

Answer 9

1) Normally delivers the right result e.g. in 2008 and 2012 and 2020
2) Reflects the federal nature of the US and ensures candidates campaign in many states, not simply the most populated
3) No superior method has gained widespread and bipartisan support; all alternatives have their own problems
4) A nationwide popular vote would lead to candidates to focus on large urban areas - ‘go hunting where the ducks are’ still applies
5) Faithless electors have never affected the final election outcome and the issue can be remedied with a law requiring electors to vote with their pledged candidate
6) Laws could be passed to award electors proportionality in each state to reform the EC, requiring an amendment
7) Much of the support for electoral reform comes from poor losers and rogue results - public prefer other political reforms be prioritised
8) Produces a clear winner - presidency can not be proportional

Question 10

Factors that affect election outcomes - Money

Answer 10

Money - higher spending candidates have a higher chance of winning elections - incumbents outspend challengers (2016 Senate elections - incumbents raised $8.7 million in comparison to challengers with just $600,000)
- Money is spent on private polls, social media and television adverts - but it does not guarantee success - Clinton had more than Trump but lost; a lot of money is also spent on attack ads

Question 11

Factors that affect election outcomes - Media

Answer 11

• closely tied with money, positive and frequent media presence is preferred, and the use of TV debates used to be a clear way of attracting independent voters - however, most people are aligned with one party and also tend to get their news from social media and other internet sources other than the TV (2016 election)
• Raises the profile and recognition of candidates - important for Obama in 2008 but less important in 2016 with how high profile the candidates were
• Media often focuses on the two main parties and their candidates, weakening the ability of third parties and independents to win
• Candidates spend and concentrate on the New Media - Biden and Trump in 2020, spending billions on Facebook ads
• Much broadcast media is politically assigned informally - Fox News and CNN are predominantly Republican aligned and Democrats often align with ABC and this limits the old media’s ability to change political views - however, this is also true of new media, as individuals only follow accounts that match their views, limiting how the media can change voting behaviour and so it is more important for reinforcing allegiance and encouraging turnout

Question 12

Factors that affect election outcomes - Issues

Answer 12

• Encompasses party platform, policy pledges and especially or incumbents, failures and achievements in the past
• At different times, different issues dominate, such as the main issue of 2004 being terrorism, security and foreign policy - economy is normally an important issue - key issues in 2016 included immigration and personal qualities of both candidates
• Candidates are normally keen to prioritise and get coverage on issues they feel strongly about and downplay vulnerable policy areas

Question 13

Factors that affect election outcomes - Leadership

Answer 13

• Much of this comes down to trust, perceived competency and general likeability; great emphasis is placed on both personal integrity and ability to cope in a crisis
• The qualities are expected to arguably are contradicting and hard to find all in one individual - for example, President’s in a crisis tend to be calm and clear-headed but also conclusive and displaying urgency
• Leadership is closely tied to candidate personalities and track records, and past indiscretions such as affairs or business failures are often highlighted by opponents as rendering a candidate incapable of holding the highest office

Question 14

Factors that affect election outcomes - Incumbency

Answer 14

• Gives a high advantage and leads to high reelection rates; there was 95% reelection rate for the 2022 midterm elections
• However, these rates are not indicative of wider public approval of political institutions, with Congress only having a 10% approval rating - a paradox likely created from blaming the Senators of Representatives of other states rather than their own
• Since 1945, only 4 US Presidents have failed to be re-elected - Ford in 1976, Carter in 1980, Bush in 1992 and Trump in 2020 - by contrast, 8 have been reelected, including Obama
• Incumbents tend to do better due to greater name recognition and established campaign staff - can also highlight concrete achievements and voting records to sway voters - issue of pork-barreling where federal money is channelled into extensive local projects e.g. Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska -> an ‘earmarks’ policy from Congress has mostly erased this issue since 2011
• House Representatives can be helped by gerrymandering (redrawing district lines to get a better share of their electorate) - though a hostile one can also equally jeopardise re-election for long-serving incumbents

Question 15

Debates around campaign finance

Answer 15

American elections are very expensive - the 2016 election saw presidential and congressional candidates spend around $6.5 billion of which around $2.4 billion went on the Presidential race and the rest on Congressional contests

There are many reasons for this high election cost -
- Amount and frequency of elections have resulted in money being spent not only on presidential and congressional campaigns but also on primaries, governor election and ballot initiatives
- Attempts to restrict campaign financing and expenditure, such as the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold Act) have been largely ineffective - this is due to loopholes in the act and SC decisions
- First amendment guarantees free speech and this has been extended to a high level of freedom regarding the ability to raise and spend funds for election campaigns
- SC decisions, such as the 2010 Citizens United case, have weakened the laws passed by Congress - this case allowed corporations, pressure groups and labour unions to raise and spend unlimited amounts on independent expenditure (not raised by the candidate) to support candidates
- No limit on the amount of political ads like there is in the UK
Large numbers of well funded pressure groups, like NRA, who spend and donate large sums to candidates that support their aims - PACs and Super PACs
- Enduring belief among candidates that spending more gives the edge in competitive races - better funded = more likely to win - 2016 presidential race is the exception
- Some individuals and groups give to a wide range of candidates and to both parties - as a businessman in the 1990s and 2000s, Trump donated to both parties in order for favours returned

Question 16

Arguments for reforming campaign finance

Answer 16

1) Election expenditure is out of control recently
2) The emphasis on fundraising distracts elected representatives from focusing on doing their real job of making laws and listening to their constituents
3) The cost of elections means that only the personally wealthy or well connected can afford to enter politics - culture of elitism
4) The Supreme Court’s recent decisions have added to the problem and the issue needs to be tackled by a constitutional amendment that allows Congress to limit campaign finance
5) Reforms are desperately needed to plug loopholes like the emergence of Super PACs - there is too much political influence already from wealthy vested interests which raises the issue of corruption and buying votes in Congress
6) Matching funds has died out - in 2000, the Federal Election Commission paid out nearly $240 million in matching funds - only paid out $1 million

Question 17

Arguments against reforming campaign finance

Answer 17

1) In fact, allowing for inflation, 2016 had less expenditure than the two previous elections
2) Candidates still need to listen to a wide range of voters and often call ‘town hall’ meetings to hear their constituents views - the reason Congress is so unproductive is because of hyper-partisanship and not the distraction of fundraising
3) Fundraising and political donations are a crucial part of the democratic process - they allow supporters to show additional loyalty to their favoured candidates and causes
4) The Supreme Court has merely upheld the First Amendment rights in regard to freedom in political activity when striking down campaign reform laws - it also upheld the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in 2003 (McConnell v FEC)
5) Whatever reforms are passed, the wealthy will always find loopholes

Question 18

Direct Democracy in the US

Answer 18

• Three types - ballot initiatives, recall elections and referendums
  Ballot initiatives are the most significant and widely used
• The US only has direct democracy at a state level - no scope for national referendums like in the UK
• Laws concerning direct democracy vary considerably from state to state - California is the state notorious for using ballot initiatives (propositions); example of federalism in action
• It adds to the number and cost of elections but also enhances opportunities for political participation
• The system is popular - but popularity is decreasing overall (in 2016, 162 measures in 35 states were voted in, but the peak was 274 in 1998)

Question 19

Referendums

Answer 19

• Laws drawn up by state legislatures to be put to the people to accept or reject - they are a means of vetoing state laws / proposals and they are sometimes known as legislature referred measures
• Some states require certain measures, e.g. changes to the state constitution or taxes to be approved by the state legislature and a popular vote
• Some states have a popular referendum mechanism where recently passed but controversial state laws can be put to the popular vote which can veto them - 2016, Alabama measure to alter the procedures for impeachment of state officials

Question 20

Initiatives / citizens proposals

Answer 20

• These are initiated by the voters and states require varying amounts of signatures for a measure to get on the ballot - in 2016, 71 initiatives were voted on
  Although state based, frequently initiatives in one state are copied / followed by others - 9 states in 2016 held votes to legalise marijuana (passed in 8)
• Other recent and common initiatives have included gay marriage and raising the minimum state wage
• They promote the notion of legislative laboratories (comparison to UK devolution!)

Question 21

Recall elections

Answer 21

• Least significant form of direct democracy as they are rarely used and even less frequently effective in removing state-level elected officials
• Allow governors etc to face a public vote before their term has expired and it often involves a large number of signatures to be collected and so are rarely used - for example, it takes almost 800,000 signatures to recall a governor in Michigan - many recall petitions are also rejected by local courts on various technical grounds
• Vast majority of recall elections concern low level state officials such as mayors or state senators - only 3 governors have faced on, with the most recent being Scott Walker in Wisconsin in 2012 who survived, and the last to lose was Davis in California who lost in 2003
• In June 2018, a local judge in California, Persky, was successfully recalled for delivering what was seen as an unduly lenient sentence in a sexual assault case - first to be recalled in 80 years

Question 22

Arguments direct democracy is helpful

Answer 22

1) Purer form of democracy - direct say in framing laws
2) Promotes legislative variation between states e.g. liberal and conservative
3) Improves accountability of state officials
4) Adds another check and balance to state executives and legislatures between elections
5) Increases opportunities for political participation
6) Pressure groups often use it as a forum for their efforts - NRA publicly backed a 2014 measure in Alabama to strengthen 2nd Amendment rights

Question 23

Arguments direct democracy is a hindrance

Answer 23

1) Can lead to ‘tyranny of the majority’, namely voters passing laws that negatively impact on a minority e.g. driving tests in English only - ordinary voters may not understand complex laws fully, and they may also vote for unsustainable measures such as cutting state taxes but increasing spending on public services which can lead to huge budget deficits
2) Can lead to inconsistencies and variation in laws between states
3) Often simply a political tactic used by sore losers or those unhappy with specific policies - undermines representative democracy
4) Adds another opportunity for stalemate and stalling on important issues, limiting the ability to govern
5) Adds to democratic overload
Involvement of wealthy pressure / interest groups gives them disproportionate influence

Question 24

Voting behaviour in the US

Answer 24

• Share a lot of commodity in the factors that affect voting behaviour, such as class, age and geography
• In the US, race and religion are much more significant than in the UK, as is the personality of candidates - US politics is more candidate centred, especially in primary level
• Voting behaviour is complex and best understood as involving factors that make someone more likely to vote in a certain way
• There is a distinction between primary factors such as voter profile and recency factors

Question 25

Primary factors in US voting behaviour

Answer 25

Long-term influences on voting behaviour e.g. age, race and political alignment
- Race: African-Americans overwhelmingly vote Democrat, along with Hispanics and Asians - white voters support the Republicans but by smaller margins; in 2020, 87% of African-Americans voted for Biden, and over 60% of the other groups voted Biden also - 58% of Trump’s voters were white
- Gender: Women are more likely to vote Democrat, and men tend to vote Republican - 57% of women voted Biden, and 53% of men voted for Trump in 2020
- Religion: white evangelical Christians (born again) strongly back Republicans and non-religious voters strongly tend to lean Democrat - 81% of white evangelicals supported Trump
- Wealth: there is less of a difference than might be expected - richer voters do not strongly vote Republican, nor do poorer voters strongly trend Democrat
- Age: young voters tend to vote Democrat, while older voters are more likely to support the Republicans - 55% of 18-29 year olds voted Biden, and 52% of over 65s vote Trump in 2020
- Self declared political philosophy: most who call themselves Liberals vote Democrat - 85% of Conservatives backed Trump and 88% of liberals backed Biden in 2020
- Sexual orientation: Most LGBTQ+ Americans vote Democrat; over 75% of LGBTQ+ individuals voted Biden in 2020
- Geography: small-town, suburban and rural areas favour the Republicans - large urban areas are usually Democrat strongholds; over 75% of urban areas went blue in 2020

Question 26

Recency factors in Voting behaviour in the US

Answer 26

• Issues and policies - immigration, trade and foreign policy; Trump emphasised strong restriction of immigration and many tariffs on foreign imports; Biden prioritised an Obama-esque approach - policies tend to be tailored to the voter base
• Personalities; candidates backgrounds and experiences - Trump was affected by scandals around his treatment of women, business experiences and electoral interference; Biden was seen as an experienced and competent option, but was plagued by his family history with his son’s drug abuse
• October surprises - Trump and the Hollywood Access tape, Clinton and her use of a private email server
• Mood of the nation - Strong populist sentiment, many worries about the future and America’s place in the world

Question 27

Parties and voting coalitions in voting behaviour

Answer 27

• Political parties in the US require the support of a large amount of groups to win elections:
• Core voters for the Republicans; white evangelicals, older voters, social conservatives, gun owners, those in small towns and suburbs, those fearful of large scale immigration (border states) and those suspicious of big government
• Democrats - ethnic minorities, younger voters, social liberals, LGBTQ+. Urban dwellers, blue collar unionised workers, supporters of causes like feminism and gun control advocates

With core voters, candidates and parties need to ensure that their platforms and policies appeal to all sections of traditional voters, key groups turnout to vote (Clinton struggled with young voter turnout in 2016) - getting out the vote is important - and core voter coalitions are kept loyal by policy pledges designed to appeal to them, and so Republicans often have pro-life position and Democrats advocate gun control

Question 28

Realigning elections - pre-1980s; 1968 Nixon v Humphrey

Answer 28

Elections that showed a long term shift in voting behaviour and political allegiances

1968:
- Took place at a time of growing polarisation in politics
- Ultra conservative Republican candidate from 1964, Goldwater, released a book that energised the right (Conscience of a Conservative) and in the same year Reagan gave his landmark speech ‘A Time for Choosing’ - the New Right had also emerged with increasing concern around the USSR and the Cold War
- In contrast, the Democrats had moved to a more progressive stance on issues such as civil rights earlier that decade, accepting the peace movement, hippy culture and more liberal attitudes to abortion and gay rights - made the party more liberal
- The 1968 election therefore took place against a backdrop of growing social and political divides in the USA which was partly reflected in the positions and platforms of the two parties and candidates
- Nixon ran as the champion of the ‘silent majority’ who rejected the radicalism and cultural liberalism of the time - strong focus on law and order and traditional values
- First example of the Republican’s ‘Southern Strategy’ - appealing to disaffected whites in the South alienated by the passage of civil rights legislation
- It permanently disrupted the Democrat’s formidable New Deal Coalition established by FDR in the 1930s, as the Solid South abandoned the Democrats; in 1968, the Deep South largely backed third party segregationist candidate George Wallace - subsequent elections saw white Southern Conservatives vote Republican
- The election ushered in an era of Republican dominance in presidential elections with the party winning 7 out of 10 contests between 1968 and 2014

Question 29

Realigning elections - post 1980; Trump v Clinton 2016

Answer 29

• First example in more than 50 years of victory by a political outsider (no political experience)
• It was viewed as a victory for populism over experience and mainstream politicians - on the Democrat side, outsider Sanders almost beat Clinton in the primaries also
• Many previously loyal white blue collar Democrats in Rust Belt states such as Michigan and Ohio swung for Trump, attracted by promises about jobs and trade, and it was narrow victories in states such as Wisconsin (last Republican in 1984) that tipped Trump over the finish line in 2016 despite losing the popular vote
• It revealed the growing gap between urban and multi-ethnic America and the largely white exurban/small town/rural America
• The main shifts in voting behaviour need to be carefully analysed, with many voter blocs having stayed the same as in 2012; white evangelicals remained loyal to Trump despite moral lapses such as two divorces and settlement affairs - African-Americans also solidly backed Clinton
• The main change was among the less educated whites in Upper Midwest states such as Michigan and Wisconsin and Ohio; Ohio whites went for Trump 62-63%, which was a considerable improvement from 2012 when Romney won 57% of the white vote
• There is some suggestion that whites in the Upper Midwest / Rust Belt states might be voting more like whites in the South i.e. Republican and this could be caused in part by the decline of organised labour (trade unions) which traditionally played a key role in getting out the white blue collar votes for the Democrats

Question 30

Split-ticket voting

Answer 30

• Ability to vote for candidates from different parties for different elected posts in the same election - e.g. 2016 voters voting Trump for President but voting for a Democrat as one’s House member or Senator
• The growth of hyper-partisanship has made this much less common - the opposite of split-ticket voting is straight voting
• In 2016, every state where there was a Senate race voted for the same party’s candidate as president; by contrast, in 1988 the figure was only around 50%
• There were only 35 (8%) split congressional districts in 2016
• There remains considerable split ticketing with local state elections - blue Massachusetts voted a Republican governor in 2016
• Voters might split their ticket for a number of reasons - personality of the candidates, desire to balance power between the parties or different issues dominating in different levels of elections

Question 31

Abstention from voting

Answer 31

America has traditionally high levels of voter abstention and low turnouts - in addition, there is differential abstention because some groups turnout more than others

Evidence -
- Only 55.7% of the voting age population (VAP) turnout for the presidential race in 2016, though this did represent around 87% of registered voters - by contrast, the 2017 UK election saw a turnout of just under 69%
- Turnout is even lower for primaries, typically under 30% - it was just 5.3% of Kansas caucuses, and it is also lower for midterms (around 36% in 2014)
- Wealthy Americans are much more likely to vote than poorer Americans, through African-American turnout now often surpasses that of whites, as it did in 2012; 66% of eligible AA voters compared with 64% for white voters - in 2016 thought, AA turnout fell by 7% while the white turnout rose slightly to 65% - Latino turnout is lower than both groups at 48% in 2016
- Women are more likely to vote than men and older voters are more likely to younger voters - 70% of those aged over 70 compared to less than 50% of 18-24 year olds

Question 32

Reasons for lower voter turnout in the USA

Answer 32

1) Multiple elections - democratic overload
2) Lack of voter choice as there are only two main parties
3) Political alienation - some groups, especially poorer and younger voters, may feel politicians do not listen to them and policies either are not delivered or fail to benefit them - no political efficacy
4) Voter registration requirements - voters in the USA must positively opt in to get on the voter list - this is automatic in the UK
5) New voter ID laws; require voters to produce government issued photo ID such as a passport - often seen as discriminating against ethnic minority and poorer voters
6) Many races are not competitive - wasted vote syndrome
7) Gerrymandering in states increases the non competitive nature of many House districts, which can be especially relevant to midterms turnout
8) Many living in the USA are ineligible to vote e.g. large numbers of ex-felons
9) The negative nature of much political campaigning - ‘attack ads’