Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
34 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Options Constitutional Convention considered for electing President
|
1) Selection by Congress
- disincentivizes Pres. to do what's best for nation, instead just what Congress wants (so as to get reelected) 2) Direct Popular Election - Framers didn't trust the populace to make the correct choice - Logistical difficulties - Distrust of other states' influence? 3) Indirect Selection via Electors - Popular sentiment expressed, but does not dictate outcome - States given independence in methods of election |
|
|
Original Electoral Rules vs. Modern Electoral Rules
|
Original
- Each state = 1 vote per seat in Congress (2 Sen + # of Reps) - Electors would each cast two ballots - Majority = President, Runner-Up = VP - If no majority, House of Reps chose among top 5, each state delegation casting one vote - If tie for second, Senate chooses VP *** 12th Amendement *** Modern - Each state = 1 vote per seat in Congress (2 Sen + # of Reps) {DC=3} --- cap: 435 - Different states have different methods electoral vote distribution (most winner-take-all; some proportionally) - No majority? House of Reps decides (each state gets one vote to choose between top three finishers of Electoral College vote) |
|
|
Early selection methods: Parties & "King Caucuses"
|
- Originally, nomination procedures unnecessary because of the lack of political parties
- 1790's party factions organize, meeting separately to discuss issues and candidates - Elector selection also becomes more partisan - 1800 Election: "King Caucus" takes shape; Partisan congressional caucuses select nominees |
|
|
Primaries vs. caucuses
|
[[Before 1968, primaries were not the norm; would run in primary if you thought you did not have elite support or you had weakness in certain areas; winning primary did not mean winning nomination
- After 1968, due to TV, etc, primaries become more average]] - Primaries = most common, populace has more influence, New Hampshire - Select delegates to attend nat'l convention who will vote accordingly - Caucuses = less common, party organization has more influence, Iowa - Local --> county --> state --> national - Town Hall Meetings |
|
|
Types of Primaries
|
1) Open - any qualified voter can participate
2) Modified-Open - " " but must publicly declare party affiliation in order to receive specific ballot 3) Closed - Can only get ballot if you are registered for specific party (Independents are S.O.L.) 4) Modified-Closed " " but generally gives Independents a choice |
|
|
Effects of the Electoral College on Campaigns and Outcomes
|
- Elections = Federal
- Influences campaigning - Potential problems of a nationwide recount in a close election |
|
|
Arguments for/against Electoral College
|
Opposition
- big states = more powerful; some states/policy could be ignored - you can win popular vote but not Electoral - elitist anachronism Favor - Recognizes federal principle - Encourages campaiging on foot/to rural areas |
|
|
Proposed Reforms
|
1) The District Plan: elect electors in every Congressional District
2) The Proportional Plan: give each percentage of what they earned in popular vote 3) Direct Popular Election: abolish EC, each vote counts equally 4) The National Bonus Plan: keep EC, winner-take-all feature but weigh in favor of winner of popular vote |
|
|
Parliamentary vs. Presidential
|
Parliamentary
- Selected by legislature - No set timeline (instead, "vote of no confidence" and strategic early elections) - Legislative and executive branches are one in the same Presidential - Selected independently of legislature - All officials serve set terms - Legislative and executive branch are independent with checks and balances |
|
|
Types of electoral systems; Advantages and Disadvantages
|
1) Single Member Districts
- First Past The Post (US, Canada, UK) --> country into districts, candidates run in each district, most votes gets seats - Absolute Majority (France, Australia) --> run-off election, preferential ballot * Advantages: simple, ppl directly vote, 1 rep to go to * Disadvantages: sometimes candidates with >50% of vote win, minority parties are hurt, those who vote for losing party have no say --- favor two party systems (Duverger's Law) 2) Multimember Proportional - Party-List Systems (Israel, Belgium, Switzerland) --> Party = main unit of representation & it comes up with list of candidates, voters cast votes for the party, and then parties are assigned seats proportionally - Single Transferable/Non-Transferable Vote (Ireland, Japan) --> People vote for candidates and rank choices, quote is set for how many 1st place votes, then additional votes are used/redistributed for 2nd place * Advantages: More proportionality, more parties to flourish, coalition gov'ts * Disadvantages: Politics can be complicated and conflict-ridden, people have less identification with "their" representative 3) Hybrids |
|
|
"Candidate-Centered" Elections
|
- less focus on party, more on the individual candidate
- the candidate must win the right to campaign under the party's label - thus, candidates run their own campaigns |
|
|
Contributing Factors to Candidate-Centeredness
|
- movement towards popular primaries in early 20th century
- campaign finance laws - extensive interest group system - sheer size of country |
|
|
Implications of Candidate-Centeredness
|
- candidates can run "against" their own party
- actions of individual candidates typically have more impact on outcome than those of the party - Congressional majorities do not enter office with a clear policy mandate - candidates running for different races face little incentive to coordinate |
|
|
Incumbent Success Rates
|
- 85% - 95%
|
|
|
Vanishing Marginals
|
- More candidates winning by >60%
- Even among 50-59% range, fewer lose than in the past |
|
|
Competition Patterns in Primaries
|
- Most competition wihen the seat is "open"
- Tend to attract large numbers of candidates - Highest success rates are for "quality" challengers" |
|
|
Sources of incumbency advantage (electoral, policy, non-policy)
|
1) Electoral/Contextual
- name recognition, media exposure, better at fundraising, experience, redistricting, strategic retirement 2) Non-policy prerequisites - staff support, franking privilege, constituency service/homestyle/"personal vote" 3) Policy-related - pork barrel poilitics, responsiveness (voting records, issue uptake, promise-keeping) |
|
|
Eligibility Requirements for House/Senate
|
-- House
- 25 when entering office - citizen for past 7 yrs - legal resident of state -- Senate - at least 30 - citizen for 9 yrs - legal resident of state |
|
|
Demographic Differences Between Candidate & U.S. Population
|
- Older
- Generally male - Generally white - Religion: Jewish and Protestant overrepresented, Muslim, Evangelical Christians, Buddhists, Non-Identifiers underrepresented |
|
|
Types of Political Ambition
|
- Expressive (actually ran) vs. nascent (considered running)
- Static (remain in place indefinitely) vs. progressive (higher office) vs. discrete (remain in office for limited time until you obtain goal) |
|
|
When/Why Someone Enters a Race
|
- Strategic factors (incumbent vs open, weak incumbent, partisan tides or anti-incumbent sentiment)
- Individual/Personal factors (Personality and contextual [family, work]) |
|
|
Fox and Lawless
|
- What effects whether you consider running for office?
|
|
|
What do candidates spend money on?
|
- Communicating with voters!
- Infrastructure - Not much on polling |
|
|
Spending Differences Btwn Incumbents - Quality Challengers - NonQuality Challengers
|
Incumbents -> permanent campaign structure in place, professional campaign manager, "safe" spend more money and "in jeopardy" are less professional
- Quality Challengers -> better quality campaigns... more professional, cause these are competitive seats generally - NonQuality Challengers -> amateurs |
|
|
Spending Differences Btwn House and Senate Campaigns
|
Senate spends more money - more professionalized and they also they don't have to run as often so they save money; also spends more on TV proportionally
|
|
|
Presidential Campaigning Evolution
|
- Originally, campaigning was rare
- Over time: a) front porch campaigns b) whistle-stop campaigns c) television campaigns |
|
|
TV Campaigning Effects
|
- more mass appeal: focus on "the country"
- replaced party as the link between candidates and voters - made physical appearance and image more important - discourages spontaneity |
|
|
Staff Roles in Campaigning
|
Chairperson: Overseer, liason btwn public, candidate, party
Campaign Manager: Oversees day-to-day operation of campaign Political Director/Deputy Political Directors: Make and implement most decisions Communications team: Press sec., speechwriters, research team, TV team, etc. Pollsters and media advisors: Polling, media liasons, make suggestions State and local organizers: Structure reflecting on local/state levels |
|
|
Strategy vs. Tactics
|
Strategy: Overarching plan; set of objectives, big picture
Tactics: Ways in which objectives are achieved, particular message |
|
|
The War Room
|
Combination of campaign research team and communication staff into one unit to collect/disperse information to media ASAP
Rooted in defense -- before, attacks were ignored Set precedent for all campaigns to come. Now, defensive AND offensive. Chief Strategist: James Carville Communication Director: George Stephanopoulos |
|
|
How does candidate-centeredness affect parties and their roles in campaigns?
|
Mid 1900's, candidate-centeredness begins to increase and professional consultants play role that the party once filled
1980's, campaign finance rules change, along with technological advances and voter targeting, etc |
|
|
What tasks do parties undertake for candidates?
|
Agenda-setting
Issue-ownership strategy CAMPAIGN ASSISTANCE Grassroots mobilization efforts Management Polling Campaign communication Issue research/opposition research |
|
|
Congressional Campaign Finance Roles of Nat'l and Hill Committees
|
For the House
- Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) -National Republican Congressional Committeee (NCCC) For the Senate -Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) -National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) Usually, all members must pay "dues" (from their campaign account or leadership PAC) Also take direct contributions from citizens These monies then go to fund the committee’s programs, the day-to-day operation of which is overseen by staff What are their goals? To maximize their party's seat share in the House and Senate |
|
|
The Federal Election Campaign Act`
|
- an attempt to even the playing field, people were worried candidates were unfairly being funded by big donors
- 1971, Am. 1974, 1979 - contribution limits for candidates, individuals, parties, interest groups |
