| Home |
 |
Student Resources |
|
Chapter 10: Participation, Voting, and Elections |
|
BUSH WINS THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
After a bruising, bitter, and closely contested race with Democrat John Kerry, Republican George W. Bush was reelected to the presidency in 2004. The campaign was one of the most intense in recent American history, and certainly the longest and most expensive. Bush and Kerry battled for almost eight months; they opened their campaigns against each other in early March 2004 and carried on through election day on November 2. Typically, presidential contests come up to full speed in the days following the late-summer Republican and Democratic nominating conventions.
The two campaigns were able to launch into full-scale attack mode because the official campaign organizations, state and national party organizations, and associated advocacy groups were loaded with money. In part, the Bush and Kerry campaigns were able to raise enormous sums of money because of changes in the campaign finance system under the McCain-Finegold law, which doubled the amount of money individuals could contribute to federal candidates and increased what they could give to party organizations. Adding to the money glut were so-called 527 advocacy organizations, which are legally allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money for the expression of political views. In the end, spending by all concerned was conservatively estimated to have topped $1.2 billion?30 percent greater than in 2000?making it the most expensive presidential election in American history.
What drove the campaign process more than anything else was the fierce partisanship that has come to characterize American political life, a subject addressed throughout your textbook. Each side of the partisan divide was convinced that the stakes were very high in the 2004 election.
It is hardly surprising?given the level of partisan rancor, the widespread sense that the outcome of the election would determine the shape of American domestic and foreign policy for years to come, generous campaign war chests on both sides, and the proliferation of well-funded, single-issue and ideological 527 organizations?that 2004 proved to be one of the nastiest and most uncivil races in recent memory. More than 120 million American cast ballots, roughly 60 percent of voting-age-eligible Americans, the highest percentage since the 1968 election. Finally, the 2004 election demonstrated once again that presidents are chosen by electoral votes, not popular votes, which explains why the campaigns focused almost all their efforts in a handful of so-called battleground states.
ELECTIONS AND DEMOCRACY
Elections serve as a means by which people and institutions at the political level influence governmental officials and institutions. Elections are essential for democratic politics - they are the principal means by which popular sovereignty and majority rule are supposed to work. This chapter looks at what actually goes on in American elections, and considers the question of whether or not elections bring about democratic control. In a small participatory democracy (like a town meeting), people vote directly on what to do. Representative democracy (where representatives are chosen to do the policymaking) is the best that can be done in a large, complicated society because it is not feasible to have everyone vote directly on policies.
Democratic theorists have suggested several different processes by which two-party elections of representatives could lead to democratic control of government. Chapter 10 discusses three of these processes, indicating how they work in theory and how they might or might not work in practice (responsible party government, electoral competition, and electoral reward and punishment). Responsible party government (or prospective voting) is based on the idea of elections providing a real choice, or alternative. It assumes that each of the two political parties is cohesive and unified; that each takes a clear policy position that differentiates the two parties; that citizens accurately perceive these positions and vote on the basis of them; and that the winning party will do exactly what it said it would do. Electoral competition calls for both parties to compete for votes by taking the most popular positions that they can. As with the responsible party theory, the two political parties each take clear, unified stands on issues, citizens vote on the basis of the issues, and the winning party does what it promises to do. Because parties are competing for votes by taking the most popular positions, both parties are likely to support the same policies (those favored by the most voters); the key idea is that both parties, competing for votes, tend to take policy stands near the midpoint of public opinion. Electoral reward and punishment (also called retrospective voting) assumes that voters make retrospective judgments about how well incumbent officials have done in the past. Unified parties compete for votes by emphasizing their competence and the way they reflect the public's goals, not by taking specific stands on issues. Voters don't bother to form preferences about complex issues because they are merely judging how well the incumbents did in the past, while politicians who want to remain in office have strong incentives to solve problems that the American people want solved. The authors provide evaluations of the three models and point to flaws that are common to all three theories. In particular, all three require more unified political parties than we have in the United States. Moreover, political equality is not achieved because the goal of total participation is not met; nonparticipation is a major problem for American democracy.
In terms of the responsible party government theory, the fact that Republicans tend to be more conservative than Democrats on a number of economic and social issues provides voters with a measure of democratic control by enabling them to detect differences and make choices. Voters exercise control in the electoral competition theory by either reelecting successful incumbents or defeating unsuccessful office holders. Elections force parties to compete by nominating centrist candidates and by taking similar popular positions, a reflection of the electoral competition theory. U.S. elections help make the public's voice heard, but political equality is damaged by providing more political influence to some types of people than to others. Broader participation would increase popular sovereignty and political equality, and thus would contribute to democracy.
THE NATURE OF AMERICAN ELECTIONS
Elections in the United States differ considerably from those in other countries, primarily due to differences in electoral rules - found mainly in the Constitution but also in federal and state statutes and judicial decisions. Notable aspects include the following: the U.S. has more elections than any other democratic nation; elections in the U.S. are separate and independent from each other; elections fill government positions with a fixed term of office; are held on a fixed date; and are usually "first past the post," plurality, winner-take-all contests.
POLITICAL PARTICIPATION
Political participation refers to political activity by individual citizens. It can be either conventional (voting, writing letters, working in campaigns) or unconventional (demonstrations, protests, boycotts). The most basic form of modern political participation is voting. The franchise (right to vote) was quite restricted in the early years of the United States, and only about 11 percent of Americans eligible to vote participated in the first presidential election (1788), or about 1 American in 40. The expansion of the right to vote has been one of the most important developments in the political history of the United States, and is an essential part of the "struggle for democracy." By 1829, property and religious requirements had been dropped in all states except North Carolina and Virginia. By contrast, European countries did not attain universal white male suffrage until the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Despite the lead enjoyed by the United States, expanding the suffrage to include blacks and women was much more difficult and painful. Universal white male suffrage was often accompanied by the withdrawal of voting rights from black freedmen. A number of constitutional amendments dramatically increased the proportion of Americans who are legally eligible to vote.
During the first century of American history, larger and larger proportions of Americans voted as suffrage expanded to more and more groups. Ironically, the trend in the twentieth century has been to a lower proportion of voter turnout. Voter turnout percentages dropped sharply after women were enfranchised (1920) and also dropped after 18-year-olds gained the vote. The difference between male and female turnout gradually disappeared, and a slightly higher percentage of women than men have voted in some recent elections. Young people are not firmly established in local communities, and they still do not participate as frequently. The ideal of political equality is violated by low rates of voter turnout because nonvoters do not have an equal voice in political choices. Paradoxically, Americans are more likely than people in other countries to participate actively in campaigns even though Americans have lower voter turnout levels.
Why so few American participate in elections is disturbing in a nation that is considered a "shining" example of the democratic core value of participation. Scholars have identified several possible factors. In the United States there remain barriers to voting. Only citizens who take the initiative to register before an election are permitted to vote and most elections are held during the work week. In many European countries the government registers voters automatically and election day is a holiday. Scholars believe that the nature of political parties and choices that they offer also affect turnout. Many Americans may not find either candidate for the major parties likeable. Political parties seldom rouse people to vote and get them to the polls. Research indicates that potential voters are often overwhelmed by the complexity of the ballot or simply feel apathetic toward or alienated from politics and government.
WHO PARTICIPATES
Not all Americans participate equally in politics. Political participation varies a great deal. Income and education are social factors that influence voter participation. Generally, those individuals with higher incomes and more formal education are more likely to be politically active. Civil Rights organizations and both of the major political parties have increased their efforts in recent years to register more minority voters. Blacks vote almost at the same rate as whites. Hispanics have historically had low political participation rates, however, there has been a recent jump in the turnout rate in states where there are large concentrations of Hispanic voters. Likewise, Asian Americans have voted in relatively low numbers, but that too may be changing as campaign contributions and individual and organizational activity in local politics has increased. More than race and ethnicity, low income, education level, language problems, and suspicion of government authorities discourage participation. One of the most important variables explaining why some people vote and others do not is age. While older Americans are the most likely to vote, the youngest groups of eligible voters go to the poll less often. Although women did not get the right to vote until 1920 and voted at a much lower rate than men through much of the twentieth century, the gender gap in voting and other forms of political participation has disappeared in the United States. Improvement in the educational attainments, increases in the number of women entering the work force and the importance of issues such as pay equity and abortion have dramatically changed the political participation of women. The lower overall turnout of voter participation in America is a major impediment in the struggle for democracy.
CAMPAIGNING FOR OFFICE
Chapter 10 looks at the process by which candidates run for political office. Candidates for president start by "testing the waters," raising money, and forming campaign organizations. Delegates to the national nominating conventions are chosen in a series of state primaries and caucuses. There are significant differences between the types of delegates at the two party conventions: Democratic convention delegates tend to be more liberal, African-American, Latino, female, and working-class than Republican delegates. Candidates in each party will try to establish momentum by winning early primaries and caucuses. Incumbents have an advantage in campaigning. Those in office use their term to campaign for the next election. The incumbent, however, is held accountable for his or her past performance whether good or bad. As with past performance, personal characteristics, real or alleged, can influence voter preferences. Each candidate is judged individually on personal characteristics and past performance. Regarding the candidates' position on issues, those competing for office tend to play it "safe" and take a middle ground position so as not to alienate voters.
In accord with electoral competition theories, both the Republican and the Democratic candidates usually try to appeal to the average voter by taking similar, popular stands on policy, especially foreign policy. Bill Clinton and Bob Dole both stayed close to the center in 1996, as did Gore and Bush in 2000. Presidential candidates usually do not say a great deal about specific policies. They tend to be vague and ambiguous in order to avoid offending voters who disagree with them.
Campaign strategies and the high cost of elections are major factors in presidential campaigns. The textbook assesses the relationships that may develop between politicians and major contributors. However, the source of campaign money may be more problematic for democracy than the cost of presidential elections.
Despite reforms that require candidates to report the sources of their funds and place limitations on individual contributions, major loopholes remain. Political equality is impaired by the limited and biased participation of citizens, and by the critical role that money and activists play in affecting election outcomes.
ELECTION OUTCOMES
The way in which people make their voting decisions affects how elections contribute to democratic control of government. Parties, candidates, and issues all have substantial effects. Party loyalties are so important that some scholars speak of a normal vote, the proportion of the votes that each party would win if party were the only factor that affected voting decisions. The normal vote stays approximately the same from one election to another, and therefore serves as a baseline when comparing elections. Party loyalties are relatively stable and shift in large numbers only during realignment periods such as 1896 or 1932. However, party loyalties have been weakening. Most recent presidential elections have been deviating elections, in which the party with fewer party identifiers has won.
Voters pay attention to issues, including some beyond the issues that are reflected in party loyalties. Decisions are sometimes based on policy proposals for the future, as with pledges to cut taxes or to help the poor; more often, issue voting has meant retrospective voting (making judgments on the basis of past performance). Foreign policy and the state of the economy can be important issues; and new issues have become important to voters in recent years, including deficit spending, free trade, the role of money in politics, concern about the environment, and conflicting views about crime, pornography, and abortion.
Given that much of the information, and many other factors that influence voters' decisions - such as party loyalty and social characteristics, as well as information about the incumbent and other inputs into retrospective judgments - come well before the election; the potential effect of the campaign on the final result of the election is limited. In fact, some political scientists argue the fall campaign matters very little, and have developed elaborate predictive models using these factors only. On the other hand, it is clear that the campaign does have an impact, especially on some voters. One study determined the campaign itself accounted for about 4 percent of the vote in recent presidential elections - significant enough to make the difference in about one out of five elections. Therefore, campaigns do matter to some extent.
The electoral college system is confusing to many Americans. When American voters think they are voting for a presidential candidate, they are actually voting for a slate of electors who have promised to support the candidate. Almost all states now have winner-take-all systems that select the entire slate of electors for the candidate who won the most popular votes. If no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes (a circumstance that has not happened since 1824), the House of Representatives will select the president from among the top three candidates. For most practical purposes, the electoral college system works about the same way as if Americans chose their presidents by direct popular vote. The old idea that electors would exercise their independent judgments is no longer considered a problem, but the system does have certain other consequences. The electoral college system magnifies the popular support of winners - a candidate who wins in many states, by a narrow margin in each, can win a landslide victory in the electoral college. It is also possible that a president who had fewer popular votes than an opponent could be elected if the votes produced narrow margins in many states (as in the 1876, 1888 and 2000 elections). Finally, the electoral college system discourages third parties.
|