Government assignment
errorinboxs
chapter8artice.docxArticle 1
Lesson Overview
Learning Objectives
1. Identify the basic stages of political campaigns and the strategies candidates use.
2. Assess the role of money in modern campaigns and the effectiveness of legislation intended to restrict its influence.
3. Explain the considerable advantages enjoyed by incumbent candidates over their challengers.
4. Identify strategies used by presidential candidates in the primary phase of an election.
5. Identify strategies used by candidates in the general presidential election.
6. Explain and evaluate the role of the Electoral College in selecting the president of the United States.
Introduction
If democracy is a form of government that bases its legitimacy on the participation of the people, elections provide the most basic and symbolically important means for that participation. Campaigns are attempts by candidates and political parties, usually aided by interest groups, to persuade potential voters and mobilize voter turnout. With elections for the House of Representatives held every two years and elections for Senators staggered at the same increment, congressional elections and campaigns provide the most frequent opportunity for voters to decide how they will be represented at the national level. In theory, congressional elections are truly competitive and offer clear choices to voters. In practice, the art of gerrymandering and a host of factors that typically give a formidable advantage to incumbent candidates make most congressional elections, particularly in the House, a forgone conclusion.
As with congressional campaigns and elections, presidential elections provide the most important means for citizen participation in selecting the most powerful office in the land. The race for the ultimate political prize marshals political parties, interest groups, and the most intensive media scrutiny any political candidate could ever receive. It is an exhausting affair that takes place in two stages. In the first, the primary phase, candidates within each party campaign to receive their party's nomination as the presidential candidate. Once a candidate is fortunate enough to win his party's primary election, the candidate then contests the general election for the actual office of the presidency. Successful candidates must then "race to the middle" to win the additional votes of moderates and independents without simultaneously alienating their base. According to another curious American election practice, the Electoral College, a form of indirect election, whichever candidate secures 270 Electoral College votes will occupy the White House the following January.
Study Questions
1. What is the purpose of a political campaign and who are the main actors involved? Describe the roles the following groups or individuals play in a campaign:
a. Interest groups
b. Political parties
c. The candidate
2. How do modern congressional campaigns differ from campaigns 150 years ago and why? Consider the influence and interaction of the following factors:
a. Media
b. Money
c. Political culture
d. Technology
3. What is the difference between a political primary and a general election? Who votes in each of these and how does this influence campaign strategy?
4. Why is the incumbency advantage typically so strong in congressional elections? Answer with reference to the following:
a. Congressional staff
b. Franking privilege
c. Fund-raising
d. Name recognition
e. Pork
f. Redistricting
5. What role do political ads play in a modern campaign? How does negative campaigning work and can you give an example?
6. Describe the role of money and fund-raising in political campaigns:
7. How does the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) attempt to regulate campaign fund-raising?
8. Is money a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment? Explain.
9. What is a Political Action Committee?
10. Has the role of money in elections corrupted the democratic process? Why or why not?
11. What is the role of presidential primaries?
12. What is the difference between a caucus and a primary? Where do the first caucuses and primaries occur?
13. What do the following terms describe in regards to presidential campaign strategy in the primary races?
a. Big state strategy
b. Expectations game
c. Front-end strategy
14. How do presidential campaigns differ from congressional campaigns? Why can it be said that presidential campaigns often make candidates seem "schizophrenic"?
15. Describe the structure of the Electoral College and how it is used to select US presidents.
16. Should the Electoral College be replaced with direct popular elections?
17. How does the Electoral College influence campaign strategy?
18. What factors influence the choice of a vice presidential candidate?
19. Do nominating conventions make a difference in presidential elections? What role do they play?
20. Do televised presidential debates typically play an important role in deciding elections? Give one or more examples of presidential debates that may have made a difference.
21. What is the difference between the "air war" and the "ground war"?
22. How does the system of public funding for presidential elections work? Has a presidential candidate ever refused public financing?
Article 2:Campaigns and Election
· Campaigns and Elections
The Candidate
.
Why They Run
There are two categories of individuals who run for office:
1. Self-selected. These candidates choose to run on their own initiative. They may get involved in politics to further their careers, carry out specific political programs, or as a response to certain issues or events. Many self-selected candidates are from the fields of law, business, academia, sports, or entertainment. These candidates draw their support from their past connections with organizations like chambers of commerce, labor unions, or interest groups. Most candidates for Congress are self-selected.
2. Party recruits. Sometimes party organizations will ask a particular person to run. Candidates recruited by the party are chosen by party leaders because they appear to have the qualities necessary to gain voter support. Republican and Democratic campaign committees in both the House and Senate try to recruit strong candidates to run against incumbents from the opposition party. Campaign committees promise to raise funds for these candidates and help them gain name recognition.
The erosion of the political parties' strength has produced a shift from party-centered campaigns to candidate-centered campaigns. Where once the party picked the candidates, raised money, gauged public opinion, and mobilized voters, candidates have now taken over these jobs and established their own campaign organizations. As a result, campaigns often tend to stress personality over issues and encourage more contributions from special interests.
Who Runs
Politics attracts people for whom power and celebrity are more rewarding than money, leisure, or privacy. Individuals entering politics possess these attributes:
1. Strong communication skills. Politicians must know how to talk to diverse audiences, such as reporters, financial contributors, and constituents. Successful politicians must also be able to communicate sincerity, compassion, confidence, and good humor.
2. Professionalism and careerism. More people are entering politics early in life and expect to make it their career. Citizen officeholders—people with business or professional careers who get into politics for short periods of time—are being driven out by full-time, professional politicians.
3. Background in law. A large number of elected officials are lawyers. At the start of the 113th Congress in January 2013, 45 senators (out of one hundred) and 128 representatives (out of 435) identified themselves as either holding a law degree or working as a lawyer. Lawyers may be attracted to public office for these reasons:
a. Similarity between the two jobs. Lawyers study law-making and judicial and governmental systems. Their knowledge is beneficial in the political arena.
b. Starting point to a career in politics. Law school graduates can gain valuable experience by serving in public offices as judges or prosecuting attorneys.
c. Desire to increase name recognition and garner more clients. Holding a political office can provide lawyers free public advertising and opportunities to make contact with potential clients.
CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING
Additional Resource
Films/Videos
The Candidate (1972), directed by Michael Ritchie. Robert Redford stars as a political idealist recruited to make a run for the Senate in this engrossing and still terribly accurate reflection of the contemporary campaign process. As his political campaign takes hold of his life and message, Redford watches his values and control of his message disappear in the age of TV-friendly prefabrication.
Artice3:
ampaign Strategies
Campaigns are organized attempts by candidates, parties, and their supporters to win elections. The first thing a candidate must typically do is win his or her party's nomination in a primary election. Incumbent congresspersons usually face little threat from challengers within their own parties other than during particularly volatile political seasons or unless they have been tainted by scandal. But in races with no incumbent, would-be candidates must jockey for position. This involves carefully assessing the degree of party support a candidate enjoys and cultivating the favor of key party officials and relevant interest groups. Congressional campaigns are expensive, so it is particularly important that prospective candidates line up potential contributors and realistically assess their financial prospects. Primary elections are frequently the most important ones in congressional districts since so many districts have been gerrymandered to guarantee safe seats for either of the two major parties. In such districts, the candidate who wins his or her party's nomination in the primary is all but guaranteed to win the general election if that district is solidly red (Republican) or blue (Democratic).
Choosing a Theme
The elements of a general election campaign are largely similar to those of a primary campaign with the important exceptions that general campaigns are much better publicized, more expensive, and require candidates to appeal to a broader swath of potential voters. Central to the candidate's campaign strategy, or plan for victory, is selection of a theme. What is the candidate's message? What values or policies does the candidate stand for and how does she differentiate herself from her opponent? Campaign themes should be relatively simple, not overly detailed, and should ideally resonate emotionally with potential voters.
Choosing a Team
Modern campaigns are complex affairs requiring candidates to assemble an effective team, many of whom are paid professionals. Candidates reach out to seasoned political consultants for their campaign expertise.
Campaign Manager
Campaigns are usually overseen by a campaign manager. The campaign manager is involved with the development of the campaign plan and ultimately has the responsibility of coordinating and executing this plan. The manager is in charge of all election efforts, from the announcement of the candidacy through the acceptance speech. The campaign manager should be a good listener, know how to analyze situations, make quick, reasoned decisions, and be a good representative for the candidate.
Political Consultant
A political consultant focuses on selling the person as a candidate. Traditionally, the political consultant was responsible primarily for marketing aspects of a campaign, such as ad buys and crafting the ads. As campaigns have become more focused, the consultant is more likely to be involved in crafting the message of the campaign.
The political consultant reviews speeches and drills the candidate on talking points to address any questions that may come up in non-scripted events. He or she also evaluates everything, from the candidate's demeanor to outfits, and determines how these items impact the public's perception of the candidate.
Communications Director/Department
The Communications Department oversees both the press relations and advertising involved in promoting the candidate in the media. They are responsible for the campaign's message and image among the electorate. Press releases, advertisements, phone scripts, and other forms of communication must be approved by this department before being released to the public. Staffers within this office vary widely from campaign to campaign, however they generally include a:
1. Press secretary. Monitors the media and coordinates the campaign's relations with the press. Press secretaries set up interviews between the candidate and reporters, brief the press at press conferences, and perform other tasks involved in press relations.
2. Rapid response director. Makes sure the campaign responds quickly to attacks from other campaigns. He or she constantly monitors the media and the moves of their opponents, making sure attacks are rebutted quickly. Attacks and rebuttals are frequently carried out in "air wars" in which opposing campaigns use television ads to "spin" and counter attacks to their advantage.
Finance Department
The Finance Department coordinates the campaign's fundraising operation and ensures that the campaign always has the money it needs to operate effectively. The techniques employed by this department vary based on the campaign's needs and size. Small campaigns often involve casual fundraising events and phone calls from the candidate to donors asking for money. Larger campaigns include everything from high-priced sit-down dinners to e-mail messages to donors asking for money.
Because the chairperson of the Finance Department must solicit funds from the public, it is always helpful for the chairperson to be well regarded within the community as well as have financial connections.
Field/Ground Department
Ground wars play a critical role in competitive elections. Ground wars, designed to increase voter turnout, focus on personal contact with the voters through phone calls, direct mail, person-to-person contacts, and voter registration drives. The Field Department is responsible for executing the ground wars.
The Field/Ground Department generally includes workers such as:
1. Organizer. Responsible for the operations of a single office serving a county or several counties. The organizer works to build a local organization, mostly of volunteers, that will be used to fill out campaign events, contact voters, and provide ground troops for Election Day efforts.
2. Volunteer coordinator. Responsible for recruiting, retaining, and scheduling volunteers.
3. Get Out the Vote (GOTV) coordinator. Responsible for local GOTV efforts.
Field staff also provides information to campaign headquarters regarding what is occurring in the communities in which they are stationed. Field staffers often liaison between the campaign and local influentials such as interest group leaders and prominent community activists.
Going Negative
Campaigns are not for the timid or sensitive. In addition to defining themselves for voters, candidates need to define their opponents in unfavorable terms. Television ads are effective in creating lasting negative impressions among voters.
Attack ads
can be particularly nasty; leading to accusations and counter-accusations of candidates hitting below the belt. Perhaps the most famous negative television ad is the "Daisy Girl" ad run by President Lyndon B. Johnson's campaign against challenger Barry Goldwater. This ad depicted a child counting flower petals before being obliterated (by implication) in a nuclear explosion. However unsavory they may be, research indicates that attack ads frequently work.
Polling and Focus Groups
While campaigns still draw upon the resources of enthusiastic volunteers, congressional campaigns have become increasingly professionalized with political consultants, spin doctors, and professional pollsters analyzing enormous streams of data and manipulating technology to advance candidates toward victory. Polling is particularly important as it provides information on how well or poorly a campaign is doing in branding its candidate and communicating its message. It also provides important feedback for the campaign on a candidate's "favorables" and "negatives" among potential voters so the candidate's image can be better massaged. While polling relies on information drawn from very large samples, focus groups—small groups of individuals brought together by a political campaign to discuss issues and themes related to an election—provide more in-depth and nuanced feedback for campaign strategists.
Advertising and Photo Ops
Name recognition is an important advantage typically enjoyed by incumbents. However, boosting name recognition among voters is essential for all candidates as voters are more likely to vote for a candidate they have heard of frequently versus one they have not. Television ads and mail-outs to potential voters, as well as more traditional means like billboards and yard signs, are used to promote candidates and keep them visible.
There are three types of TV ads:
1. Advocacy ads are used to promote a particular position on an issue. These ads can target legislation, political subjects, and other issues deemed of interest to the public. This advertising can be funded by corporations, political organizations, consumer groups, interest groups, or even individuals.
2. Attack ads identify risks associated with the opponent. These ads exploit people's fears in order to manipulate and lower the impression voters have of the opponent. Attack ads are more influential than contrast ads in shaping voters' views of the candidate's opponent.
3. Contrast ads compare and contrast the candidate with the opponent. These ads juxtapose the positive information about the candidate with negative information about the opponent. Contrast ads are regarded as less damaging to the political process than attack ads.
Television ads are important but constitute a very heavy expense for congressional campaigns, especially in fiercely competitive elections. It is common for television advertising to account for half or more of a campaign's budget. Media directors also attempt to use news coverage to portray their candidates in a flattering light. Photo ops (opportunities), such as making sure a candidate is filmed or photographed in the presence of smiling firefighters, veterans, schoolchildren, or helping out with some local problem, can create positive impressions.
Fundraising
Campaigns are increasingly expensive. Candidates spend enormous amounts of time simply raising funds for their campaign war chests. While raising large sums of money is no guarantee of victory by itself, failing to raise adequate amounts can frequently guarantee defeat. Congressional candidates solicit money from key interest groups as well as wealthy and politically active individuals. Their staff members may solicit contributions via the Internet while candidates themselves frequent fund-raising dinners where political supporters use campaign donations to purchase highly priced meals. Congressional candidates may even raise money from other congresspersons, particularly more senior ones, who often set up
political action committees (PACs)
for this very purpose. The issue of money in elections is a controversial one and central to the study of American democracy.
Incumbent vs. Challenger Tactics
A candidate's campaign strategy will also depend on whether he or she is an incumbent or a challenger. Incumbents, unsurprisingly, campaign on their experience and proven legislative track record of having voted well and having brought any number of benefits (money, infrastructure, jobs) to their home districts or states. Challengers naturally highlight the less flattering aspects of an incumbent's voting record (every congressman has at least one vote that he or she probably regrets) and make a virtue of their outsider status. It is entirely predictable that challengers—and increasingly even incumbents—will run as change agents who, not being in thrall to the "Washington establishment," will think "outside the Beltway" and won't "practice politics as usual." Political campaigns, in short, come with a horde of rhetorical clichés that are recycled election year after election year.
Campaigns vary in their effectiveness. At the end of the day, a successful campaign is simply one that turns out more voters than the opponent's. Political scientists and commentators often refer to two of the decisive components of a campaign as the air war and ground war. The air war is designed to build support for the candidate via media messages such as television ads and photo ops. The ground war is the effort to mobilize potential voters and turn out support on Election Day. As low American voter participation rates routinely remind us, the latter can be very hard to accomplish. Candidates must also balance their efforts at mobilizing core supporters within the party to make sure they turn out in high numbers, while also attempting to lure undecided voters to the polls in their favor.
Inside Campaign Headquarters
Campaigns are organized efforts by candidates to win elections for public office. While campaigns differ in their particulars based on the candidate and the nature of the race, all have certain features in common.
This activity tests your knowledge about campaigning for political office.
LAUNCH ACTIVITY
CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING
Additional Resource
Websites
Campaigns and Elections This website for the magazine Campaigns & Elections features case studies of campaigns, the latest news updates on campaign issues, and a comprehensive directory of political consultants, political products and services, public affairs professionals and grassroots lobbyists.
The Living Room Candidate This website contains more than 300 television commercials from every presidential election since 1952. Included is the famous "Daisy Girl" ad run by President Lyndon B. Johnson's campaign against challenger Barry Goldwater.
4president.org This website features images of bumper stickers, selected television commercials, websites, campaign brochures, and debate transcripts from presidential candidates and campaigns from 1960 to the present.
Films/Videos
The War Room (1993), directed by D.A. Pennebaker. This documentary is a behind-the-scenes look at command central for Bill Clinton's 1992 election campaign. James Carville is Clinton's larger-than-life chief strategist who is partnered with young George Stephanopoulos as director of communications.
Article 4:
Campaign Financing
Getting elected to public office has never been more expensive. The need to employ staffs, consultants, pollsters, and spend enormous sums on mail, print ads, radio spots, and television ads relentlessly drives the fund-raising process. It is rare that a candidate feels fully secure in the amount of money he or she has raised. So candidates attempt to amass a financial war chest, which they can use in the next electoral contest if they do not spend it all in the present one. Presidential campaigns are only the most expensive campaigns in a very large field of expensive campaigns for federal office. The 2010 congressional campaign was by far the most expensive midterm election in history. Spending estimates put the price tag at roughly $4 billion—more than what was spent in the 2004 presidential election. Total spending by candidates Mitt Romney and Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election topped $2 billion, the most expensive campaign in US history.
Campaigns are expensive and getting more expensive with each passing election cycle. Growth in the size of the electorate and changes in technology, such as television, have increased the costs of mounting a successful congressional campaign. Unlike many democracies, the United States does not have a system of public financing for campaigns (with the exception of presidential campaigns). While particularly well-to-do candidates may supplement their campaign finances with their own money, most candidates in congressional races cannot afford or do not wish to fund their campaigns out of their own pockets. Instead they turn to individual and organizational donors for money.
Raising Money
While millions of American make small donations of $200 or less, mostly during presidential elections, such donors make up a relatively minor percentage of donors in congressional campaigns. Congressional candidates therefore turn to large individual donors, political action committees (PACs), and their respective political parties for financial support. Critics of the current state of campaign finance in the United States point to the inequality it introduces into the political system. Donors are disproportionately wealthy individuals and organizations, often with special agenda. Critics further claim that money in our political system corrupts the democratic process. At the very least, wealthy campaign contributors buy special access to lawmakers unavailable to ordinary citizens and create an appearance of impropriety. At the worst, campaign contributions may buy, even if only indirectly, legislative outcomes and votes in Congress. Defenders of privately financed campaigns argue that campaign contributions are a form of political speech protected by the First Amendment. Revelations concerning particularly large donations to President Nixon's reelection campaign, along with public pressure, moved Congress in the 1970s to pass the most extensive campaign finance regulations to date, and initiated a debate over money in politics that continues today.
Regulating Campaign Financing
Federal Elections Campaign Act (FECA)
Congress passed the Federal Elections Campaign Act (known as FECA) in the early 1970s. Key provisions in this law required disclosure of contributions for federal elections, placed limits on direct contributions to candidates, and created the Federal Election Commission to enforce its provisions. It also provided for partial public funding of presidential campaigns. In a 1976 Supreme Court case, Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Court upheld Congress' power to limit campaign contributions by individuals or organizations to other candidates' campaigns, holding that the government's interest in fighting corruption trumped free speech claims. However, the Court also ruled that Congress cannot place limits on an individual's right to use his own money to self-finance a campaign. In short, you can spend as much of your own money as you wish on your own campaign, but Congress can limit the amount you spend on another candidate's campaign.
Far from slowing, let alone stopping, the growth of money in campaigns, the period following passage of the FECA witnessed an explosion in the level of money in the political system. FECA did place strict limits on hard money , or direct contributions to candidates' campaigns. However, FECA did not restrict the use of soft money , or unregulated donations to state and local parties which could be used on behalf of candidates for activities such as get-out-the-vote drives and campaign ads. Soft money contributions thus proved an effective loophole to federal campaign finance limits.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA)
In 2002, a version of a bipartisan bill sponsored by Republican Senator John McCain and Democratic Senator Russ Feingold was passed by Congress and overhauled campaign finance law. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) raised limits on individual and organizational direct contributions but banned the practice of unlimited soft money contributions, thus attempting to close the most glaring loophole in previous federal law. The 2009-2010 BCRA limits on direct, or hard money, contributions include:
1. Individuals—$2,400 per candidate per election
2. Political Action Committees—$5,000 per candidate per election
3. Political Party Contributions—$45,600 per candidate per election
Note that primary elections are considered separate elections from general elections. These limits are adjusted every election cycle to keep up with inflation. Another striking provision of the BCRA was the limits it placed on individuals or groups prohibiting them from broadcasting television or radio ads referring to a specific candidate within 60 days prior to a general election or 30 days prior to a primary election. Such individuals and groups were also prohibited from coordinating television or radio ads with political parties or a candidate's campaign for the purpose of avoiding contribution limits.
The BCRA immediately became the target of litigation. The Supreme Court upheld the law's limits on hard money and ban on soft money in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission(2003). However, the Court struck down Congress' ban on "authentic" issue ads (as opposed to election advocacy ads) in the 60 and 30 day periods before federal elections. The lines between issue ads and advocacy ads can be quite blurry, but as long as the ad doesn't say "vote for" or "vote against" a particular candidate it is probably an issue ad, and is permissible. A later decision by the Court further narrowed the BCRA's reach by ruling unconstitutional limits on electioneering ads by corporations and unions in the blackout periods before federal elections.
Creative campaign contributors almost immediately discovered new loopholes to get around the BCRA. The most prominent of these are 527 groups and 501(c)(3) groups, both named after the relevant tax code provisions from which they are derived. These are both nonprofit organizations formed to advocate on specific political issues and are unregulated by the BCRA. The latter has the added appeal that it permits donors to conceal their identities until after the election. You could say that 527 and 501(c)(3) groups are the new soft money of American politics. Those who are skeptical of the efficacy of campaign finance reform sometimes invoke these new loopholes as examples of the hydraulic theory of campaign finance. Like water flowing downhill, money will always find a way to its destination. In terms of limiting the overall amount of money in electoral politics, the BCRA has clearly been unsuccessful.
The Debate Over Campaign Financing
Critics of the current state of campaign finance in the United States point to the inequality it introduces into the political system. Donors are disproportionately wealthy individuals and organizations, often with special agenda. Critics further claim that money in our political system corrupts the democratic process. At the very least, wealthy campaign contributors buy special access to lawmakers unavailable to ordinary citizens and create an appearance of impropriety. At the worst, campaign contributions may buy, even if only indirectly, legislative outcomes and votes in Congress.
Defenders of privately financed campaigns argue that campaign contributions are a form of political speech protected by the First Amendment. In Citizens United v. FEC (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that the government has no business regulating political speech and that corporations and labor organizations can directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates for federal office (as long as they do not coordinate their efforts with campaigns or political parties).
Campaign Finance Reform
Despite numerous attempts by Congress to reform and regulate campaign financing during the past forty years, glaring loopholes have continuously led to new explosions of money in the political system. With the cost of presidential elections now soaring past $2 billion, there is growing debate over what regulations, if any, should be placed on campaign financing. Courts have attempted to strike a fine balance between protecting individual rights to participate financially in campaigns against the government's need to prevent the possibility of corruption. This video explores the debate over the influence of money in presidential elections and attempts to impose limits on campaign contributions.
Video Focus Points
Look for answers to these questions when watching the video:
· What is hard money? What is soft money?
· What is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act?
· What is the Supreme Court's position on campaign spending?
Virtual Roundtable
The increasing amount of money spent during presidential elections drives a contentious debate about regulating campaign contributions. While critics insist unregulated contributions lead to excessive influence for donors, opponents contend unlimited campaign contributions represent a basic right to express political preferences. Are campaign contributions a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment or are they corrosive to US democracy?
Artice 5:
US House Congressional Districts
For the House of Representatives, every state elects a representative from each congressional district in the state. The number of congressional districts in a state is based on census data. When a state's population changes, a state may gain congressional districts, lose districts, or remain the same. (By statute, the total number of representatives remains at 435, even though the number of congressional districts in each state may vary from census to census. Furthermore, each state must have at least one representative.) For the Senate, every state holds statewide elections to send two senators to the 100-member US Senate. This has been true since passage of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1916 which provides for direct election of senators.
Primary and General Elections
Congressional elections take place in two stages, the primary election and the general election. A primary election, often referred to as simply "a primary," is an election within a political party for the purpose of choosing who will be that party's candidate for the general election. While there are variations, primaries are generally closed or open. In a closed primary, only members of a political party may vote for that party's preferred candidate. In an open primary, an eligible voter can vote in any party's primary but, the voter must choose which party's primary in which to participate. For example, a voter in a state with open primaries could vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary, but not both.
A general election is the election held for the purpose of actually selecting the individuals who will hold public office. In the general election, all eligible voters choose among the candidates selected by the competing political parties, and occasionally candidates who are running as independents. As the United States has a dominant two-party system, Democrats and Republicans are typically the only viable candidates, particularly when it comes to congressional elections.
Congressional elections take place every two years. All members of the House of Representatives are elected every two years. As US senators serve six-year terms, elections for these seats are staggered, with one-third of Senate seats up for election every two years. Voter turnout for congressional elections varies dramatically, depending on whether they are held at the same time as presidential elections. In midterm elections, sometimes called "off year" elections, voter turnout tends to be quite low, averaging somewhat more than a third of eligible voters. In presidential election years, however, the high profile of presidential politics significantly boosts voter turnout to the benefit of congressional election turnout.
The Incumbency Advantage
Incumbents, or those who hold political office and are running for reelection, enjoy an extraordinary advantage against challengers in congressional elections. Due to their high profiles and tendency to draw more recognized public figures, Senate elections are relatively more competitive than House races. Between 1992 and 2008, the incumbency reelection rate for the Senate ranged from a low of 79 percent to a high of 96 percent. It is the House races however, in which the incumbency advantage is all but insurmountable. Between 1992 and 2008, the incumbency reelection rate for House members averaged approximately 95 percent, from a low of 88 percent in 1992 to a high of 98 percent in 2000 and 2004.
Reelection rates such as these might seem more appropriate for an authoritarian state with rigged elections than for a modern democracy. Recalling that fair and competitive elections are one criterion by which the robustness of a democracy may be measured, it is important to understand why incumbents enjoy an often crushing advantage over their opponents. Some explanations include:
1. Name Recognition. Incumbents enjoy greater publicity and familiarity with constituents by virtue of their serving in Congress. All things being equal, many voters prefer the "devil they know" to an unknown challenger when making choices in the ballot booth, particularly if they have not researched the candidates who are running.
2. The Fundraising Advantage. Potential campaign contributors, particularly well-funded interest groups, understand that incumbents enjoy a large advantage over challengers. Lobbyists are used to seeking access to those already in office. In what becomes a self-perpetuating cycle, incumbents therefore profit from the built-in bias of campaign contributors towards incumbent candidates.
3. The Franking Privilege. Members of Congress enjoy free use of the US mail to communicate with their constituents, saving them considerable sums in postage that challengers must pay. Incumbents make use of free mailing privileges to send out brochures and reports that promote their achievements on behalf of their districts or states.
4. Constituency Service. By means of their office, incumbents are positioned to deliver tangible benefits to their constituents that challengers cannot. Using their influence in Congress and positions on congressional committees, incumbents can channel federal projects, money, and the resulting jobs to their districts or states. Earmarks, or specific appropriations in a bill that target money for use in specific states or districts, is one way to achieve this. Incumbents are aided by taxpayer-funded travel allowances permitting them to visit their constituencies frequently.
5. Paid Staffs. Incumbents have large, paid staffs that allow them to better serve constituents and, by default, reelection efforts. Staff members can be delegated case work, working to solve the problems of individual residents who contact the congressperson's office. This is one way to win votes one constituent at a time.
6.
The Single-Member District System. One of the largest advantages incumbents from the House of Representatives enjoy over challengers has grown even larger in the past couple of decades. In all 50 states, congressional elections use the
single-member district
(SMD) system of elections. Because this requires state legislatures or commissions to redistrict at least every ten years in accordance with the US census, the opportunities for gerrymandering are great. Gerrymandering is the drawing of congressional districts for partisan/political advantage. The party in charge of a state's legislature usually uses its influence to draw congressional districts in such a way that their member candidates are almost certain to win. They do so by such techniques as concentrating in a particular district a majority of those who identify with the incumbent's political party, while distributing among several other districts voters who identify with the opposite party. These noncompetitive districts, or
safe seats
, are a potent incumbency protection technique.
Virtual Roundtable
In theory, congressional elections are truly competitive and offer clear choices to voters. But in practice a host of factors, including the art of gerrymandering, typically provide a formidable advantage to incumbent candidates. Is the high incumbency rate in Congress a cause for concern?
OPEN VIDEO ROUND TABLE
CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING
Additional Resources
Websites
Project Smart Vote This nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization collects and distributes information on candidates for public office in the United States. It offers in-depth information about current officials, candidates, issues, legislation, and voting.
FairVote This nonpartisan, nonprofit organization provides research and analysis on redistricting and the outcomes of congressional elections.
Congressional District Maps The website govtrack.us has a searchable map of all congressional districts in the United States.
Incumbent Advantage Opensecrets.org tracks cumulative campaign funds raised by incumbents in both House and Senate races.
Artice 6:
Presidential Primary Elections
The presidential primaries have been described by humorist Garrison Keillor as "the longest job interview in the world where reporters ask you the same question a thousand times just hoping you will screw up once." While this may or may not be the case, an aspiring presidential candidate must first win the party's nomination in order to be a viable candidate for the general presidential election. Presidential primaries provide a trial run for the general election, allowing candidates to demonstrate their leadership skills and ability to perform under pressure. At the beginning of a competitive primary season, there may be a dozen or more candidates seeking the party's blessing; at the end, there can be only one. Candidates spend a great deal of time and energy exploring their prospects: securing millions of dollars in financial contributions, increasing their name recognition in the national media, and shoring up support among key party elites and interest groups. In some years, a front-runner quickly emerges as the most viable choice. But in other years, winning the party's nomination becomes a lengthy battle.
Primary Election Strategies
The strategies pursued by candidates are largely imposed by the nature of the primary system. While the majority of states use primary elections, several states hold a caucus instead. Caucuses used to be highly exclusive meetings of party bosses and activists who would select candidates, but in recent decades have become more open to rank-and-file party member participation. Because the media covers presidential campaigns as an "expectations game," focusing on who is ahead and who is behind, primary candidates need to win early races to meet or exceed media expectations. Placing even second in an important primary can provide a big media and fund-raising boost to a candidate many expected to place last, as was the case with candidate Bill Clinton in 1992. When Barack Obama surprised many by placing first in the Iowa caucus in 2008, it provided an important bump in public opinion polls and the support of party members. His win suggested that if an African American could win his party's nomination in a predominantly white, rural state like Iowa, he would be even more competitive in larger, more urban, and ethnically diverse states.
The Front-End Strategy
Early victories build momentum for a candidate's campaign and make the candidate appear more "electable." As a result, primary candidates pursue front-end campaign strategies directed at winning early primary races. If candidates lose too many early contests, campaign funds dry up and their campaigns never recover. The importance of winning early and often is intensified by the trend of states holding primary elections or caucuses earlier in the year, a phenomenon known as front-loading. They do this to enhance their state's impact on the presidential selection process. Traditionally, Iowa has been the first state to hold a caucus and New Hampshire the first state to hold a primary. This has allowed two small and relatively homogenous states extreme influence over candidate selection. Early races in small states provide an opportunity for primary candidates to engage in retail politics, interacting directly with ordinary voters. This involves everything from shaking hands to having lunch in small town diners or kissing babies—the timeless essence of electoral politics.
The Big-State Strategy
Wealthier, higher-profile candidates may also have the luxury of pursuing a big-state strategy, focusing on winning primaries in more populous states with large numbers of convention delegates. A big-state strategy requires more money, more workers, and better organization than a front-end strategy. Candidates unable to win a substantial portion of the larger states, such as California, Texas, and New York, are unlikely to secure the necessary number of delegates to win the nomination.
The Nominating Convention
Once a clear front-runner emerges in each party's primaries or caucuses, the primary race culminates in the media event that is the party's nominating convention. The nominating convention is the process by which a party formally nominates its candidate. In practice, the brutal series of primary elections has already determined the nominee well in advance of the convention. But the real importance of the convention is mostly as a media event. The week of soaring rhetoric, music, sign-waving, and appearances by political and media celebrities is meant to supercharge enthusiasm for the party's presidential ticket among party members and the voting public at large, many of whom will be watching the event on television. It is at the convention that the candidate's choice of a vice presidential candidate is formally introduced. The convention can be interpreted as a presidential candidate's opening media salvo in the general presidential election. Media coverage of the conventions typically gives each political party a public opinion "bounce" that lasts for a short while afterwards.
Primary vs. General Election Strategy
A final aspect of presidential primary strategy reflects the characteristics of voters in primary elections. Because voter turnout is much lower in primary elections than in the general presidential election, those who do turn out tend to be more ideologically intense and more likely to strongly identify with one of the two major parties. This produces a curious tension in primary campaigns. On the one hand, presidential hopefuls must appeal to their party's hard-core base; however, they cannot appear so ideologically extreme that they make themselves appear unelectable in the general election, where the average voter is more moderate and less partisan. For example, a Democratic primary candidate will often appear more liberal in the primaries than in the general election. Conversely, Republican candidates will have some incentive to appear more conservative than they would in the general election. Striking this balance can be exhausting, having the unfortunate side effect of making presidential candidates appear somewhat disingenuous. It is, however, the nature of this two-step presidential selection process.
The Race Begins: Presidential Primaries
The process for electing the President of the United States starts with the presidential primaries. This activity focuses on the participants and strategies involved in this process.
Artice 7:
Presidential General Elections
Candidate Strategy
One aspect in which the general election differs from the primary races is that candidates must broaden their messages and images to appeal to a wider cross-section of society. While they must continue to energize the base, galvanizing support and enthusiasm among committed members of the party, they must also appeal to independent voters who do not strongly identify with either party. Therefore, candidates must appear more moderate and often finesse or even backtrack from statements made during the primaries that appealed to their base. The re-crafting of a candidate's message and image to reflect the change in audience from the primaries to the general election can make a candidate look slippery at best, dishonest at worst.
Choosing a Vice President
The choice of a vice presidential candidate plays an important role in determining the breadth of a candidate's appeal in the general election. The right vice presidential candidate may help reduce the impact of a presidential candidate's perceived weaknesses. For example, in 2000, George W. Bush chose Dick Cheney, a veteran of government service and former Secretary of Defense, to neutralize concerns about his own lack of experience and knowledge regarding foreign policy.
The Debates
Some of the key media events during a general election are televised presidential debates (vice presidential candidates sometimes debate each other as well). These are heavily staged affairs that usually do not result in candidates offering much detail on important policy issues. Candidates are carefully coached with scripted answers and sound bites are frequent. However, the debates are the most widely viewed campaign event in an election, with tens of millions of citizens watching. While most voters have more or less decided by the time the presidential debates are held, it is an opportunity for citizens to observe their candidate's personality and poise for an extended period of time. Image is important. The presidential debates can also nudge undecided voters toward a decision for one candidate over another.
The Electoral College
2012 US Electoral College Map
In the general presidential election, campaign strategies focus on winning the Electoral College vote. American voters do not directly elect the president of the United States; they indirectly elect the president through the Electoral College. The Electoral College consists of 538 electors, divided among the fifty states and the District of Columbia, who officially select the president. Each state has a number of electors equal to its number of Congressional delegates in the House and Senate. Therefore, more populous states have more electors. The District of Columbia, a federal territory, has three electoral votes since the ratification of the Twenty-third Amendment in 1961. When citizens cast their votes in a presidential election, they are actually voting for a slate of state delegates pledged to vote for that candidate in the Electoral College; they are not voting for the candidate directly. Whichever presidential candidate wins 270 electoral votes, a majority, wins the election. If no presidential candidate receives a majority of the Electoral College votes, the House of Representatives picks the winner from the top three vote getters, with each state's delegation to the House casting only one vote, regardless of its size.
The Electoral College system drives presidential candidates to focus not so much on big states as on the swing states. Swing states are states in which it is uncertain whether the popular vote will go to the Republican or Democratic candidate. It makes no sense for a candidate to waste precious time and resources on a state whose electoral votes he or she is confident of winning, or on a state that will obviously go to the opponent. It is in the states where the vote looks close that campaign resources can make the biggest difference to a candidate's electoral vote count. Presidential campaigns in the general election are therefore characterized by fiercely expensive battles in a few critical swing states.
The Mysterious Elector
Voters in the last presidential election probably thought they were voting directly for their presidential choice. But in reality, the President of the United States is chosen by a mysterious institution called the Electoral College, a compromise of the 1787 Constitutional Convention designed to prevent direct election of the chief executive by the people. This video focuses on the origins of the Electoral College, how it operates, and why the Constitution remains a barrier to electoral reform.
Video Focus Points
Look for answers to these questions when watching the video:
· How does the Electoral College system work?
· Does the Electoral College system provide fair representation of the people in each state?
· How might the Electoral College system be improved?
Electoral "What If"
The 2000 presidential election was only one example of what could happen in an unusual situation involving the Electoral College. This activity uses hypothetical situations to illustrate how the Electoral College can impact election outcomes.
LAUNCH ACTIVITY
Voter Choice and Outcomes
Predicting the outcome of presidential elections is the favorite sport of political scientists, pundits, and political journalists. The factors determining those outcomes, however, are as complex as the American people themselves. Certainly, the economy plays an important, perhaps dominant, role in general presidential elections. Incumbents run on (or run away from) their economic record and challengers criticize opponents (or their opponents' party when there is no incumbent) for economic mismanagement. All Americans share an interest in economic indicators such as economic growth, inflation, interest rates, and unemployment. Many ascribe presidents, often unfairly, with a far greater degree of influence on the economy than presidents actually exercise.
Specific issues appeal to different voters and may emerge as determinants of electoral victory. Some voters vote almost exclusively on single issues, such as a candidate's stance on abortion or gun ownership rights. Issues such as these may persist across election years or may be idiosyncratic. For example, Ronald Reagan's 1980 victory over incumbent Jimmy Carter turned in considerable degree on Carter's inability to free American hostages held in Iran for more than a year.
Furthermore, certain groups show tendencies to vote for certain candidates based on partisanship and ideology. Regular churchgoers show an overwhelming preference for Republican presidential candidates, whereas African Americans overwhelmingly vote for Democratic candidates. Women are more likely to vote Democratic and men more likely to vote Republican. Other groups, like Hispanics, may demonstrate voting tendencies but show greater susceptibility to change depending on the prominence of certain issues.
Character and image also play strong roles in swaying some voters, particularly independents. Certain candidates may project an image as a "strong leader" or "tough on terror." Ronald Reagan, a former actor, enticed many Americans with his charm and easy wit with the media. He was frequently described as the "Teflon President" for his ability to avoid steep declines in popularity following scandals in his administration. In 1992, and again in 1996, many voters believed that Bill Clinton "felt their pain" and voted for him despite his questionable behavior with women. Consider, also, polls administered by magazines asking potential voters "With which candidate would you rather sit down and have a beer (or cup of coffee)?" Likeability influences voter preferences in presidential elections, though it is difficult to quantify.
The Race to the Top: The Presidential General Elections
After earning their party's nomination, the presidential nominees embark on the general election campaign. This activity focuses on the players and strategies involved in general elections.
