American National Government - Week 3 Discussion 1 & 2

Resources for Week Three Discussion – Presidential Leadership and the Electoral College

Before participating in this week’s discussion, “Presidential Leadership and the Electoral College,” review these

resources:

1. Read this chapter from the text, American Government:

a. Chapter 5 – The Presidency.

2. Read the following articles from the ProQuest (Search All) database in the Ashford University Library:

a. Electoral College 101.

(2008, November 3). Electoral College 101. New York Times Upfront, 141(5), 6-7.

(This brief article presents a basic description of how the Electoral College works.)

b. Why the Electoral College is bad for America.

Madonna, G. T. (2005). Why the Electoral College is bad for America. Presidential Studies Quarterly,

35(2), 411-412.

(This brief article reviews a book of the same name which argues that the historical purposes of the

Electoral College are irrelevant to contemporary American politics.)

3. Read the following article:

a. What are the arguments made in favor – and against – the Electoral College?

Bates, N. (2004, October 26). What are the arguments made in favor – and against – the Electoral

College? History News Network. Retrieved from http://hnn.us/articles/8163.html

(This brief article reviews pro and con arguments about the Electoral College.)

4. Read one of the following articles from the ProQuest (Search All) database in the Ashford University Library:

a. The strategic president: Persuasion and opportunity in presidential leadership.

Canes-Wrone, B. (2010). The strategic president: Persuasion and opportunity in presidential leadership

[Review of the book The strategic president: Persuasion and opportunity in presidential leadership, by

G. C. Edwards, III]. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 40(3), 572-574.

(The book reviewed in this brief article argues that presidents can best achieve change when they exploit

existing opportunities rather than try to persuade others to alter their opinions or behavior. Effective

presidents are facilitators who recognize opportunities, prioritize among them, and, only marginally,

convince a few undecided actors to support certain goals.)

b. Who leads whom? Presidents, policy, and the public.

Eshbaugh-Soha, M. (2007). Who leads whom? Presidents, policy, and the public [Review of the book

Who leads whom? Presidents, policy, and the public, by B. Canes-Wrone]. Presidential Studies

Quarterly, 37(3), 567-568.

(The book reviewed in this article argues that presidents take advantage of current public support to

maximize their legislative influence rather than trying to motivate (from the “bully pulpit”) a generally

uninterested American public to support their policies.)

c. The provisional pulpit: Modern presidential leadership of public opinion.

Towle, M. (2011). The provisional pulpit: Modern presidential leadership of public opinion [Review of

the book The provisional pulpit: Modern presidential leadership of public opinion, by B. Rottinghaus].

Congress & the Presidency, 38(1), 126-128.

(The book reviewed in this article analyzes the circumstances in which presidents have the best chance of

leading and influencing public opinion.)

d. Presidential leadership in political times: Reprise and reappraisal.

Walcott, C. E. (2009, June). Presidential leadership in political times: Reprise and reappraisal [Review of

the book Presidential leadership in political times: Reprise and reappraisal, by S. Skowronek].

Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39(2), 426-427.

(The book reviewed in this article argues that presidential leadership is limited or expanded by their

political circumstances and that it is erroneous to assert that any president can be "great" if only he does

the job right.)

5. Read one of the following articles from the ProQuest (Search All) database in the Ashford University Library:

a. Selecting the nation’s CEO: A risk assessment of the Electoral College.

Barnett, A. (2009). Selecting the nation’s CEO: A risk assessment of the Electoral College. Journal of

Management Issues, 21(4), 443, 447-460.

(This academic article analyzes the probabilities that the winner of the Electoral College vote will not also

win a majority of the national popular vote.)

b. Support for nationalizing presidential elections.

Karp, J. A. (2010, December). Support for nationalizing presidential elections. Presidential Studies

Quarterly, 40(4), 771-793.

(This academic article discusses how reform proposals focus on a single national election in which the

nation's interests, rather than state interests, are paramount. It analyzes 2008 public opinion data about

changing to a national election system.)

c. How the Electoral College influences campaigns and policy: The probability of being Florida.

Strömberg, D. (2008). How the Electoral College influences campaigns and policy: The probability of

being Florida. The American Economic Review, 98(3), 769-807.

(This academic article analyzes how U.S. presidential candidates should allocate resources across states to

maximize the probability of winning the election, based on a model of political competition under the

Electoral College system.)

6. Read one of the following articles from the ProQuest (Search All) database in the Ashford University Library:

a. Courting every voter in America.

Durgy, E. (2011, October 10). Courting every voter in America. Forbes, 1.

(This brief article explains and justifies the National Popular Vote compact, describing the efforts of one

particular businessman to convince state legislatures and governors to support it.)

b. GOP leaders united in defense of the Electoral College.

Gizzi, J. (2011, May 30). GOP leaders united in defense of the Electoral College. Human Events, 67(20),

5.

(This brief article critiques “liberals” who would create a de facto popular vote method of electing the

president without amending the Constitution.)

c. California votes to bypass Electoral College.

Loeb, M. (2011, August 9). California votes to bypass Electoral College. National Journal.

(This brief article describes a bipartisan movement to convince state legislatures to commit their electoral

votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in order to avoid outcomes like the 2000 election when

George W. Bush won the presidency despite losing the national popular vote.)

d. The 2012 election will come down to seven states.

Sabato, L. J. (2011, September 6). The 2012 election will come down to seven states; National polls are

nice, but Electoral College math is what matters. Wall Street Journal (Online).

(This brief article analyzes the projected key battleground states for winning combinations of electoral

votes in the 2012 presidential election.)

e. Electoral College reform tilts presidential balance.

Will, G. (2011, October 15). George Will: Electoral College reform tilts presidential balance. San Gabriel

Valley Tribune.

(This brief article critiques two proposals for changing the winner-take-all system for determining how a

state's electoral votes are cast for a presidential candidate.)

f. What’s wrong with the NPV?

Wolverton, J. (2011, September 19). What’s wrong with the NPV? The New American, 27(18), 25-28.

(This short article critiques the proposed National Popular Vote compact that has been approved by

several state legislatures.)