Chapter+10+Notes

3 Types of Elections
**The United States has three general kinds of elections:** **1. Primary elections**
 * Elections in which the voters in a state go to the polls and vote for a candidate or delegates pledged to that candidate
 * Since the early 20th century, primaries have been the chief electoral device for choosing party candidates.
 * -These are held prior to a general election (see definition #2 below). The winning candidates in the primary go on to represent that party in the general election

**2. General elections**
 * Elections that are contested between the nominees of the parties
 * Voters determine who they want for office from among the candidates on the ballot.

**3. Elections on specific policy questions**
 * Elections in which voters engage in making or ratifying legislation
 * Procedures allowing the public to pass legislation directly have been in effect for some time in many states.

There are two methods for getting items on a state ballot: 1. Referendum: -A state-level method of direct legislation that gives voters a chance to approve or disapprove proposed legislation or a proposed constitutional amendment 2. Initiative Petition: -A process permitted in some states whereby voters may put proposed changes in the state constitution to a vote if sufficient signatures are obtained on petitions calling for such a referendum (example: in 1978 - California's Proposition 13 - put a limit on the rise in property taxes in California)

(Kimberly Varadi - November 6, 2011)

What is the significance of the following elections: 1800, 1896, and 2000? (Think about how elections changed)
**and** **Party** ||= **Winner** ||= **Significance** **of Election** ||
 * = **Year** ||= **Candidate**
 * = 1800 ||= Jefferson (DR)

Adams (F) ||= Jefferson ||= This was the first presidential election and the first peaceful transition of political power between opposing parties. ||
 * = 1896 ||= McKinley (R)

William Jennings Bryan (D) ||= McKinley ||= William Jennings Bryan changes how candidates will campaign.

The election had one of the highest voter turnouts ever.

The election brought in a party era for the Republicans. ||
 * = 2000 ||= Gore (D)

Bush (R) ||= Bush ||= The Supreme Court played a pivotal role in the election with its ruling in Bush v. Gore (see below).

The election showed that, if the election is focused on a candidate's character, voters will not pay as much attention to economic issues. ||

(Kimberly Varadi - November 7, 2011)

Bush v. Gore
Hey this is craig

__**Bush v. Gore (2000)**__ Election night 2000 was a cliffhanger that went on for weeks. Many people thought that Al Gore had won but later discovered that George W. Bush had been declared the winner. In fact, the election was simply too close to call. The election came down to one state:Florida. Florida electors were unable to commit themselves to either Bush or Gore. Recounts were started, then stopped as Republicans and Democrats fought over what standards to apply. The Supreme Court actually got involved in the election contest three times. Only the last two are known as //Bush v. Gore.// In the first of these cases, //Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board,//the Court hoped to end the election crisis by putting a stop to the Florida Supreme Court's decision to extend the time for certifying the vote past the period set by state law. However, by the time the Court began hearing arguments in the appeal on December 1, the certification had already occurred. The embarrassed justices sent the case back down to the Florida Supreme Court, instructing the lower court to rewrite its opinion so that it would not create a conflict between state and federal law.
 * Background Information: **
 * The Court Steps in: **

A week later, the Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide recount of ballots. Unlike its earlier decision, however, this one was not unanimous. With the Florida justices split 4-3, the U.S. Supreme Court once again exercised its discretionary appellate review jurisdiction and granted //certiorari//, or review, to //Bush v. Gore.// The day after the Florida Supreme Court had ordered a recount, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a temporary //stay,// or delay, in enforcing the Florida Supreme Court's order. The U.S. Supreme Court justices, too, were narrowly divided, 5-4. The five justices voting in favor of the stay were the same five conservatives who had been moving the Rehnquist Court to the right for more than a decade. The first hearing of //Bush v. Gore// telegraphed to the nation what would happen if the Court took further action in the case.

The Court's third and final intervention in the 2000 presidential election came just days later. In its unsigned opinion, the Court explained that it had voted 5-4 to put a stop to the Florida recount. Allowing the recount to go forward, the Court said, would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back down to the Florida Supreme Court, which had no alternative but to dismiss it. The presidential election of 2000 had been decided. George W. Bush was the winner.

(Kimberly Varadi November 6, 2011)

Suffrage Amendments
15th amendment: the right to vote will not be curtailed on the basis of race or previous condition of servitude. In a nutshell, it allowed male freedmen to vote. Passed in 1870 under President Grant. Poll taxes were still used to take away this right from African Americans, especially in the Southern states. These remained until 1964.

19th Amendment: The right to vote will not be curtailed in the basis of Gender. It allows women to vote in federal elections and in all states, since until then only some individual states had chosen to allow female suffrage. Passed in 1920 under President Wilson.

23rd Amendment: Among other things, grants Washington DC a number of electors corresponding to those of the state with the least electors (currently, 3). Passed in 1960 under President Eisenhower.

24th amendment: Passed in 1964 under President Johnson, it banned the use of the poll tax, which in Federal Elections was used to stop certain groups from voting. It was followed by the Voting Rights act of 1965 which, as part of LBJ's Great Society programs, sought to stop the discriminatory practices which had disenfranchised African Americans, some of these practices being literacy tests.

26th Amendment: Lowers the voting age to 18 years old. It was passed in 1970 under President Nixon. The purpose was partly to increase youth involvement in government. The main purpose, however, was to allow 18-year-old citizens for the sake of fairness. This was because citizens were eligible for military service beginning at age 18 but eligible for voting starting at Age 21. The men in charge wanted to make these people calm down - one of the many attempts at reducing public discord. Until the 2008 election, however, young votes were not considered as important mainly because so few young people used their right to vote. In 2008, the Democratic party managed to get young people voting by using social media and various technologies to reach the younger population.

(Diego Farias. November 1st, 2011)

Who Votes
While the right to vote has greatly expanded in the U.S. ever since its birth, the proportion of eligible voters that actually voted has decreased to just over 51% in the 2008 election from about 80% in the 1800 election. This leads to the necessity of studying voting demographics and patterns. One clear factor is the level of education, as people with high educational levels have a higher rate of voting than people with less education. Additionally, highly educated people are more capable of discerning the major differences between the candidates. A second factor is age, as older people are more likely to vote than younger people. For example, in the 1998 midterm election, it was found that 14% of eligible voters aged 18 to 20 actually voted, as compared to 60% of eligible voters over the age of 65. A third factor is race, as African Americans and Hispanics have low rates of voter turnout, which can be explained by their generally low levels of education. However, highly educated African Americans and Hispanics are more likely to vote than highly educated Whites. While there are other demographic factors that determine voter turnout(I will leave those to others), these factors are important to politicians. This is because politicians will pay more attention to the needs of groups with high turnout rates in hopes of getting their votes, rather than groups with low turnout rates which do not determine an election.

(Bogdan Bordieanu. November 3rd, 2011)

Why do people vote?
In the case of Senior citizens, there are certain issues, such as Social Security, which affect them more directly. When they vote, they want their candidate to help them through policy. (See Mandate Theory of Elections) In the case of more educated people, their heightened tendency to vote stems from their awareness of the many issues that are being discussed in government at any given time. This particular point has been widely cited as one of the main catalysts for the massive difference in citizen involvement in the United States and some European Nations, namely Great Britain. During each election in Great Britain, people are choosing candidates from a wider spectrum of political ideology. The election potentially may place strong conservatives in charge - as was the case with Margaret Thatcher's party during the late 1970's - or socialists. In the United States, the choices people have are not as important since most candidates have a fairly similar political ideology.

People may choose not to vote out of disinterest, disappointment (especially after the Watergate scandal), or simply lack of free time to go to the polls. Some people don't have as much sense of civic duty or are not informed enough to deem voting important. (Diego Farias, November 1st, 2011)

Economist Anthony Downs, in his model of democracy, tries to explain why a rational person would ever want to vote. He found that:
 * Rational people vote if they believe that the policies of one party will bring more benefits than the policies of the other party.
 * Thus, if people see policy differences between the parties, they are more likely to vote. If they are indifferent, then they are rationally deciding to not participate in voting.
 * People may vote because they have a high sense of political efficacy (the belief that one's political participation really matters - that one's vote can actually make a difference).
 * People may vote to support their democratic government. In this case, people have a sense of civic duty.

(Kimberly Varadi - November 6, 2011)

Mandate Theory of Elections
States that Elections are just an act through which the people give their leaders a mandate to keep the promises they made during the campaign. Candidates must, then, abide by this mandate to stay in power past the current term. Politicians and campaign advisors must be cautious when choosing what they will promise the people in order to get their support. It is a contract between the people and the winning candidate.

The theory, however, assumes that people are well informed. Elections in the last few decades have shown higher and higher amounts of meaningless rhetoric to entice voters. Because of this, one of the main assumptions in Mandate theory (that voters are well informed about what the consequences of politicians' choices are) is broken. It can be said that the Mandate theory is not valid in many modern elections. The theory also fails to consider events that can drastically change the desires of the people in between elections. An example of this the period between the 2000 and 2004 elections. In 2000, George Bush criticized Bill Clinton for being too "interventionist," yet he himself was forced into conflict in the Middle East, largely aided by patriotic fervor that arose as a result of 9/11. Even though he did not abide by his mandate, he was re-elected in 2004. To be fair, there are many cases that "confirm" the theory in U.S. history, namely the 1992 George Bush defeat after one of the most prominent aspects of his mandate ("Read my lips -- no more taxes") was not kept at all.

(Diego Farias - November 2nd, 2011)

Candidate-centered politics
__**Definition:**__ Election campaigns and other political processes in which candidates, not political parties, have most of the initiative and influence; Candidate-centered politics emphasizes a candidates personal image, and it emphasizes the importance of a candidate maintaining a favorable personal image. As political scientists have noted, successful candidates need certain characteristics to win office, such as integrity, reliability, and competence. With the help of the media, politics have become more and more candidate-centered.

(Kimberly Varadi - November 6, 2011)

Candidate evaluations
Research has shown that it is possible to manipulate a candidate's appearance in a way that affects voters' choices. The three most important dimensions of candidate image are integrity, reliability, and competence. For example, in 2000, George W. Bush rated fairly positive on integrity as opposed to Gore, which seems to have helped him in obtaining votes. Additionally, a candidate should able be seen as dependable and decisive, which can also be labeled as reliability. An example would be George Bush in 1992 when he had broken the "no new taxes" pledge, which probably led to him loosing the election since his reliability was seen as low. Nevertheless, the personal trait most important to voters seems to be competence. Obviously, incumbent presidents typically score much higher on competence as they have already proven themselves in dealing with national and international crises. This is one of the reasons why it is so difficult to defeat a sitting president who is running for a second term.

(Bogdan Bordieanu - November 3rd, 2011)

Policy voting
Policy voting occurs when people base their choices in an election on their own issue preferences. Policy voting takes place when four conditions are met. 1. Voters must have a clear view of their own policy positions. 2. Voters must know where the candidates stand on policy issues. 3. They must see differences between the candidates on these issues. 4. They must actually cast a vote for the candidate whose policy positions coincide with their own.

However, even for educated voters, policy voting is not easy, as people might prefer one candidate on some policies, and another one on other policies.

(Bogdan Bordieanu - November 3rd, 2011)

Electoral College
__**Definition:**__ A unique American institution, created by the Constitution, providing for the selection of the president by electors chosen by the state parties. Although the electoral college vote usually reflects a popular majority, the winner-take-all rule gives clout to big states.

__**Interactive Electoral Map:**__
 * []**

__**How the Electoral College Works:**__
 * Each state, according to the Constitution, has as many electoral votes as it has U.S. senators and representatives. The state parties select slates of electors.
 * Aside from Maine and Nebraska, each state has a winner-take-all-system. Electors vote as a bloc for the winner.
 * Electors meet in their states in December, following the November election, and then mail their votes to the vice president. The vote is counted when the new congressional session opens in January and reported by the vice president.
 * If no candidate receives an electoral college majority, then the election is thrown into the House of Representatives, which must choose from among the top three electoral vote winners. A significant aspect of the balloting in the House is that each state delegation has one vote.

(Kimberly Varadi - November 6, 2011)

Electoral College Reforms
**__Electoral College Reform Ideas:__** (Kimberly Varadi - November 7, 2011)
 * Direct Election (with and without Instant Runoff Voting)
 * With a direct vote, voters would rank their preferences rather than marking only one candidate. Then, when the votes are counted, if no single candidate has a majority, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated. The ballots are then counted again, this time tallying the second choice votes from those ballots indicating the eliminated candidate as the first choice. The process is repeated until a candidate receives a majority, reducing time and money wasted in a normal runoff election.
 * Congressional District Allocation
 * This method divides electoral votes by district, allocating one vote to each district and using the remaining two as a bonus for the statewide popular vote winner. This method of distribution has been used in Maine since 1972 and Nebraska since 1996.
 * Proportional Allocation (with or without a percentage limit, say 5%, to be considered)
 * This reform splits each state’s electoral votes in accordance with their popular vote percentages. This way, a candidate who comes in second place in a state with 45% of the popular vote would receive 45% of the electoral votes from that state, instead of 0%.
 * National Bonus Plan (gives 102 extra electoral votes to the national popular vote winner)
 * This idea retains the current Electoral College system, but it also awards extra electoral votes as a bonus to the winner of the popular vote. The extra boost of electoral votes would almost always be able to guarantee that the popular vote winner would also be the electoral college winner.