Political Campaigns and Elections

Political Campaigns and Elections

​Elections and voting: Why should they matter to you?

Introduction

Some people argue that a single vote has little impact, particularly in elections with millions of participants. They claim that even at the local level, one vote is unlikely to change the outcome. However, history has shown that in certain cases, such as the 2000 U.S. presidential election, a small number of votes can indeed make a difference.

In the 2000 election, Democratic candidate Al Gore won the popular vote by over 500,000, but George W. Bush became president by winning the Electoral College. Bush's victory came down to a very close contest in Florida, where he won by just 537 votes. This led to a legal battle that ultimately resulted in Bush winning all of Florida's 25 electoral votes, securing his presidency.

Other instances in the 2000 election also demonstrated the significance of small margins. In New Mexico, Gore won by only 366 votes, while in Michigan, a congressional seat was decided by just 88 votes. These examples highlight that even a handful of votes can shape the results of important elections.

The broader importance of voting goes beyond individual outcomes. Voting is a key way for Americans to participate in democracy. Each vote contributes to maintaining a healthy, active political system, making every voter’s participation significant in upholding democratic values.

Multiple Choice

Why was the 2000 U.S. presidential election considered so close, and how did a small number of votes impact the final outcome?

• Al Gore won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote by a large margin.

• George W. Bush won the presidency by winning Florida by just 537 votes, giving him the Electoral College victory.

• Both candidates received exactly the same number of votes nationwide.

• Al Gore won by a huge number of votes in Florida, which decided the election.

Section 1. The Right To Vote
Pg172-174

​Elections are a regular feature of this nation's political system. In fact, Americans hold more elections to elect more officeholders than any other nation in the world. This emphasis on elections stems from the constitutional principle of popular sovereignty. If political authority comes from the people, what better way to exercise that authority than by voting? In a 2018 opinion survey, the majority felt that voting in an election was a crucial part of citizenship.

Yet, a sizable percentage of Americans do not vote regularly. Furthermore, throughout our history, many Americans have been denied voting rights. In many cases, the right to vote has been won only after years of struggle.

Who Voted Then: The Gradual Expansion of Suffrage

​When the U.S. Constitution was written in 1787, it said very little about elections. The Constitution did establish a procedure for electing the president and vice president. But it left most other details about elections and voting rights to the states.

At that time, suffrage, or the right to vote, was limited in the United States. In 1789, most states restricted suffrage to white males who owned substantial property. John Jay, one of the authors of The Federalist Papers, expressed a view common to many of the nation's founders when he said, "those who own the country ought to govern it."

Over time, however, suffrage was gradually extended. During the 1820s, a political movement to eliminate property qualifications for voting swept the country. Propelled by Andrew Jackson, the first "common man" to become president, states opened their voting rolls to all white males. This political movement also pioneered the use of political parties to mobilize voters and get them to the polls.

Who Voted Then: The Gradual Expansion of Suffrage

After the Civil War, the adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment advanced the principle of universal male suffrage. This amendment, ratified in 1870, granted voting rights to all male citizens, including African Americans.

Early in the 20th century, other measures expanded voting rights even more. The Seventeenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, provided for the direct election of senators. Previously, senators had been elected by state legislatures. The Nineteenth Amendment, approved in 1920, gave women in all states the right to vote. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 helped extend suffrage to American Indians by granting them citizenship.

The Civil Rights Movement and Suffrage

For many African Americans, the expansion of suffrage after the Civil War proved short-lived. For nearly a century after the war, many states—especially in the South—found ways to deny suffrage to blacks, despite the Fifteenth Amendment. They erected legal barriers, such as literacy tests and poll taxes, to keep African Americans from the polls.

In the 1950s and 1960s, leaders of the civil rights movement made expansion of voting rights one of their key goals. They organized mass protests, calling on the federal government to ensure that African Americans could exercise their voting rights, no matter where they lived. They achieved their first victory with the ratification of the Twenty-fourth Amendment in 1964. This amendment banned poll taxes, which had kept many poor African Americans from voting.

A second major advance came with the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which banned literacy tests. In some parts of the South, this law placed voter registration, or the process of signing up to vote, under federal authority. In the past, local election officials in these areas had prevented African Americans from registering to vote. As a result of the Voting Rights Act, the number of African American voters increased dramatically in the South.

​

"Freedom and justice cannot be parceled out in pieces to suit political convenience. I don’t believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others."

-Coretta Scott King

Multiple Choice

Which of the following legislative changes was primarily focused on addressing economic barriers to voting?

• 15th Amendment

• 24th Amendment

• 19th Amendment

• Motor Voter Act

Voting Today: Easy Registration and Low Turnout

The next major expansion of suffrage occurred with the ratification of the Twenty-sixth Amendment in 1971. This amendment lowered the voting age to 18. Previously, most states had required voters to be at least 21 years old. This amendment was adopted during national debates over the Vietnam War. At the time, many people argued that if 18-year-olds were old enough to be drafted and sent into battle, then they were old enough to vote.

Today, there are four basic requirements to be eligible to vote in the United States. In most states, you must be

• a U.S. citizen.

• at least 18 years old.

• a resident of the state.

• a legally registered voter.

Voting Today: Easy Registration and Low Turnout

To register to vote, you must fill out a form that asks for such basic information as your address and date of birth. You may also be required to provide the registrar of voters with proof of your identity.

In general, voter registration closes a month or so before an election. However, North Dakota does not require residents to register before voting. Several other states allow voters to register at their polling place on Election Day.

​To encourage more people to vote, Congress has tried to make the voter registration process easier. In 1993, for example, it passed the National Voter Registration Act, better known as the Motor Voter Act. This law requires that states allow residents to register to vote while applying for a driver's license. It also requires states to provide voter registration forms at social service offices and by mail.

Voting Today: Easy Registration and Low Turnout

The Motor Voter Act has been quite successful in promoting voter registration. By the 1996 presidential election, 18 million new voters had registered. Since the act was passed, there has been some increase in registration among voting-age Americans.

Increased voter registration, however, has not translated into high voter turnout on Election Day. Voter turnout is the proportion of the voting-age population that actually votes. Today, the United States has one of the lowest voter turnouts among the world's established democracies. Between 50 and 60 percent of American voters turn out to vote in presidential elections. In contrast, figures for many European democracies exceed 70 percent.

Political scientists point to a number of factors that might explain this difference in voter turnout. For example, ballots in some countries may be simpler, with fewer candidates and issues to vote on than in a typical American election. U.S. elections take place on workdays, which means that many voters must take time off from their jobs to go to the polls. In many other countries, elections are held on weekends or official Election Day holidays.

Open Ended

What steps have been taken to increase voter turnout?

Voting Today: Easy Registration and Low Turnout

In some European countries, such as Belgium and Italy, voting is compulsory, not voluntary as in the United States. Voters who do not participate in elections in those countries may face fines or have their right to vote revoked.

Low U.S. turnout rates may also reflect the fact that a majority of states deny convicted felons voting rights while in jail, on parole, or on probation. Such restrictions deny about 3 adults in 100 the right to vote.

Low voter-turnout rates have fueled concern that Americans are becoming less connected to their communities and see less reason to get involved in politics. Experts say that in the 2016 presidential election, only about 61 percent of voting-age Americans voted, a decrease from the 2012 and 2008 elections.

Word Cloud

Why is voter turn out so low?

Open Ended

Do you think Americans take voting for granted today? Why or why not?

Section 2. Choosing Candidates for Public Office: The Nomination Process
Pg.174-180

Approximately half a million people hold elective office in the United States. Candidates for nonpartisan offices, such as county sheriff, typically face one another in a single election. The candidate with the highest vote totals wins. For most national or state offices, however, candidates must compete for their party's nomination in a primary election. If they win this election, they go on to face the nominees of other parties in the general election, held later that year.

Primary Elections: Closed, Open, Blanket, and Nonpartisan

Primary elections, though common in the United States, are rare in the rest of the world. The idea of holding elections to choose a party's nominees was popularized during the Progressive Era in the early 1900s. Before then, nominees were often selected by party leaders who met behind closed doors. Primary elections brought the selection process out into the open and allowed party members to participate. Today, primary elections take several forms.

Closed primaries. States with a closed primary limit voting to registered party members. Independents are not allowed to participate. In some states, voters may declare their party affiliation on Election Day and vote in that party's primary. In general, party leaders prefer a closed primary because it limits voting to the party faithful.

Primary Elections: Closed, Open, Blanket, and Nonpartisan

Open primaries. States with an open primary allow all voters to vote in primary elections. In this system, also known as pick-a-party primaries, voters decide which party primary to vote in on Election Day. Independent voters like this system because it allows them to participate in the primary of their choice. However, party leaders worry about "raiding" in open primaries. Raiding occurs when voters cross party lines to vote in the other party's primary. Usually their purpose is to help nominate a weak candidate that their own party nominee can then easily defeat in the general election.

Blanket primaries. In a blanket primary, voters can pick and choose one candidate for each office from any party's primary list. Today, this system is used in only a few states.

Nonpartisan primaries. Primaries are sometimes used to narrow the field in nonpartisan contests, such as for school board or city council elections. If one candidate wins a majority in a nonpartisan primary, that person takes office. If not, the two top vote-getters face each other in the general election.

Multiple Choice

Which type of primary allows voters to pick candidates from any party's primary list, regardless of their own party affiliation?

• Nonpartisan primary

• Open primary

• Blanket primary

• Closed primary

Joining the Race: Self-Announcement, Exploratory Committees, and Drafts

To participate in a primary, the person running for office must become a declared candidate. This can happen in several ways. The most common is self announcement, also known as throwing your hat into the ring. Candidates simply declare their interest in seeking election to a public office. Self-announcement is usually done at a press conference or other public event. In 2015, Hillary Clinton chose to self announce her candidacy for president with a YouTube video.

Before making a formal announcement, however, the candidate may form an exploratory committee. This is a group of advisers who evaluate the candidate's chances for election. Exploratory committees often take several weeks to test the waters and determine the level of public support for their candidate. If the committee decides that circumstances are favorable, the candidate makes a formal announcement of candidacy.

Joining the Race: Self-Announcement, Exploratory Committees, and Drafts

For presidential candidates, announcements are sometimes made as early as two years before the election. By announcing early, candidates give themselves extra time to raise the funds and the support they will need for the hard primary campaign ahead. In some cases, candidates do not self-announce. Instead, they wait for a groundswell of public support for their candidacy. In effect, they allow their supporters to draft them into the race.

In some cases, candidates do not self-announce. Instead, they wait for a groundswell of public support for their candidacy. In effect, they allow their supporters to draft them into the race.

Establishing a Campaign Organization

To win office, candidates must run a well- organized campaign. In most cases, this requires a campaign organization. These organizations vary in size and complexity.

Running for a city council seat might require a very small, local campaign organization. This group might consist of no more than a volunteer campaign manager and a treasurer. The candidate works with this small team to write speeches, print posters and flyers, and manage other details of the campaign.

Running for president, on the other hand, demands a large, complex organization. A presidential race requires the services of hundreds of people, from unpaid volunteers to highly paid campaign professionals. Included in this staff would be a campaign manager, a public opinion pollster, a media consultant, a fundraising specialist, accountants, lawyers, and a press secretary. A presidential campaign organization would also have offices in every state. Of course, to set up and run such an organization requires money.

Multiple Choice

What is the most common way for a candidate to declare their interest in running for office?

• Forming an exploratory committee

• Allowing supporters to draft them into the race

• Running a well-organized campaign

• Self-announcement

Building a War Chest by Dialing for Dollars

Jesse Unruh, a California politician, once observed, "Money is the mother's milk of politics." Without money, a political campaign cannot survive for very long. This is true at all levels, whether a candidate is running for a local office or for president of the United States.

At the start of a campaign, candidates spend a great deal of time and energy raising money the old-fashioned way. They "dial for dollars," getting on the phone to ask associates and supporters for money. They hold fundraisers, such as $1,000-a-plate dinners, to solicit contributions from major donors. They also organize direct-mail campaigns and set up websites designed to attract funds from large numbers of small donors. If a candidate's fundraising efforts are successful, the campaign will build up a war chest, or funds that can be used to move the campaign forward.

In choosing a campaign theme and message, candidates often consult polls and pollsters. This cartoon takes aim at the kind of advice pollsters may give

Building a War Chest by Dialing for Dollars

During presidential primary campaigns, the candidate with the largest war chest is often hailed as the front-runner. During the 2000 election, for example, George W. Bush raised a record amount of money early in the campaign and became the leading Republican candidate. A year before the first presidential primaries in 2016, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders were declared frontrunners in the race for the Democratic nomination based on their early success at raising record amounts of campaign funds.

​

Source: Wright, A. L. M. F. S. D. (n.d.). Follow the money: How much have the 2024 presidential candidates raised? | CNN Politics. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/politics/elections/presidential-candidates-money-raised-dg

Multiple Choice

According to the text, what is often considered the primary indicator of a front-runner during a presidential primary campaign?

• A large war chest

• Popularity in early polls

• Media coverage

• Endorsement from major politicians

Developing Campaign Strategies and Themes

In most states, the road to nomination in partisan races is the primary election. But some states use a different method: the party caucus. A caucus is a closed meeting of people from one political party who will select candidates or delegates.

In a caucus state, small groups of party members meet in their communities to discuss the various candidates. Each caucus then chooses delegates to represent its views at the party's state convention. Approximately a dozen states hold caucuses. The best known are the Iowa caucuses, which take place early in presidential election years. The Iowa caucuses are watched closely because they provide the first indications of how well each candidate is doing at winning the support of average voters.

To prepare for caucuses and primaries, candidates must develop a campaign strategy. If this plan of action works well and the candidate wins the nomination, some of that strategy may carry over to the general election. Key elements of a strategy include tone, theme, and targeting.

Developing Campaign Strategies and Themes

Tone. Candidates must decide whether to adopt a positive or a negative tone for their campaigns. This means determining how much time and money to spend stressing the positive things about their candidacy and how much to spend criticizing their opponents.

Theme. Every candidate needs a theme—a simple, appealing idea that gets repeated over and over. A theme helps distinguish a candidate from their opponents in the primaries. It is also critical in the general election, when candidates from different parties compete. When running for reelection in 1984, Ronald Reagan emphasized optimism, as expressed in his slogan, "It's morning again in America." For the 2008 election, the late John McCain organized his campaign around the theme of patriotism with the slogan "Country first." In the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton's campaign used a number of slogans, most notably "I'm with her" to emphasize her hope to be the first female president.

Targeting. Candidates must also decide whether to target specific groups of voters. Is there any group—blue-collar workers, women, the middle class, the elderly—that is particularly unhappy with the status quo? If so, that group is a likely target for specially designed appeals from candidates.

Developing Campaign Strategies and Themes

Campaign strategy also involves how candidates moderate their message for different audiences. For the primaries, candidates try to appeal to the party base. The party base consists of party activists who are more likely to vote in primary elections than less-committed centrists. This base also holds more extreme views than a centrist voter. As a result, candidates often emphasize more liberal or conservative views in the primaries than they would in a general election campaign.

Open Ended

What is a key difference between a party caucus and a primary election?

Reaching the Voters: Retail Politics, Wholesale Politics, and Microtargeting

Candidates for public office try to reach voters in various ways, both during the primaries and in the run-up to the general election. Political scientists have identified three general approaches: retail politics, wholesale politics, and microtargeting.

Reaching the Voters: Retail Politics, Wholesale Politics, and Microtargeting

Retail politics. This meet-and-greet style of campaigning relies on direct contact with voters. Candidates take part in parades, dinners, and other local events. They stand outside factories and shopping malls to shake hands and kiss babies. During these face-to-face encounters candidates try to present themselves as in touch with ordinary people.

Wholesale politics. Many voters can be reached only by large-scale mail or media campaigns. Candidates may develop direct-mail campaigns in which thousands of letters are sent to voters asking for their support. Even more common is the use of both paid and free media. Candidates and their staff prepare television ads and take part in televised town hall meetings and debates. These broadcasts can reach millions of people at a time. The internet is also being used to reach voters on a large scale. Most candidates have a professional website that has an archive of campaign ads and a link that allows voters to directly donate to a campaign. They also use social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram to reach out to voters.

Reaching the Voters: Retail Politics, Wholesale Politics, and Microtargeting

Microtargeting. This campaign approach uses databases to target narrow groups of voters and then reach them with carefully crafted messages. According to the Washington Post, candidates who adopt this technique "use the latest data-mining technology to vacuum every last scrap of information about voters." Armed with that data, they "churn out custom-tailored messages designed to herd their supporters to the polls." These messages present the candidate's position on issues of importance to each targeted group. For example, a candidate might target a message on social security to senior citizens.

Multiple Choice

Which campaign strategy involves direct, face-to-face contact between candidates and voters, often at local events such as parades or dinners?

• Direct-mail campaigns

• Retail politics

• Wholesale politics

• Microtargeting

Locking Up the Nomination

A few months before the presidential election, the Democratic and Republican parties each hold a national convention in a major American city. In the past, party conventions were a critical step in the nomination process. Party delegates would argue over the candidates, sometimes going through several ballots before picking a nominee. On occasion, an underdog would emerge from the pack to challenge, and even overtake, the leading candidate.

Today, however, presidential nominees are chosen through the primary and caucus process. The winner then announces their choice for vice president. The national convention has, as a result, evolved into a ritual to formally announce the party nominees and present them to the nation. The nominees also work with party leaders to frame a platform for the upcoming election, laying out the party's position on major issues. In addition, the convention helps unite the party and excite the party base.

The Other Way to Run for Office: Nomination by Petition

Nomination by Petition Not all candidates for public office go through the usual nomination process. For independent or third- party candidates, there is another way to get on the ballot: by petition.

The petition process involves collecting signatures of a specific number of qualified voters in support of one's candidacy. The number of signatures needed depends on the office being sought.

The laws governing nomination by petition differ from state to state. In 2016, a candidate running for president needed 1,000 valid signatures to be put on the ballot in Washington state. In contrast, California required a candidate to gather the number of signatures equal to 1 percent of the registered voters from the previous presidential election, or approximately 180,000 signatures.

These variations can make it difficult for independent and third-party candidates to get on the ballot in all 50 states. In 2000, for example, Ralph Nader, the presidential nominee for the Green Party, appeared on the ballot in 43 states. Four years later, Nader was able to qualify for the ballot in only 34 states.

Section 3. Campaigning in General Elections
Pg 180-185

​Once the primary season ends, the candidates who have won their party's nomination shift gears to campaign in the general election. Although the Constitution calls for regularly scheduled elections, it does not specify when they should be held. Congress has set the date for presidential and midterm elections as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of even-numbered years. This is different from parliamentary systems, in which the prime minister can call a national election at any time.

Presidential, Midterm, and Off-Year Elections

There are three types of general elections in the United States: presidential, midterm, and off-year. Presidential elections are held every four years on even numbered years. Midterm elections occur in the even-numbered years between presidential elections. Off-year elections are held in odd-numbered years.

Elected officials in the United States hold office for fixed terms. The Constitution sets the terms of the president and members of Congress. The only federal official affected by term limits is the president. The Twenty-second Amendment, ratified in 1951, limits the president to two terms in office. The terms for state officeholders are set by state constitutions.

Open Ended

According to the previous slide what positions are up for reelection in odd numbered years?

Building a Winning Coalition: Motivating the Base While Moving Toward the Middle

Candidates gearing up for a general election must make a number of changes in their campaign strategy. One is to shift their attention from winning over their fellow party members to taking on the nominee of the other major party.

To appeal to a larger cross-section of voters, many candidates decide to modify their political message. In the primaries, the ideas and promises that appealed to the party base, with its more extreme views, may need to be moderated to attract centrists and independents. Ideally, however, this move to the middle should be done in a way that does not upset or alienate the party base.

Democrat John Kerry faced this delicate balancing act during the 2004 election. During the primary season, Kerry presented himself to party voters as an ardent critic of the war in Iraq. He did this, in part, to drain support away from his Democratic opponent, Howard Dean. Dean's strong antiwar views had fired up the party base.

Once Kerry had won the nomination, however, he began moving to the middle. In the run-up to the general election, he tried to soften his antiwar message to win more support from moderate and independent voters. However, his efforts backfired when his Republican opponent, George W. Bush, accused him of being a "flip-flopper" on the war issue. Kerry stuck to his more centrist position for the rest of the campaign, but he lost the election to Bush.

Issues Versus Image: Stump Speeches, Photo Ops, and Televised Debates

In the weeks leading up to the general election, candidates continue to hone their message and polish their image for voters. They spend increased time on the campaign trail, making public appearances and giving variations of their standard stump speech. This term harkens back to the days when candidates would stand on a tree stump to deliver their speeches.

Issues Versus Image: Stump Speeches, Photo Ops, and Televised Debates

During these final weeks, candidates make every effort to remain in the public eye. One way to do this is to stage photo opportunities, or photo ops, for the media. The hope is that pictures of the event will appear on the nightly news and in the next morning's newspaper.

For congressional candidates, a favorite photo op involves joint appearances with the president or with their party's presidential nominee. The candidate hopes that being seen in public with such a powerful figure will give their campaign an extra boost. This boost, known as the coattail effect, may help a struggling candidate ride into office on the "coattails" of the next president.

Issues Versus Image: Stump Speeches, Photo Ops, and Televised Debates

The coattail effect does not always work as hoped. In 1992, Democrat Bill Clinton won the presidential election, but his coattails were too short to help fellow party members. The Democrats lost ten seats in Congress that year. Four years later, however, Clinton won reelection with longer coattails. In the 1996 election, the Democrats won eight seats in Congress. The coattail effect remains unpredictable, working for some candidates in some campaigns while having little effect in others.

Another way for candidates to boost their exposure is to take part in televised debates. In presidential elections, these debates offer many voters their first opportunity to see and hear the candidates discuss the issues in any depth.

However, the image that candidates project in debates may be just as important as what they have to say. A candidate who is attractive, well-spoken, and relaxed during a debate will probably fare better than one who appears stiff and ill at ease on screen.

The impact of televised debates on voters is hard to assess. What candidates do in debates may sway some voters, while simply confirming for others the choice they have already made. Nonetheless, candidates prepare carefully for these televised events, knowing that even though a good performance may not win them that many votes, a poor showing could lose them the election.

Getting Out the Vote

In the last days before the election, campaign workers focus on getting out the vote. This means making sure that all voters who are likely to support their candidate actually cast their ballots.

In the past, almost all votes were cast at a designated polling place within each precinct. Today, the majority of Americans still go to the polls to vote on Election Day. However, a growing number of voters now cast absentee ballots, or mail-in ballots that voters can use instead of going to the polls. Since 2000, for example, the state of Oregon has conducted all of its elections by mail. A few states also allow early voting at designated voting places in the month before Election Day.

Campaign organizations use various tactics to get out the vote before and on Election Day. Before the election, volunteers talk with voters by phone or by walking through precincts and ringing doorbells to find out who is likely to support their candidate. On Election Day, they set up phone banks staffed by volunteers who call supporters and urge them to vote. The organizations may also offer free rides to voters who have no other way of getting to the polls.

Multiple Choice

What is the "coattail effect" in a political campaign?

• A candidate receiving extra media coverage due to a good debate performance

• A candidate benefiting from being associated with a popular figure, such as the president

• A candidate gaining votes by sending out absentee ballots

• A candidate's performance in televised debates influencing voter decisions

Getting Out the Vote

Campaigns may also send poll watchers to polling places on Election Day. Poll watchers are volunteers who monitor the voting process. Their main job is to prevent voter fraud or efforts to intimidate voters. Poll watchers may also observe the tallying of ballots to ensure that all votes are properly counted.

Because most voting regulations are set by states and counties, voting methods and types of ballots have varied from one community to the next. In the past, most voters used some form of paper ballots or lever-controlled voting machines. Some paper ballots are relatively easy to use and count, while others are not. The infamous butterfly ballot used in Florida in the 2000 general election confused many voters. As a result, many voted for the wrong candidate by mistake.

Getting Out the Vote

Florida also had trouble with punch-card ballots in the 2000 election. Voters mark these ballots by punching out small bits of paper, called chads, beside their choices. Sometimes, however, the chad does not fully detach from the ballot. These "hanging chads" make it almost impossible for the machines used to count ballots to complete an accurate tally. Every time such ballots are fed through the vote-counting machine, it comes up with a different count

Florida was not alone in having problems. Across the country in the 2000 elections, almost 2 million votes were not properly counted by vote-counting machines. To solve this problem, Congress enacted the Help America Vote Act of 2002. The goal of this act is to help states replace their old voting machines and punch-card ballots with more accurate voting technology, such as optical scanners and touch-screen machines. Progress, however, has been slow, in part because of questions raised about the accuracy and reliability of the newer electronic voting systems.

Who Wins?

Once the votes are counted, the winners of the election are declared. In most presidential elections, the winner receives a majority of the popular vote. That was the case in 2004, when George W. Bush received 51 percent of the votes cast.

When three or more candidates are competing, the winner sometimes receives less than 50 percent of the vote. This occurred in both the 1992 and the 1996 elections, when Bill Clinton won the presidency with 43 percent and 49 percent of the popular vote, respectively. In both cases, a third-party candidate, Ross Perot, captured enough votes to prevent either of the major party candidates from winning a majority. Our nation's winner-take-all system has a major effect on presidential elections. In most states, the candidate winning the popular vote captures all of that state's Electoral College votes. Nebraska and Maine, however, use a different system. They allot Electoral College votes based on the popular vote in each of the states' congressional districts.

Who Wins?

Critics point out that the Electoral College system encourages candidates to focus on populous states with the largest number of electors. In theory, a candidate can win the presidency by capturing the 11 largest states and losing the other 39.

In general, however, candidates pay the most attention to a few battleground states, where the vote is likely to be close, while ignoring states where the outcome is more predictable. For example, a Republican presidential candidate can easily expect to win Texas and other conservative southern states. Similarly, a Democratic candidate can expect to win Massachusetts and other liberal New England states. For that reason, both sides target their time and money on states such as Ohio, Florida, and Michigan, which can be won by either candidate.

Who Wins?

The winner-take-all-system tends to reinforce the nation's two-party system. Most public offices go to candidates of the two major parties because one or the other is likely to win the popular vote. Third parties, which usually have a narrower appeal, have much less hope of winning seats in Congress or state legislatures. Although the winner-take all system promotes stability in government, it tends to exclude less-mainstream candidates from public office.

In contrast, many European democracies have adopted aproportional representation system. In these countries, citizens usually vote for parties rather than for individual candidates. A party wins seats in parliament based on its proportion of the popular vote. For example, if a party wins one-third of the vote in an election, it is awarded approximately one-third of the seats in parliament. Proportional representation thus gives smaller parties a chance to take part in government.

Multiple Choice

What is a common criticism of the Electoral College system in U.S. presidential elections?

• It encourages candidates to focus on a few battleground states rather than all states equally.

• It gives too much power to third-party candidates.

• It allows a candidate to win the popular vote but still lose the presidency.

• It ensures that all states are given equal attention during campaigns.

The Electoral College Debate

As important as the popular vote may seem, it is the Electoral College vote that decides presidential elections. The framers of the Constitution devised the Electoral College system because they did not trust voters who were spread out over 13 states to choose the head of the executive branch. Instead, they gave that responsibility to a group of electors who might better know who was best suited for that job.

At first, each state legislature chose its own electors. In 1789, all 69 electors who had been chosen this way cast their ballots for George Washington as president. A majority cast their votes for John Adams as vice president. After 1800, states began allowing voters to choose electors. When you vote for president in the next election, you will actually be voting for electors who have promised to support your candidate.

The Electoral College Debate

The number of electors from each state equals the number of that state's representatives in Congress. For example, Virginia has 2 senators and 11 House members, giving it a total of 13 electoral votes. Washington, D.C. has 3 electoral votes. There are 538 electors in all, which means that a candidate must win at least 270 electoral votes to become president. If no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives selects the president, with each state casting one vote.

Not surprisingly, the Electoral College system has provoked controversy over the years. The chief criticism is that it is undemocratic. Critics point to four elections in U.S. history—in 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016—in which the candidate who won the popular vote failed to win the Electoral College. Most recently in 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but lost the election to Donald Trump.

The Electoral College Debate

For years, critics have called for a reform of the Electoral College. Most advocate electing the president by direct popular vote. This change would require a constitutional amendment. However, many Americans also support the Electoral College system. Some states, especially smaller ones, fear that a reform would reduce their influence in presidential elections. Under the popular vote system, candidates might be motivated to only campaign in large states.

An alternative option is the congressional district method. Under this method, now used in Maine and Nebraska, the candidate who wins the popular vote in each congressional district gets that district's electoral vote. The overall winner in the state receives the two additional electoral votes that represent the state's senators. The consequence of this method is that if it was widespread, candidates might only focus on campaigning in specific districts rather than in entire states.

Another option is the national popular vote. Under this plan, states would cast their electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote. This change can be implemented by state legislatures, thereby avoiding the need for a constitutional amendment. In 2007, Maryland became the first state to adopt this Electoral College reform. The reform will not go into effect, however, unless approved by enough states to constitute a majority of the Electoral College vote. Critics claim that there is little benefit to this method and argue that it diminishes federalism since it reduces the states' role in elections.

Open Ended

Do you think the Electoral College is a fair way to elect the president, or should the United States switch to a direct popular vote? Explain your reasoning, considering the pros and cons of each system.

Section 4. Financing Election Campaigns
Pg 185-189

​In the United States today, elections are centered more on candidates than on political parties. This was not always the case. At one time, candidates relied heavily on their parties to help them win elections. Today, however, candidates behave more like independent political actors than party representatives. They depend mainly on their own political skills and the efforts of their campaign organizations to get elected.

Money has played a large part in this shift from party-centered to candidate-centered elections. As campaigns have grown more expensive, candidates have come to rely increasingly on their own fundraising abilities or personal fortunes to win public office. For example, presidential candidates in 2016 spent a combined $1.5 billion on their campaigns. On average, winning candidates for a seat in the House of Representatives spent $1.3 million each. Winners of each Senate seat spent an average of $10.4 million. In future elections, the cost will likely be even higher.

The high cost of running for office is a concern for various reasons. Candidates with limited resources may find it hard to compete with those who are well funded. This lack of a level playing field inevitably excludes some people from running for office. In addition, officeholders must spend considerable time and energy building up their war chests for the next race, rather than focusing on the work of governing.

The main issue, however, is whether campaign contributions corrupt elected officials. When candidates win public office, do they use their positions to benefit big campaign donors? In other words, do politicians always "dance with the ones who brung them," as the old saying goes? Lawmakers generally say no, but the public is not so sure.

The High Cost of Running for Office

Political scientists have observed that individuals and groups donating to campaigns choose from two basic strategies. The first is the electoral strategy. Donors that follow this strategy use their money to help elect candidates who support their views and to defeat those who do not. The goal is to increase the likelihood that Congress, their state legislature, or their city council will vote for what the donor wants.

The second is the access strategy. Donors following this approach give money to the most likely winner in a race, regardless of party. If the race looks close, the donor might even contribute to both campaigns. The goal is to gain access to whichever party wins the election. Donors using this strategy expect to be able to meet with the official they supported and present their views on issues of interest to them.

Two Strategies Guide Campaign Donations

Political scientist Michael Smith points out that neither strategy involves trading money for a promise to vote a certain way on a piece of legislation. Indeed, offering money for votes is considered bribery and is clearly illegal. Donors found guilty of offering bribes—and lawmakers found guilty of accepting them—face prison sentences, not to mention ruined careers.

There have been well-publicized examples of such corruption. Nonetheless, political scientists find that most elected officials act according to their political principles, no matter who donates to their campaigns. Donors who make large contributions to campaigns might enjoy greater access to officeholders. But this may not translate into influence over the actions of those officials.

Two Strategies Guide Campaign Donations

Multiple Choice

What is a major concern related to the high cost of running for public office?

• It allows donors to directly control how politicians vote on legislation.

• It leads to fewer candidates running for office overall.

• It forces candidates to raise money illegally.

• It excludes less wealthy candidates from running for office.

Almost all of the money used to fund election campaigns comes from private sources. A few wealthy candidates have been able to fund some or all of their campaigns from their own assets. In 2010, for example, Linda McMahon of Connecticut self-funded almost her entire campaign by spending $50 million of her own money on an unsuccessful bid for a seat in the U.S. Senate. The great majority of candidates, however, must reach out to their supporters for funding.

Most campaign funds come from individual citizens. These donations are often raised through direct-mail or internet fundraising campaigns. And they are typically fairly small, in the $25 to $100 range. Candidates also host fundraisers to raise money from large donors. In the 2017–2018 election cycle, the amount of money an individual could donate to a single candidate was limited by law to $2,700 for the primary campaign and another $2,700 for the general election. These figures are periodically adjusted for inflation.

In recent years, political action committees have become an important source of campaign funds. PACs are organizations formed by corporations, labor unions, or interest groups to channel funds into political campaigns. Similar to individual donations, PAC contributions to a single candidate are limited to $5,000 per year.

Where Campaign Money Comes From

Another source of money for some candidates is public funds. A few states, such as Arizona and New Hampshire, use public money to finance campaigns for governor and state lawmakers. At the federal level, only presidential candidates receive public funding. This money comes from taxpayers who check a $3 donation box on their income tax forms. The money accumulates between elections and is made available for both primary and general election campaigns.

To qualify for public funds, a candidate must raise at least $5,000 in each of 20 states in small contributions of $250 or less. Once qualified, candidates can receive federal matching funds of up to $250 for each additional contribution they receive. The purpose of these provisions is to encourage candidates to rely mainly on small contributions from average voters.

Public funds come with a catch. Candidates who receive public money must agree to limit their campaign spending. As a result, politicians are often hesitant about accepting public funds.

The future of public funding for presidential elections looks uncertain for two reasons. One is a drop-off in taxpayer donations for this purpose. The other is a growing reluctance among presidential hopefuls to accept public funds and to limit their campaign spending.

Public Funding of Campaigns

Multiple Choice

What is required for a candidate to qualify for public funding in an election?

• Raising $1,000 in each state from small donations

• Collecting $5,000 in each of 20 states from donations of $250 or less

• Gaining at least 51% of the popular vote

• Receiving endorsements from at least three states

In 1974, Congress created the Federal Election Commission to enforce laws that limit campaign contributions. The FEC requires candidates to keep accurate records of donations to their campaigns and to make those records available to the public. This public disclosure allows voters to see the names of all donors who contribute $200 or more to any candidate running for office.

Some Americans question if campaign contributions give some individuals and groups more influence than others. Research has failed to prove that members of Congress sell their votes in exchange for campaign contributions. However, despite this lack of evidence, the potential influence of campaign contributions has led to some regulation.

Despite FEC oversight, campaign spending spiraled upward during the 1980s and 1990s. Much of the money came from interest groups who had found loopholes in existing campaign finance laws. Calls for reform led to the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in 2002, also known as the McCain- Feingold Act.

The new law attempted to solve two main problems. The first was the growing use of soft money to fund election campaigns. Soft money is unregulated money donated to a political party for such purposes as voter education. In theory, soft money was not to be used to support individual campaigns. For this reason, it was not limited by campaign funding laws. In practice, however, parties used soft money to help candidates fund their election bids, thus boosting campaign spending.

Reining in Soft Money and Issue Ads

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act bans the use of soft money in individual election campaigns. It also limits how much soft money an individual can contribute to a party. Furthermore, parties can use soft money only to encourage voter registration and voter turnout.

The second problem was the use of issue ads in campaigns. Issue ads are political ads that are funded and produced by interest groups rather than by election campaigns. In theory, these ads focus on issues rather than on candidates. Thus, like soft money, they were not regulated by campaign finance laws. In practice, however, many issue ads were barely disguised campaign ads. For example, such an ad might discuss a pollution problem and then suggest that "Bill Jones," a lawmaker up for reelection, is "a friend of polluters." Even though the ad did not say, "Vote against Bill Jones," its intention would be to influence how voters viewed the lawmaker.

Reining in Soft Money and Issue Ads

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act bans the broadcast of such thinly disguised campaign ads in the 60 days leading up to an election. This part of the law has been challenged in court, however, by groups that see the restrictions as an unconstitutional limit on their First Amendment right to free speech. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life that such ads could be banned "only if the ad is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate."

Finally, the act contains a "stand by your ad" rule that requires candidates to take responsibility for their campaign commercials. Beginning in the 2004 elections, candidates were required to appear in their own ads and explicitly endorse the content.

One side effect of the reform act has been the growth of groups known as 527 committees. These organizations are formed under Section 527 of the tax code. Because they are not tied to a political party or candidate, they are allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to support or oppose candidates.

Reining in Soft Money and Issue Ads

In effect, 527 committees and their donors have found a loophole that allows the continued use of unregulated soft money in political campaigns. As Senator John McCain, one of the sponsors of the 2002 reform law, pointed out, "Money, like water, will look for ways to leak back into the system."

Super PACs have also emerged as significant backers of political candidates. Unlike PACs, Super PACs may accept unlimited financial donations for political spending. However, they cannot coordinate with candidates or directly fund a campaign.

Reining in Soft Money and Issue Ads

In 2010, two federal court cases paved the way for Super PACs. The first was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In 2008, Citizens United, a conservative group, created a documentary of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton after the FEC allowed advertisements for a documentary that criticized the Bush Administration during the 2004 election. The FEC prevented Citizens United from running ads promoting their film in 2009. The case came to the Supreme Court that same year. In 2010, the Court held that under the First Amendment, the Government cannot limit corporate political spending in candidate elections.

The second case is Speechnow.org v. FEC. The 527 committee Speechnow gathered funds from individuals, not corporations, to endorse the election or defeat of federal candidates. In 2007, FEC informed Speechnow that it must register as a PAC if within one year it raised or spent over $1,000 for federal elections. As a result, Speechnow and other individuals disputed the constitutionality of the FEC Act. They argued that by requiring a group to register as a PAC and limiting the amount an individual could donate to a PAC, it violated a person's freedom of speech. The case reached the U.S. Court of Appeals. In 2010, the court ruled that the government cannot limit contributions of groups that do not directly contribute to candidates.

Reining in Soft Money and Issue Ads

Open Ended

Do you think that campaign finance regulations, such as those created by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) or the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, are effective in limiting the influence of money in elections? Why or why not?

Section 5. Voter Behavior
Pg 189-191

Elections are important in a democracy. They allow citizens to participate in government. They also serve to check the power of elected officials. When voters go to the polls, they hold officials accountable for their actions. In The Federalist Papers, James Madison observed that elections compel leaders

to anticipate the moment when their power is to cease, when their exercise of it is to be reviewed, and when they must descend to the level from which they were raised; there forever to remain unless a faithful discharge of their trust shall have established their title to a renewal of it.

—James Madison, The Federalist No. 57, 1788

Elections are one of the things that distinguish a democracy from a dictatorship. Nevertheless, many Americans do not vote.

Who Does and Does Not Vote

In any given election, as many as two-thirds of all Americans who could vote do not do so. When asked, nonvoters offer a number of reasons for not going to the polls. Many say they are just too busy. Others cite illness or lack of interest. Political scientists who study voting point to three differences between voters and nonvoters: age, level of education, and income.

Who Does and Does Not Vote

Age. The percentage of people voting varies among different age groups. Most voters are over the age of 30, and voting tends to increase with age. Once voters reach 75, however, turnout begins to decline, mostly due to ill health. The younger a person is, the less likely they are to vote. In the 2016 presidential election, only 46.1 percent of all those in the 18 to 24 age group went to the polls. In contrast, over 70 percent of those in the 64 and older age group voted that year.

Education. Voting also varies by level of education. Americans with college educations vote in much higher numbers than do high school dropouts. Almost three-fourths of all eligible voters with Bachelor's degrees or higher voted in 2016. Less than one-third of those who left high school without graduating cast ballots.

Income. Voting also varies with income group. Middle-class and wealthy Americans are much more likely to vote than are those living in poverty. This difference may, in part, reflect the fact that income and education are closely intertwined. However, there may be other barriers to voting among the poor. People working at low-wage jobs, for example, may find it difficult to get time off work or to find transportation to the polls on Election Day.

How Voters Choose Among Candidates

When deciding how to vote, Americans tend to look at three things: the candidate's party affiliation, the candidate's position on policies and issues raised in the campaign, and the candidate's characteristics.

Party affiliation. The party a candidate belongs to is the most critical factor that voters consider when choosing who to vote for. Most Americans still align themselves with a party and vote for its candidates. This is particularly true when voters are not familiar with the candidate's views or experience.

How Voters Choose Among Candidates

Issues. The issues raised in a campaign are a second factor that voters consider when evaluating candidates. This is particularly true of independent or swing voters, who do not have a strong party affiliation. These voters tend to look for candidates who hold positions on the issues that are similar to their own positions.

Candidate characteristics. Voters also choose candidates based on personal characteristics. These characteristics can be superficial, such as the candidate's image or appearance. Voters may be drawn to candidates who seem friendly, trustworthy, or "presidential." A candidate's characteristics also include their skills and experience. For example, a candidate might have a long record of public service that gives voters confidence in that person's ability to govern.

This last point touches on another important factor for many voters: whether a candidate is an incumbent already holding office. Unless incumbents have performed poorly, voters tend to regard them as more reliable and experienced than their opponents. As a result, voters are much more likely to vote for an incumbent over an untested challenger.

Multiple Choice

Which of the following is NOT one of the main factors that voters consider when deciding how to vote?

• Candidate's campaign spending

• Party affiliation

• Candidate's position on issues

• Candidate's characteristi-cs

Is Nonvoting a Serious Problem?

Obviously, it is desirable for citizens in a democracy to participate in elections. But how serious a problem is non-voting? Does non-voting behavior mean that people have lost hope in their ability to make a difference? Political scientists present two opposing views on these questions.

One view is that nonvoting has negative effects on American society. When groups, such as poorer or younger Americans, do not vote, they are effectively denied representation in government. This situation can set up a vicious cycle in which certain people do not vote because government does not serve their needs, and the government does not serve their needs because those people do not vote.

Another, more positive view is that nonvoting represents a basic level of satisfaction among the population. According to this theory, many people do not vote because they are happy with the way things are. If they were not, they would make the effort to vote.

Open Ended

Do you believe nonvoting a Serious Problem? Why or Why not? Explain your reasoning.