Essay plans - Electoral systems

Question 1

What are the requirements to be a presidential candidate?

Answer 1

PARTY

Democratic/Republican Endorsement is required as third-party candidates don’t get anywhere.

There were 5 third party candidates in the 2012 presidential election, but none received any Electoral College votes.

Libertarian Gary Johnson won over 4m votes in 2016 and no EC votes.

However, they gained 2% more of the vote in 2016 and third party candidates collectively received almost 170,000 more votes than in 2012 in Ohio.

POLITICAL

Obama was a US Senator (2005-2008).

Bush was governor of Texas (1995-2000).

If they don’t have much political experience, they will look for that in their VP.

Mike Pence was a Rep for 12 years whereas Trump has very limited experience.

Joe Biden served in the Senate for 36 years against Obama’s 4 years and he also brought a lot of foreign policy expertise to Obama’s little experience.

FUNDRAISING

Must be able to raise money otherwise little chance of success.

Candidates are required to raise large sums of money to keep their long campaigns going e.g. in 2016 Hilary Clinton raised $580m for her campaign and even though Trump raised a smaller amount, $350m, he was strengthened by the fact that over $50m of the money contributed was his own.

A lack of funds has also led many strong candidates to withdraw, such as Kamala Harris in November 2019, showing the control that money and wealth have over the nomination process.

Question 2

What are the key features of the invisible primary?

Answer 2

MEDIA

7 Rep and 4 Dem TV debates before Feb 2016.

During a 2011 debate, Rep candidate Rick Perry vowed to close 3 gov agencies and forgot name of third.

Being mentioned in the New York Times, the Washington Post or on TV programmes such as the Jim Lehrer Show can raise awareness of candidates.

Endorsements from high profile individuals generate media attention – Trump endorsed by conservative political commentators such as Sarah Palin.

To build momentum candidates may also write and publish a book, such as Obama’s “Audacity of Hope”.

Candidates gaining media attention in the invisible primary is significant because this creates momentum, which increases the likelihood that members of the electorate will vote for that candidate when it comes to Election Day.

Also, the bandwagon effect may lead to more voters voting for a candidate if that candidate has gained momentum.

FUNDRAISING

They need to raise enough money to last them throughout the presidential campaign.

Kamala Harris had to pull out of the 2020 race because she wasn’t able to raise enough funds and couldn’t finance her campaign.

Candidates will look to court pressure groups and PACS who will provide them will valuable funding.

Biggest fundraiser in invisible primary is often nominee e.g. democrats 2016 biggest fundraiser was Hilary Clinton.

Trump had to rely less on donations as he had money and status - $66m of own money.

LENGTH

The invisible primary is significant because it has increased the length of elections.

Candidates can announce their intention to run for their party’s nomination up to 18 months before the presidential election.

In the 2008 election race Hillary Clinton announced she was going to run for the Democrat nomination in January 2007, followed by Obama’s announcement in February.

She announced she was running in April 2015 for the 2016 election.

The invisible primaries increasing the length of presidential elections is significant because this means there is more time for candidates to gain media attention, money and political momentum.

However, increased length could lead to voters becoming more bored and apathetic towards the election due to it seeming to drag on for up to 2 years.

Question 2

What are the key features of the invisible primary?

Answer 2

MEDIA

7 Rep and 4 Dem TV debates before Feb 2016.

During a 2011 debate, Rep candidate Rick Perry vowed to close 3 gov agencies and forgot name of third.

Being mentioned in the New York Times, the Washington Post or on TV programmes such as the Jim Lehrer Show can raise awareness of candidates.

Endorsements from high profile individuals generate media attention – Trump endorsed by conservative political commentators such as Sarah Palin.

To build momentum candidates may also write and publish a book, such as Obama’s “Audacity of Hope”.

Candidates gaining media attention in the invisible primary is significant because this creates momentum, which increases the likelihood that members of the electorate will vote for that candidate when it comes to Election Day.

Also, the bandwagon effect may lead to more voters voting for a candidate if that candidate has gained momentum.

FUNDRAISING

They need to raise enough money to last them throughout the presidential campaign.

Kamala Harris had to pull out of the 2020 race because she wasn’t able to raise enough funds and couldn’t finance her campaign.

Candidates will look to court pressure groups and PACS who will provide them will valuable funding.

Biggest fundraiser in invisible primary is often nominee e.g. democrats 2016 biggest fundraiser was Hilary Clinton.

Trump had to rely less on donations as he had money and status - $66m of own money.

LENGTH

The invisible primary is significant because it has increased the length of elections.

Candidates can announce their intention to run for their party’s nomination up to 18 months before the presidential election.

In the 2008 election race Hillary Clinton announced she was going to run for the Democrat nomination in January 2007, followed by Obama’s announcement in February.

She announced she was running in April 2015 for the 2016 election.

The invisible primaries increasing the length of presidential elections is significant because this means there is more time for candidates to gain media attention, money and political momentum.

However, increased length could lead to voters becoming more bored and apathetic towards the election due to it seeming to drag on for up to 2 years.

Question 3

What types of primaries/caucuses are there?

Answer 3

OPEN/CLOSED

Open: Any registered voter can vote in either the Republican/Democrat primary but not both (regardless of their party affiliation). E.g. Used in 16 states such as Texas.

Encourages politicians to have wider appeal, usually moderate voters – filtering extreme candidates and good preparation for election.

However, can favour candidates with lots of money and high media profile, voters may be ill-informed.

Closed: Only registered party members can vote in that party’s primary. E.g. Used in 14 states such as New York and Florida.

Candidates are chosen by a loyal electorate, favours candidates with strong grassroots support in the party.

However, harder for party outsiders and lower participation.

WINNER-TAKE-ALL

The winner-takes-all, simple plurality system, which is used in 48 of the states, distorts the popular vote.

In 2000, Bush gained 50.4 million votes and 271 electors, whereas Al Gore gained more votes (50.9 million) but fewer electors (266).

In 2016, Hilary Clinton won nearly 3m more votes, but Trump won 77 more in EC.

The system also creates a lot of wasted votes.

In 2012, 37% of California’s electorate (4.8 million people) voted for Mitt Romney, but Obama won the state, therefore these 4.8 million votes for Romney were wasted because they didn’t help him win a single elector.

It could be argued that the winner may lack a popular mandate, therefore lack legitimacy.

CAUCUSES

State based meetings between key party members and supporters – who select a candidate for presidency. E.g. used in 13 states such as Iowa.

Supporters make their case for their candidate and attempt to convince others.

Favours a well-organised candidate with the support of their party, they must have a greater political awareness of the electorate.

However, often low participation, candidates may lack wider appeal.

Question 4

What types of primaries/caucuses are there?

Answer 4

OPEN/CLOSED

Open: Any registered voter can vote in either the Republican/Democrat primary but not both (regardless of their party affiliation). E.g. Used in 16 states such as Texas.

Encourages politicians to have wider appeal, usually moderate voters – filtering extreme candidates and good preparation for election.

However, can favour candidates with lots of money and high media profile, voters may be ill-informed.

Closed: Only registered party members can vote in that party’s primary. E.g. Used in 14 states such as New York and Florida.

Candidates are chosen by a loyal electorate, favours candidates with strong grassroots support in the party.

However, harder for party outsiders and lower participation.

WINNER-TAKE-ALL

The winner-takes-all, simple plurality system, which is used in 48 of the states, distorts the popular vote.

In 2000, Bush gained 50.4 million votes and 271 electors, whereas Al Gore gained more votes (50.9 million) but fewer electors (266).

In 2016, Hilary Clinton won nearly 3m more votes, but Trump won 77 more in EC.

The system also creates a lot of wasted votes.

In 2012, 37% of California’s electorate (4.8 million people) voted for Mitt Romney, but Obama won the state, therefore these 4.8 million votes for Romney were wasted because they didn’t help him win a single elector.

It could be argued that the winner may lack a popular mandate, therefore lack legitimacy.

CAUCUSES

State based meetings between key party members and supporters – who select a candidate for presidency. E.g. used in 13 states such as Iowa.

Supporters make their case for their candidate and attempt to convince others.

Favours a well-organised candidate with the support of their party, they must have a greater political awareness of the electorate.

However, often low participation, candidates may lack wider appeal.

Question 5

What factors affect voter turnout at primaries?

Answer 5

DEMOGRAPHY

Higher-income, better-educated and older members of electorate more likely to vote e.g. in 2016 over 50% of voters in North Carolina’s primary had a college degree and 1/3 earned more than $100,000 per year.

There is also wide belief that primary voters are more ideologically extreme e.g. in the same NC primary 37% described themselves as ‘very conservative’.

TYPE OF PRIMARY

Open primaries attract higher turnout, especially when one party has a competitive race e.g. in 2012, 10/11 Rep primaries had turnout increase incl. Mississippi’s of 105% and Wisconsin 92%. However, only 2/15 with closed primaries saw an increase – NY down 71% and Connecticut down 61%.

The 2008 Iowa caucus had a record turnout for a presidential caucus which was about 8 times the average, but even then turnout was only 16.3%.

WHETHER THE NOMINATION IS DECIDED

Primaries scheduled earlier attract higher turnout as identity of nominee not yet known e.g. 2008 NY Rep primary held in Feb had 640,000 votes cast whereas 2008, held in April had just 190,000.

Frontloading is when an increasing number of states schedule their presidential primaries or caucuses earlier in the presidential nomination process.

The number of states holding their primaries or caucuses before the end of March increased from just 11 in 1980 to 42 in 2008, and those 42 states included the 8 largest states.

California’s primaries moved from early June in 1980 to early February in 2008.

By February 5th, 2008, 55% of delegates to the Democratic and Republican conventions had already been chosen.

Question 6

What are the strengths of the nomination process?

Answer 6

MONEY

Money raised in the invisible primary does not guarantee success, shown by the fact that in 2008 Hillary Clinton raised $20 million more than Barack Obama but did not win the Democratic candidacy.

The Federal Election Campaign Act Amendment (1974) expanded public financing to include primaries, in which the federal government matched the first $250 of an individual’s donation to a candidate if the candidate agreed to a $10 million spending limit.

Increased expense was an inevitable effect of changing the nomination process from being decided by party bosses to being decided by the electorate, due to finance being needed for campaigning so that the electorate are fully informed.

MOMENTUM/GRUELLING RACE

The process is not “too long” because the long, arduous contests are necessary for the best candidate to be eventually nominated.

The process is good preparation for the arduous task of running the presidential election campaign and the executive branch of government.

The length of the process tests a candidate’s stamina under pressure.

It is necessary to start the process early so funds can be raised.

A long process was an inevitable effect of changing the nomination process from being decided by party bosses to being decided by the electorate, due to all the states needing to be involved and the electorate needing to be fully informed.

In 2008, many suggested that Obama was a stronger candidate because of his long, gruelling primary battle with Hillary Clinton.

OPEN TO OUTSIDERS

Politicians who did not initially have a national reputation can take part.

E.g. Obama in 2008 with just 3 years Senate experience and Trump able to emerge in 2016 with no experience in elective office and who was opposed by hierarchy of own party.

However, it could be argued that people like Trump, lack the expertise to take on such a demanding role.

Normally accompanied by a VP who balances the ticket.

Question 7

What are the weaknesses of the nomination process?

Answer 7

TOO LONG

Candidates can announce their intention to run for their party’s nomination up to 18 months before the presidential election.

In the 2008 election race Hillary Clinton announced she was going to run for the Democrat nomination in January 2007, followed by Obama’s announcement in February.

Frontloading is when an increasing number of states schedule their presidential primaries or caucuses earlier in the presidential nomination process.

The number of states holding their primaries or caucuses before the end of March increased from just 11 in 1980 to 42 in 2008, and those 42 states included the 8 largest states.

California’s primaries moved from early June in 1980 to early February in 2008.

By February 5th, 2008, 55% of delegates to the Democratic and Republican conventions had already been chosen.

Leads to “permanent campaigns” that alienate voters and result in low turnout.

Puts too much stress on early, unrepresentative states because of frontloading, which is undemocratic and unfair.

EXPENSIVE

It is necessary to raise very large amounts of money in order to create “momentum” for the long and very costly campaigns, therefore successful candidates will inevitably raise more than their rivals.

In the 2007 invisible primary Hillary Clinton raised $90 million and Obama raised $70 million.

In 2000, Liz Dole only raised $4.6 million in the invisible primary, which was not enough, and she was forced to withdraw before the New Hampshire primary.

Kamala Harris forced to withdraw in 2019 for lack of funds.

Unfair on less wealthy candidates.

Means that less wealthy members of the electorate are less represented.

STYLE OVER SUBSTANCE

The relentless media focus on the nomination campaign encourages a “beauty contest” rather than serious debates on substantive policy issues.

There were a total of 47 TV debates between candidates in the 2008 nomination process.

When Rick Perry forgot his lines in a nomination process TV debate in November 2011, his poll ratings quickly fell.

Newt Gingrich’s poll ratings soared when he gave an extremely robust defence of his private life in a nomination process debate in January 2012.

May have resulted in less suitable candidate being nominated.

Has led to more “Washington Outsiders” being nominated.

Leads to cynical voters suffering from overexposure to the media, causing lower turnout.

Question 8

What are the formal functions of the national party convention?

Answer 8

CHOOSING PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

Since the McGovern-Fraser reforms, candidates have been decided by primaries/caucuses to reduce influence of “party bosses” in “smoke-filled rooms”.

Therefore, a candidate can become a “presumptive nominee” well before the convention, e.g. Obama two months before the Democrat convention in 2008.

This means the convention is merely a “coronation” of the candidate.

It is fair to say that the NPC nowadays confirms rather than chooses the presidential candidates – not since Rep convention of 1976 has it been in any real doubt.

When there is no clear primary winner, in which case “super-delegates” may become important, such as at the 2008 Democratic convention when Obama was able to have a clearer lead over Hillary Clinton using the support of super-delegates.

To win the nomination a candidate must gain an absolute majority e.g. in 2016 Donald Trump was required to win 1,237 of 2,472 votes.

If no candidate wins an absolute majority, it becomes a brokered convention – delegates are no longer pledged and can vote how they want – there have been none since 1956.

CHOOSING VP CANDIDATE

This function has been lost – the last convention that announced running mate was Rep convention in 1988.

Presidential candidates now announce their VP candidate well ahead of the conventions:

In 2008, Obama announced his running mate, Senator Joe Biden, two days before the convention, and John McCain announced his running mate, Sarah Palin, three days before the convention.

Joe Biden announced Kamala Harris to be his running mate 6 days before the Democratic Convention in 2020.

DECIDING PARTY PLATFORM

A document containing policies to pursue if elected president.

Put together by the Platform Committee – holds hearings around the country in the first 6 months of election year – Dems conducted 1,600 in 2008.

National committee then drafts the platform and presents it to delegates – often debates on policy issues e.g. in 2016 the Rep platform called for Obergefell v Hodges (2015) – gave same-sex couples const. right to marry – to be overturned.

Moreover, the candidates are becoming less likely to follow their party platform,

In May 2014, the Nevada state convention voted to remove opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion from the Nevada Republican Party Platform, even though the 2012 Republican National Party Platform was firmly opposed to same-sex marriage and abortion.

Question 9

What are the informal functions of the national party convention?

Answer 9

PARTY UNITY

Primaries can become bitter personal battles – gives opp to heal wounds.

In 2016, it was important for the Dems to form a united front after battle between Clinton and Sanders – Sanders closed his speech with a v complementary endorsement of Clinton – ‘will be an outstanding president’ - promoted party unity.

Less successful promotion by the Reps in 2016 – Many prominent Reps refused to support Trump e.g. Main rival Ted Cruz made a speech telling people to ‘vote your conscience rather than ‘vote for Trump’.

However, Trump was endorsed by conservative political commentators such as Sarah Palin which showed he had some right-wing support.

ENTHUSING PARTY FAITHFUL

Good opp to enthuse the party faithful in all 50 states through speeches and appearances from past party heroes. E.g. at the 2016 convention, a speech from Michelle Obama brought delegates to their feet.

Speeches often lead to an increase in candidates poll rating, known as the post-convention ‘bounce’.

E.g. Hilary Clinton jumped 4.5% in 2016 but Trump only 1%.

ENTHUSING ORDINARY VOTERS

Parties often locate their conventions in key swing states to try to impact the undecided voters there, such as the Democrats choosing North Carolina and the Republicans in Florida in 2012.

The Democrats held theirs in Wisconsin in 2020, which is a key swing state.

The large media focus on the candidates in the 3/4 day “jamboree” is good publicity for their campaign.

In 2008, John McCain’s acceptance speech attracted 38.9 million viewers and Obama’s acceptance speech attracted 38.4 million viewers.

The core vote of the party can be energised to vote by the conventions and party activists can be enthused to organise the “ground war” in the upcoming campaign in the states.

These points can all help the candidates to gain bounce” and “momentum”, such as in 2012 when Obama’s support increased from 47% to 50%, whereas Romney’s support decreased from 46% to 44%.

Question 10

What are the strategies for choosing the VP?

Answer 10

BALANCED TICKET

Party tries to attract more voters by choosing a VP candidate that will appeal to different voters than the President, different region, age, gender, factions etc. – this has led to criticisms of the VP’s importance in office

E.g. Joe Biden was 65 and he balanced Obama’s youth who was 47, her served in the Senate for 36 years against Obama’s 4 years and he also brought a lot of foreign policy expertise to Obama’s little experience.

Trump chose Mike Pence who was a Rep for 12 years as he had no political experience.

EXPERIENCE

Many Presidents have limited experience of working on national issues such as foreign policy, therefore they use the VP for advice.

Joe Biden was Senator for 36 years, Obama only served for 4 years.

In 2012 mid-terms, Dems suffered losses. Biden advised Obama to get the Senates approval for the START Treaty (agreement between USA and Russia to halve the number of nuclear missile launchers) before the end of the term, because in the new year the Dems would have a smaller majority, meaning it would be difficult to ratify.

Biden had as many as 50 meetings and phone calls with senators to persuade approval - In 2010, Senate approved the treaty.

PARTY UNITY

Choosing a former rival as running mate.

Adopted by Raegan in 1980 who chose Bush – reunited party after bitter personal battle.

Biden chose Kamala Harris in 2020 who dropped out early on because of a lack of funds.

Clear that this would not work in many cases e.g. if Clinton were to have done this in 2016 it would have been Bernie Sanders and they have clear ideological differences.

Question 11

How have PACs changed?

Answer 11

ORIGINS

PACs were formed to get around the bans implemented in the 1900-1950s.

Collect donations from individuals to use for supporting or opposing candidates.

First PAC formed in 1944 to support Roosevelt’s re-election campaign.

Can give $5,000 to a candidate committee per election (primary, general or special).

Can also give up to $15,000 annually to any national party committee, and $5,000 annually to any other PAC.

PACs may receive up to $5,000 from any one individual, PAC or party per year.

FEDERAL ELECTION ACT/COMMISSION

Candidates, parties and PACs had to report all donations over $100 and donations over $5000 had to be reported within 48 hours.

Introduced spending limits for candidates/family members - $50,000 for president, $35,000 for senate and $25,000 for House.

New caps on TV ads – 10p per voter.

The FEC was created to enforce and regulate campaign donation laws.

Limited individual donations to $1,000, PAC donations to $5,000 and banned contributions from foreign donors.

SUPER PACs

Unlimited donations from individuals, corps and trade unions.

Cannot donate to candidates bur instead spend on TV ads.

Whereas regular PACs can accept limited donations from individuals but can give limited donations to candidates.

Over 1.310 formed by time of election – raised over $800m – of this money 1% of the donors donated 68% of the money.

‘Restore Our Future’ spent over $140m supporting Mitt Romney.

In 2016, The pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA Action spent $132 million, more than any other outside group in any race in 2016. That’s triple the $43.5 million combined spending of the two largest pro-Trump super PACs, Great America and Rebuilding America Now.

Question 12

How have PACs changed?

Answer 12

ORIGINS

PACs were formed to get around the bans implemented in the 1900-1950s.

Collect donations from individuals to use for supporting or opposing candidates.

First PAC formed in 1944 to support Roosevelt’s re-election campaign.

Can give $5,000 to a candidate committee per election (primary, general or special).

Can also give up to $15,000 annually to any national party committee, and $5,000 annually to any other PAC.

PACs may receive up to $5,000 from any one individual, PAC or party per year.

FEDERAL ELECTION ACT/COMMISSION

Candidates, parties and PACs had to report all donations over $100 and donations over $5000 had to be reported within 48 hours.

Introduced spending limits for candidates/family members - $50,000 for president, $35,000 for senate and $25,000 for House.

New caps on TV ads – 10p per voter.

The FEC was created to enforce and regulate campaign donation laws.

Limited individual donations to $1,000, PAC donations to $5,000 and banned contributions from foreign donors.

SUPER PACs

Unlimited donations from individuals, corps and trade unions.

Cannot donate to candidates bur instead spend on TV ads.

Whereas regular PACs can accept limited donations from individuals but can give limited donations to candidates.

Over 1.310 formed by time of election – raised over $800m – of this money 1% of the donors donated 68% of the money.

‘Restore Our Future’ spent over $140m supporting Mitt Romney.

In 2016, The pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA Action spent $132 million, more than any other outside group in any race in 2016. That’s triple the $43.5 million combined spending of the two largest pro-Trump super PACs, Great America and Rebuilding America Now.

Question 13

How did campaign finance change in the 20th century?

Answer 13

PACs

Origins

FEA and FEC

PUBLIC FINANCE

Revenue Act (1971): voters could tick a box on their tax return to authorise $1 (now $3) to be used to fund presidential elections.

Candidates could receive $20m in public funds as long as they no longer accepted private donations – first used in 1976.

Watergate Scandal – donations to Nixon’s campaign were manages by the Committee for Re-Election of the President – these funds used to hire 5 men to break into Dem National Committee’s offices and steal info about their campaign.

Expansion of public financing (1974):

Expanded public financing to include primaries

Fed gov would match first $250 of an individual’s donation to an eligible candidate – candidates taking public funds had to agree to spending limits.

$10m in primaries and $20m in the general election.

BUCKLEY V VALEO

Buckley v Valeo (1976):

Argued that decision violated 1st Amendment rights

SC ruled that Congress could not limit how much candidates spend on campaign as this violated 1st Amendment rights.

However, they did uphold: the spending limits if the candidate voluntarily agreed to them for public matching fund, restrictions on how much groups/individuals could contribute, disclosure rules and public financing.

Also ruled that campaign finance laws can only restrict speech that expressly advocated the election or defeat of a candidate.

Question 14

How did campaign finance change in the 21st century?

Answer 14

BI-PARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT

Attempts at regulating finance in 20th century created 3 problems – PACs, Issue ads (Ads attempting to educate public on a particular political issue) and soft money (donations that are unregulated – given by non-political organisation).

Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act (2002):

Attempted to address all 3 issues

Banned national party committees from raising soft money

Banned labour unions and corps from funding ‘electioneering communications’ - any TV/Radio ad that named a federal candidate that was broadcast within 60 days of election or 30 days of primary.

SUPER PACs/OTHER GROUPS

Unlimited donations from individuals, corps and trade unions.

Cannot donate to candidates bur instead spend on TV ads.

Whereas regular PACs can accept limited donations from individuals but can give limited donations to candidates.

Over 1.310 formed by time of election – raised over $800m – of this money 1% of the donors donated 68% of the money.

‘Restore Our Future’ spent over $140m supporting Mitt Romney.

In 2016, The pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA Action spent $132 million, more than any other outside group in any race in 2016. That’s triple the $43.5 million combined spending of the two largest pro-Trump super PACs, Great America and Rebuilding America Now.

527 Groups: emerged in 2003/4 election cycle and can accept unlimited sums but must disclose donors. Not regulated by FEC because they focus on issue advocacy.

501(c)4 Groups: “Social Welfare Groups” that must spend majority of time on non-political activities and can keep donors anonymous.

COURT CASES

Citizens United v FEC (2010):

Wanted to air a documentary called “Hilary: the movie”

Lower courts blocked the film arguing that it was a feature length attack ad

SC, now more conservative, ruled that restrictions on how much corps, PACs and unions spend are unconstitutional and struck down Bi-P Act.

McCutcheon v FEC (2014):

Struck down restrictions that limited amount individual could donate to different federal campaigns over a 2-year period.

Limit had been set at $48,600 to federal candidates and $74,600 to parties/committees

Decision left intact the $2600 limit on contributions from a single donor to a single candidate.

Question 15

What is the significance of hard and soft money?

Answer 15

RESTRICTIONS ON HARD MONEY

Money which is directly contributed to campaigns and so can be regulated by the Federal Election Commission.

The Federal Election Campaign Act Amendment (1974) limited hard money donations to a candidate to $1,000 for individuals and to $5,000 for PACs, which could increase with inflation.

However, these restrictions can be overcome by bundling, which is when “bundlers” gather contributions from many individuals in an organisation or community and present the sum to the campaign.

Buckley v Valeo (1976) ruled that it is unconstitutional to restrict spending by candidates on their own campaigns because this would violate the right to freedom of speech.

In 2016, Trump was able to spend $66 million of his own money.

McCutcheon v Federal Election Commission (2014) left intact the $2,600 hard money limit on contributions to a single candidate by a single donor, but struck down caps limiting the total amount a single donor could donate to different federal campaigns or parties.to campaigns and so can be regulated by the Federal Election Commission.

RESTRICTIONS ON SOFT MONEY

Soft money – money which was created by loopholes in the Federal Election Campaign Act 1979 and so is unregulated. It comes in the form of money contributed to parties for “general political activities” and as “spending on behalf of candidates” (independent expenditures).

The Federal Election Campaign Act (1979) – allowed individuals, unions and corporations to give unlimited donations to parties as soft money.

The amount of soft money raised by the Republican Nation Committee increased from $49.8 million in 1992 to $141.2 million in 1996.

Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act (2002) - banned soft money from being raised by national party committees.

McConnell v Federal Election Commission (2003) – the Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act’s ban on soft money did not violate free speech.

LOOPHOLES

Super PACs - can accept unlimited donations from individuals, corporations and unions as long as they don’t give any money to candidates and instead independently make TV adverts that help candidates’ campaigns.

527 Groups – focus on issue advocacy so not regulated by the Federal Election Commission and can accept unlimited sums, but must disclose donors.

501(c)4 groups – classed as “social welfare groups” that must spend the majority of their time on non-political activities, therefore they can keep donors anonymous.

even though national party committees are banned from raising soft money, all other organisations can still donate unlimited amounts of soft money to candidates.

Question 16

Are TV debates important?

Answer 16

AID CAMPAIGNS

Televised debates take place in presidential elections campaigns so that the candidates can put forward their policies and personal qualities to the electorate of the whole country.

Due to the high media attention on the TV debates, they have the potential to “make” or “break” candidates and can help candidates achieve a “bounce” or drop in the polls.

Within a week of doing well in the first debate of the 2012 presidential election, Mitt Romney’s poll ratings had increased so that he was leading in both the Gallup seven-day tracking poll and the poll-of-polls published by the Real Clear Politics website.

Also, TV debates are part of the “unpaid” media attention on candidates, therefore candidates can get their policies and personal qualities out to the electorate for free.

The debates helping candidates in their campaigns is significant because this may lead to candidates saying anything, they can that will help them to get elected, therefore they may not be able to complete these promises once in office.

STYLE OVER SUBSTANCE

After the 2000 presidential debates, Al Gore was ridiculed on the TV show “Saturday Night Live” due to his conduct during his debate against George Bush, including frequently interrupting Bush, audibly sighing and rolling his eyes.

The debates can disadvantage incumbents who may come across as tired compared to a new, fresh opponent.

In the first debate of the 2012 presidential election, Obama was criticised for looking disengaged, bored and flat, therefore only 20% of viewers said that Obama had won the debate – disadvantage for incumbent - Obama hadn’t debated on TV since 2008 whereas Romney had been in 19 with fellow Rep candidates.

TV debates are highly controlled by media advisers and dominated by sound bites.

Trump was criticised in 2016 for his abrasive tone – “you’re wrong” “nasty women”.

Trump refused to say to Fox News that he’d respect the result regardless of the winner.

LIMITED EFFECT

The “winners” in the debates often turn out to be “losers” in the election.

In 2012, 72% viewers of the first presidential debate thought that Romney won, but Obama still went on to win the election.

This could be because the debates are used to energise the voter base rather than change the voting intentions of large numbers of voters.

Also, the debates occur very late in the campaign (usually in September or October), therefore most voters may have already made up their mind.

Question 17

What are the different types of direct democracy?

Answer 17

INITIATIVES

Used in 24 states – citizens collect a req number of signatures to trigger a vote on a new bill/amendment to state constitution.

Direct: referred directly to the people after signatures collected.

Indirect: bill first sent to state legislature, which can decide to pass the bill without a vote.

No. of signatures varies e.g. California requires 8% for amendment and 5% for statute – of people that voted in the last gubernational election.

REFERENDUMS

Popular referendum: voters collect signatures within a certain time frame to trigger a vote on a passed bill.

A vote on a bill or state constitutional amendment that has already been passed by the state legislature.

Legislative referendum: state leg puts bills/amendments up for a vote – used in 23 states for statutes and 49 for amendments.

In 2013, the Oregon state legislature passed Senate Bill 833, which made four-year driver licenses available to individuals without any legal documents to prove they were living in the US legally.

Opposition groups soon gathered 71,000 signatures, enough to trigger a referendum, and in 2014, 66% of voters voted against the new law.

A number of states require referendums to approve of changes to the state constitution, which acts as a check and balance against unpopular constitution changes.

RECALL ELECTIONS

Used in 19 states – allow citizens to remove an elected official before the end of their term, by collecting signatures to trigger an early election e.g. in California you would need 12% of number of voters in last election.

Four Republican Wisconsin State Senators were successfully removed from office by recall elections in 2012, which acted as a check and balance on them by voters who were dissatisfied with their conservative policies.

In 2003, California was facing an energy crisis - many voters blamed the crisis in part on the state Governor Gray Davis, and a Republican-led campaign soon gathered the signatures to trigger a recall vote. Voters were first asked whether Governor Davis should be recalled, to which 55% of voters said yes.

Question 18

How have voters realigned over the last century?

Answer 18

NEW DEAL

From the Civil War (1861-65) to the New Deal (1930s):

Republicans – northern states, businessmen, skilled workers and African Americans.

Democrats – southern states, farmers and unskilled workers.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal policies:

Democrats – the New Deal Coalition – white Protestants, southern/western states, working class, urban workers, trade unions, immigrants, Jews, Catholics and African Americans.

Republicans – businessmen and skilled workers.

The New Deal Coalition is significant because it kept the Democrats in power for decades.

Roosevelt won the 1936 election by winning 46 states and 523 Electoral College votes, whereas his rival Alf Landon won only 2 states and 8 Electoral College votes.

CIVIL RIGHTS ERA

The Democrats began alienating their white southern supporters by becoming more liberal.

President Truman established the “President’s Committee on Civil Rights” and ended segregation in the military.

The 1948 Democratic National Convention adopted a new platform calling for new civil rights legislation, causing 35 southern delegated to walk out.

President Lyndon Johnson introduced Medicare, Medicaid, civil rights legislation and desegregation legislation.

Nixon used the “Southern Strategy” to capitalise on the anger of southern Democrats.

Reagan began campaign by speaking about “state’s rights” in Philadelphia,

The Republicans gaining support from white southerners is significant because it helped the Republicans to achieve landslide victories.

Reagan won the 1984 election by winning 49 states and 525 Electoral College votes,

SIGNIFICANCE

Since 1992, the results of presidential elections have been much closer and there haven’t been any landslide victories, which means that voters are less likely to realign their support from one party to the other from election to election.

This has caused the creation of strongly partisan “safe states”, known as “red states” and “blue states”.

However, it is possible that southern states may realign back to the Democrats in the future due to the increase in the African American and Hispanic population in southern states such as Texas.

The reduction in the chance of partisan realignment is significant because parties are now more able to count on their core support in “safe states”, therefore they are less likely to visit these states during elections, which seems unfair to the voters there as their needs are less likely to be met by the government.

Question 19

How important are ‘swing voters’?

Answer 19

DECIDE ELECTIONS

In the 2012 Presidential Election, Obama’s victory in key swing states, such as Florida (29 Electoral College votes), Pennsylvania (20 Electoral College votes) and Ohio (18 Electoral College votes), played a major part in his win of the election.

Obama’s 2008 “Time for Change” campaign appealed to independent voters due to it being an attractive proposal to disengaged voters.

Nationally, Clinton received 396,318 fewer votes than Obama in 2012, and many of these lost votes were in crucial swing states, like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Ohio, which all voted for Obama in 2012, but Trump in 2016 - in these five Rust Belt states Clinton received over 1.2 million fewer votes than Obama in 2012.

Swing voters deciding elections is significant because voters in swing states are more likely to turnout as they can have more impact on the election, for example the swing state Wisconsin had a turnout of 73.2% in 2012, whereas the safe state New York had 53.5% turnout

ATTRACT ATTENTION

Candidates ‘target’ swing states and pour campaign workers and campaign finance (especially TV advertising) into them.

Between April 11th and Election Day 2012, Obama spent $314.8 million on TV ads, of which 99.6% was spent in just 10 states.

Candidates also make frequent campaign visits to swing states.

Between May to Election Day 2012, Obama and Romney made a total of 35 visits to Ohio, 31 visits to Florida and 29 to Virginia.

In the 2012 Presidential Elections, 38 states were not visited a single time by the candidates because they were not swing states.

National conventions often held in swing states - The Democrats held theirs in Wisconsin in 2020.

Swing voters getting more attention is significant because as a result, voters in other states do not get as much attention, therefore the voters there may feel unfairly treated, which undermines pluralist democracy and increases their political apathy.

INSIGNIFICANT

Swing voters can only have an impact in the few swing states.

The results in safe ‘”red” Republican states (such as Texas) or the safe “blue” Democrat states (such as New York) are pretty much certain, therefore the votes of swing voters will be wasted in these states due to the “winner-takes-all” system and they can have no impact on the national election result.

The six most important swing states only had around 900,000 undecided voters (swing voters) in 2012, therefore only these few swing voters could have an impact on the election result.

Swing votes only affecting the results in a few swing states is significant because this undermines pluralist democracy as their voices are less likely to be heard in the states in which their votes are wasted.

Question 20

How important are ‘swing states’?

Answer 20

DECIDE ELECTIONS

ATTRACT ATTENTION

UNFAIR

The “winner-takes-all” system means that a candidate can get all the Electoral College votes in a swing state even though the popular vote is very close.

In the 2012 Presidential Election, Obama received 50.01% of the popular vote in Florida, so he received all 29 of Florida’s Electoral College votes, whereas Romney received 49.13% of the popular vote, but he received no Electoral College votes.

In the 2012 Presidential Election, Romney received 50.39% of the popular vote in North Carolina, so he received all 15 of North Carolina’s Electoral College votes, whereas Obama received 48.35% of the popular vote, but he received no Electoral College votes

In 2016, Hilary Clinton won nearly 3m more votes, but Trump won 77 more in EC.

The system also creates a lot of wasted votes.

In 2012, 37% of California’s electorate (4.8 million people) voted for Mitt Romney, but Obama won the state, therefore these 4.8 million votes for Romney were wasted because they didn’t help him win a single elector.

It could be argued that the winner may lack a popular mandate, therefore lack legitimacy.

Question 21

How significant is split ticket voting?

Answer 21

DIVIDED GOVERNMENT

Split ticket voting is where voters choose candidates from different parties for different offices at a single election.

In the 2012 elections in West Virginia, Obama only received 35% of the vote, however the Democratic senator Joe Manchin gained 61% of the vote.

Split ticket voting is significant because it may cause divided government.

Divided government leads to gridlock – 2013 Government Shutdown caused by the two parties being unable to agree on Obama’s budget.

Makes government inefficient at getting legislation through congress.

WASTED VOTES

Split ticket voting may lack significance because divided government could actually be caused by wasted votes.

Congressional elections tend to waste far more Democratic votes, which could be the result of gerrymandering or due to Republican votes just being more effectively distributed.

Therefore, the Republicans are more likely to have control of Congress, which could cause divided government if there is a Democratic president.

In the 2012 Congressional Election, the Democrats gained 201 seats from 48.3% of the national vote, however the Republicans gained 234 seats in the House from only 46.9% of the vote.

ON THE DECLINE

In the 2004 and 2008 elections, there appeared to be an increase in straight ticket voting because the Presidency, the House and the Senate were all controlled by the same party.

The number of House districts that split their ticket reduced from 192 districts in 1972 to only 27 districts in 2012.

One reason for split ticket voting being on the decline could be that there is an increasing ideological divide between the parties, so Republicans and Democrats will be more likely to have different policies, therefore voters will be less willing to vote for a Republican for one office and a Democrat for another.

Question 22

Why are National Nominating Conventions Important?

Answer 22

INFLUENCE VOTERS

They are important for influencing voters.

Parties often locate their conventions in key swing states to try to impict the undecided voters there, such as the Democrats choosing North Carolina and the Republicans in Florida in 2012.

In 2008, John McCain’s acceptance speech attracted 38.9 million viewers and Obama’s acceptance speech attracted 38.4 million viewers.

The core vote of the party can be energised to vote by the conventions and party activists can be enthused to organise the “ground war” in the upcoming campaign in the states.

These points can all help the candidates to gain bounce” and “momentum”, such as in 2012 when Obama’s support increased from 47% to 50%, whereas Romney’s support decreased from 46% to 44%.

Can influence the outcome of the election.

Could be democratic as voters may vote based on policies put forward at the conventions.

Could be undemocratic as voters may vote based on image at the conventions.

PARTY DIVISIONS

They heal party divisions.

In 2008, Hillary Clinton told the Democrat convention “Barack Obama is my candidate, and he must be our President”.

In 2012, Santorum endorsed Romney at the Republican convention.

In 2012, Ron Paul refused to support Romney and said “I don’t fully endorse him for President”, which could have impacted on the Romney’s eventual loss of the election as the party lacked unity.

Healing divisions is especially important after divisive primaries.

Supporters of losing candidates can be united behind the winning candidate.

The electorate may place more trust in the party.

ENTHUSE PARTY FAITHFUL + ORDINARY VOTERS

Question 23

Why aren’t NNC important?

Answer 23

THEY DON’T DECIDE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

They have lost their formal function of deciding Presidential candidates.

Since the McGovern-Fraser reforms these candidates have been decided by primaries and caucuses to reduce the influence of “party bosses” in “smoke-filled rooms”.

Therefore, a candidate can become a “presumptive nominee” well before the convention, e.g. Obama two months before the Democrat convention in 2008.

This means the convention is merely a “coronation” of the candidate.

This is more democratic because the electorate is deciding rather than party leaders.

HOWEVER, conventions may decide Presidential candidates when there is no clear primary winner, in which case “super-delegates” may become important - At the 2008 Democratic convention when Obama was able to have a clearer lead over Hillary Clinton using the support of super-delegates.

THEY DON’T DECIDE VP CANDIDATE

They have lost their formal function of deciding Vice Presidential candidates.

Presidential candidates now announce their VP candidate well ahead of the conventions:

In 1976, Ronald Reagan was the first candidate to announce his running mate ahead of the convention, and then he didn’t win the nomination.

In 2008, Obama announced his running mate, Senator Joe Biden, two days before the convention, and John McCain announced his running mate, Sarah Palin, three days before the convention.

This is less democratic and goes back to the idea of “party bosses” deciding things in “smoke-filled rooms”.

HOWEVER, they’re important for showcasing the President and Vice President as a “balanced ticket” and appealing to a larger number of voters e.g. Joe Biden.

PARTY PLATFORM

They have lost their formal function of debating the party platform.

In May 2014, the Nevada state convention voted to remove opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion from the Nevada Republican Party Platform, even though the 2012 Republican National Party Platform was firmly opposed to same-sex marriage and abortion.

This is less democratic and goes back to the idea of “party bosses” deciding things in “smoke-filled rooms”.

HOWEVER, conventions are informally important for showing that the party is united behind the platform -In 2012 the Democrat platform included support for gay marriage for the first time, therefore the fact that all the 50 state parties were there showed unity behind this decision and helped to legitimise it

Question 24

What are the Advantages of Primaries?

Answer 24

DEMOCRATIC

They are highly democratic.

Primaries are highly democratic devices compared to the earlier selection processes involving choices made by party bosses in “smoke filled rooms” - reduces the chance of corruption by party bosses which could alienate voters and cause political apathy.

Primaries involve the voters themselves (especially open primaries) making their own choices as to their preferred candidate.

This opens up the nomination process to outsiders who wouldn’t have been chosen by the party bosses, such as Bill Clinton (1992) and Barack Obama (2008).

The electorate may just pick the candidate who is in the lead (the bandwagon effect) or the candidate who looks the best (the style over substance effect).

BEST CANDIDATES SHOWN

They are good at showing who the best candidates are.

Primaries weed out unsuitable candidates for the presidency.

They test the candidates’ stamina on the long campaign trail and their fund-raising and oratorical skills, all of which are important qualities for a potential president.

In 2008, many suggested that Obama was a stronger candidate because of his long, gruelling primary battle with Hillary Clinton.

The candidate is more likely to be a better president who will make better policy decisions.

HOWEVER, the wealthiest candidate often wins, rather than the best candidate.

OPEN PRIMARIES

Encourage voters from both sides to participate.

Any registered voter can vote in either the Republican/Democrat primary but not both (regardless of their party affiliation). E.g., Used in 16 states such as Texas.

Encourages politicians to have wider appeal, usually moderate voters – filtering extreme candidates and good preparation for election.

However, can favour candidates with lots of money and high media profile, voters may be ill-informed.

Open primaries attract higher turnout, especially when one party has a competitive race e.g., in 2012, 10/11 Rep primaries had turnout increase incl. Mississippi’s of 105% and Wisconsin 92%. However, only 2/15 with closed primaries saw an increase – NY down 71% and Connecticut down 61%.

Question 25

What are the Disadvantages of Primaries?

Answer 25

UNREPRESENTATIVE

They are dominated by extreme voters.

The members of the electorate who turnout to primaries and caucuses are generally old, white, educated, affluent and ideological, therefore they are unrepresentative of the whole electorate - Trump was able to win the 2016 Republican primaries due to being popular with old, white, Christian voters.

More centrist candidates are under pressure to appeal to these ideological voters; therefore, they may become more extreme in their views.

Mitt Romney became more extreme in the 2012 primaries.

May lead to a candidate being selected who may infringe on the civil rights of minorities, such as Donald Trump – pardoned Joe Arpaio in 2017 who had been racially profiling Latino Americans in Arizona - may put off minority voters, causing apathy and low turnout.

They are dominated by the wealthiest candidates.

It is necessary to raise very large amounts of money in order to create “momentum” for the long and very costly campaigns caused by frontloading.

Clinton raised more than $700m whereas Trump raised $400m but he was able to contribute $66m of his own money.

Kamala Harris had to withdraw her campaign in 2019 due to a lack of funds.

Means that less wealthy members of the electorate are less represented.

LOW TURNOUT

They have low turnout.

28.5% of estimated eligible voters voted in 2016 primaries.

The 2008 Iowa caucus had a record turnout for a presidential caucus which was about 8 times the average, but even then, turnout was only 16.3%.

Gives the winner less of a mandate, so less legitimacy and authority.

Undermines the democratic advantages of primaries.

FRONTLOADING

They are too long due to frontloading.

The number of states holding their primaries or caucuses before the end of March increased from just 11 in 1980 to 50 in 2016.

This means that the winner of the primaries may have been decided before certain states get to vote.

By February 2008, 55% of delegates to the Democratic and Republican conventions had already been chosen.

Leads to “permanent campaigns” that alienate voters and result in low turnout.

Puts too much stress on early, unrepresentative states, which is undemocratic and unfair.

Question 26

Why is the Electoral College the best method of electing the US President?

Answer 26

PRODUCES A MAJORITY

It is very stable as it produces as president with a majority.

In the 2012 presidential election, Obama received 332 electors, whereas Mitt Romney only received 206 electors, therefore Obama had a clear mandate and legitimacy.

In the 2016 presidential election, Trump received 304 electors, whereas Clinton only received 227 electors, therefore Trump had a clear mandate and legitimacy.

Having a majority means the president has a mandate, legitimacy and authority.

Stability means there are less likely to be political disturbances, which in the most serious but unlikely of cases could cause a revolution.

HOWEVER, they can win without winning pop vote e.g. 2016.

FAIR

It awards electors based on population size, which is fair.

The number of electors a state has is the number of Senators and Congressmen who represent the state - Alaska has 3 electors due to its small population of around 737,000 and California has 55 electors due to its large population of around 38.8 million.

The 23rd Amendment gave 3 electors to the District of Columbia so they would be represented in the Electoral College.

Re-districting also leads to fairness because states which grow in population are rewarded by more electors or with less as their population falls.

Preserves the voice of small-pop states – if the election depended solely on the popular vote, then candidates could limit campaigning to heavily populated areas or specific regions.

HOWEVER, there is under and over-representation of certain states e.g. HOWEVER, there is under and over-representation of certain states e.g. In 2016, California had 55 EC votes and Wyoming had 3 – this means that California had 1 electoral vote for every 713,000 whereas Wyoming had 1 for every 195,000.

NO AGREED ALTERNATIVE

There aren’t any agreed alternatives.

Only two states (Maine and Nebraska) use the congressional district method, which is where electors are given based on the winners of each congressional district, with the state-wide winner receiving two additional votes - still creates lots of wasted votes and can actually produce an even less proportional result to the simple plurality method.

A proportional system or a popular vote system could be used - this would, however, make it much less likely that a candidate would win an absolute majority.

Keeping the Electoral College would mean a constitutional amendment wouldn’t have to be passed, which could be difficult and take a long time.

Question 27

Why isn’t the Electoral College the best method of electing the US President?

Answer 27

WINNER TAKES ALL SYSTEM

The winner-takes-all, simple plurality system, which is used in 48 of the states, distorts the popular vote.

In 2000, Bush gained 50.4 million votes and 271 electors, whereas Al Gore gained more votes (50.9 million) but fewer electors (266).

In 2016, Hilary Clinton won nearly 3m more votes, but Trump won 77 more in EC.

The system also creates a lot of wasted votes.

In 2012, 37% of California’s electorate (4.8 million people) voted for Mitt Romney, but Obama won the state, therefore these 4.8 million votes for Romney were wasted because they didn’t help him win a single elector.

It could be argued that the winner may lack a popular mandate, therefore lack legitimacy.

SWING STATES

The campaigns focus on swing states.

Between May to Election Day 2012, Obama and Romney made a total of 35 visits to Ohio, 31 visits to Florida and 29 to Virginia.

In the 2012 Presidential Election, 38 states were not visited a single time by the candidates because they were not swing states.

Between April 11th and Election Day 2012, Obama spent $314.8 million on TV ads, of which 99.6% was spent in just 10 states.

May cause apathy in non-swing states - could lead to lower turnout.

Undemocratic and unfair on voters in non-swing states.

THIRD PARTIES

Third party candidates don’t stand a chance.

In the 1992 Presidential election, Ross Perot stood as an independent candidate and gained 18.9% of the popular vote but didn’t gain the plurality of the vote in any states, therefore he received no electors at the Electoral College.

There were 5 third party candidates in the 2012 presidential election, but none received any Electoral College votes.

Libertarian Gary Johnson won over 4m votes in 2016 and no EC votes.

Voters who don’t agree with the two main parties are less represented.

Voters have less choice, which goes against the principles of a pluralist democracy.

Question 28

How are laws restricting Campaign Finance effective?

Answer 28

LIMITS ON HARD MONEY

There are restrictions on individuals, corporations, banks, unions, parties and PACS.

Federal Election Campaign Act (1971) – parties and PACs had to report all donations over $100 and donations over $5000 had to be reported with 48 hours.

Federal Election Campaign Act (1974) - limited PAC donations to candidates to $5,000. It also limited individual donations to a candidate to $1,000 and banned contributions from foreign donors.

Buckley v Valeo (1976) - restrictions and disclosure rules were upheld.

McCutcheon v Federal Election Commission (2014) left intact the $2,600 limit on contributions to a single candidate by a single donor.

HOWEVER, can get around these regulations by forming: Super PACs, 527 Groups, 501(c)4 groups and McCutcheon v Federal Election Commission (2014) struck down caps limiting the total amount a single donor could donate to different federal campaigns/parties over a 2-year period.

BAN ON SOFT MONEY

The Federal Election Campaign Act (1979) – allowed individuals, unions and corporations to give unlimited donations to parties as soft money. The amount of soft money raised by the Republican Nation Committee increased from $49.8 million in 1992 to $141.2 million in 1996.

Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act (2002) - banned soft money from being raised by national party committees.

McConnell v Federal Election Commission (2003) – the Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act’s ban on soft money did not violate free speech.

Should create more public confidence in finance regulations, so could help to reduce apathy.

HOWEVER, all organisations other than national party committees, such as Super PACs, can still donate unlimited amounts of soft money to candidates.

SUCCESSES

Many campaigns have succeeded without the overbearing influence of the wealthy.

In 2008, the Obama campaign made up most of their war chest through donations from individuals of $250 or less

In 2008, 527 groups did not spend as much due to rules surrounding donations coming as hard money.

57% of individual donations to the Obama campaign in 2012 were made up of contributions under $200.

In 2004, Bush and Kerry kept within the federally mandated limits after using matched funding agreements for the General Election i.e., after accepting the party’s nomination.

Question 29

Why aren’t laws restricting Campaign Finance effective?

Answer 29

INSUFFICIENT REGULATION OF TV ADS

Buckley v Valeo (1976) - campaign finance laws can only restrict speech that “expressly advocated” the election or defeat of a candidate.

By 1996, 90% of “issue ads” named a candidate.

527 Groups increased after the Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act (2002) because they focus on issue advocacy outside of the time regulations and can accept unlimited sums but must disclose donors.

Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (2010) - ruled unconstitutional to restrict spending on TV ads - led to the creation of Super PACs - 1,310 Super PACs created by the 2012 Election and they raised over $828 million.

The “Restore Our Future” Super PAC spent $142 million supporting Romney in 2012.

The electorate can be unfairly influenced by wealthy groups through TV ad spending.

In the 2012 election, the top 1% of donors to Super PACs donated 68% of the money.

Prevents the electorate being properly educated on political issues.

CANDIDATE SPENDING LIMITS

There are no limits on spending by candidates on their own campaigns.

Federal Election Campaign Act (1971) – imposed limits for candidate spending to $50,000 for Presidential and VP candidates, $35,000 for Senate candidates and $25,000 for House candidates.

Buckley v Valeo (1976) ruled that it is unconstitutional to restrict spending by candidates on their own campaigns because this would violate freedom of speech.

In 1992, the billionaire Ross Perot was able to be a moderately successful third candidate due to his personal spending on his campaign.

Trump spent $66m of his own money which contributed to his win in 2016.

Views of the wealthy may be better represented and Easier for the wealthy candidates to win.

DECLINE IN PUBLIC FINANCING

Revenue Act (1971) – candidates could receive $20 million in public funds

Federal Election Campaign Act (1974) - expanded public financing.

2008 Presidential Election – Obama refused public funding and raised $745 million during the primaries/election, whereas his opponent John McCain accepted public funding so only got $84.1 million in the election.

2012 Presidential Election – Obama and Mitt Romney turned down public funds.

May put off candidates from different backgrounds, reducing voter choice.

This may increase apathy and decrease participation.

Question 30

What are the Advantages of Direct Democracy?

Answer 30

THE PEOPLE GET A SAY IN DECISION MAKING

In 2012, there were 115 referendums and 42 initiatives/propositions.

California voters rejected the 2010 “California Proposition 23” which would have unpopularly suspended a state law requiring reductions in GHG emissions.

There have been three recall elections of state governors.

Between 1913 and 2012, there were 36 recall elections of state legislators.

Highly democratic, more in line with the idea of a government of the people, by the people, for the people, educates the electorate.

ENCOURAGES WIDER POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

The 2012 “Colorado Amendment 64” initiative on marijuana had 68.55% turnout.

The 2012 recall election of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker had a turnout of 57.8%.

Direct democracy turnout is often higher than election turnout, for example turnout at Presidential elections was 57.1% in 2008 and 54.9% in 2012.

The results have a greater mandate, so are more legitimate, and reduces apathy.

In 2013, the Oregon state legislature passed Senate Bill 833, which made four-year driver licenses available to individuals without any legal documents to prove they were living in the US legally. Opposition groups soon gathered 71,000 signatures, enough to trigger a referendum, and in 2014, 66% of voters voted against the new law.

CHECK ON REPRESENTATIVES

It acts as a check and balance on unpopular decisions by representatives.

Four Republican Wisconsin State Senators were successfully removed from office by recall elections in 2012, which acted as a check and balance on them by voters who were dissatisfied with their conservative policies.

A number of states require referendums to approve of changes to the state constitution, which acts as a check and balance against unpopular constitution changes.

In-line with the Constitution’s idea of preventing tyrannical representatives.

In 2003, California was facing an energy crisis - many voters blamed the crisis in part on the state Governor Gray Davis, and a Republican-led campaign soon gathered the signatures to trigger a recall vote. Voters were first asked whether Governor Davis should be recalled, to which 55% of voters said yes.

Question 31

What are the Disadvantages of Direct Democracy?

Answer 31

FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE

Wealthier and more powerful sides may have the advantage.

“Maryland Question 6” initiative in 2012 on same-sex marriage - the side in favour raised $4.1 million, whereas the side against only raised $1.7 million.

The result in favour of incumbent Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker in his 2012 recall election could have been affected by Walker spending $30 million, whereas his opponent Tom Barrett only spent $4 million.

Means that the interests of the poor are less likely to be represented.

Could increase political apathy the idea that political decisions can be “bought”.

HOWEVER, wealthier sides may be justified in spending more because they may have a greater mandate due to having more supporters to give them donations.

ELECTORATE

The electorate may make a bad decision.

The 2010 “Arizona Proposition 107” rejected affirmative action which could have helped minorities to get better opportunities.

In 2012, Wisconsin State Senator Van Wanggaard lost his seat in a recall election by gaining 49% of the vote (not a maj), suggesting that the support for his removal was only a very slim majority - could have been for political reasons.

Could lead to tyranny of the majority, meaning there could be a possible discriminatory effect on minorities.

QUESTION

The questions can be made biased or slanted.

The 2012 “Maine Question 1” initiative question seemed to be slanted in favour of same-sex marriage - “Do you want to allow the State of Maine to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?”

The 2014 “Washington Initiative 594” on universal background checks for gun purchases seemed to be slanted in favour of background checks – “Should this measure be enacted into law?”

May reduce the legitimacy of the outcome, so it may have a lesser mandate.

Increases the idea of tyrannical representatives acting in a dictatorship.

However, the scrutiny provided by the media should help to prevent biased or slanted questions.

Question 32

What are the Disadvantages of Direct Democracy?

Answer 32

FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE

Wealthier and more powerful sides may have the advantage.

“Maryland Question 6” initiative in 2012 on same-sex marriage - the side in favour raised $4.1 million, whereas the side against only raised $1.7 million.

The result in favour of incumbent Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker in his 2012 recall election could have been affected by Walker spending $30 million, whereas his opponent Tom Barrett only spent $4 million.

Means that the interests of the poor are less likely to be represented.

Could increase political apathy the idea that political decisions can be “bought”.

HOWEVER, wealthier sides may be justified in spending more because they may have a greater mandate due to having more supporters to give them donations.

ELECTORATE

The electorate may make a bad decision.

The 2010 “Arizona Proposition 107” rejected affirmative action which could have helped minorities to get better opportunities.

In 2012, Wisconsin State Senator Van Wanggaard lost his seat in a recall election by gaining 49% of the vote (not a maj), suggesting that the support for his removal was only a very slim majority - could have been for political reasons.

Could lead to tyranny of the majority, meaning there could be a possible discriminatory effect on minorities.

QUESTION

The questions can be made biased or slanted.

The 2012 “Maine Question 1” initiative question seemed to be slanted in favour of same-sex marriage - “Do you want to allow the State of Maine to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?”

The 2014 “Washington Initiative 594” on universal background checks for gun purchases seemed to be slanted in favour of background checks – “Should this measure be enacted into law?”

May reduce the legitimacy of the outcome, so it may have a lesser mandate.

Increases the idea of tyrannical representatives acting in a dictatorship.

However, the scrutiny provided by the media should help to prevent biased or slanted questions.

Question 33

What are the long-term influences on voting behaviour?

Answer 33

PARTY IDENTIFICATION

The exit polls strongly suggest that partisanship was one of the most important influences on voting behaviour in 2016.

89% of Dems voted for Clinton and 90% of Reps voted for Trump.

These figures are 3% lower than in 2012 – smaller drop than expected.

While many Democrats and Republicans were vocally critical of their party’s

While third party candidates did increase their vote share from 2012 by 2%, the majority of independent voter ended up voting for either Clinton or Trump.

It seems that partisanship was even more significant than ideology.

Exit polls suggest that only 8% of Clinton supporters voted for a Republican Representative, and even fewer Trump supporters also voted for a Democratic Representative.

Not only that, but every state that elected a Republican Senator also voted for Trump, while every state that elected a Democratic Senator also voted for Clinton.

AGE

The Democrats tend to have much stronger support from younger voters, and, while this was still the case in 2016, there was a noticeable drop from 2012.

Younger liberal voters had been particularly enthusiastic for Democratic primary candidate Bernie Sanders, who had championed a much more liberal platform.

The 4% drop in support from 18-24-year olds, and even sharper 7% drop in support from 25-29-year olds, shows that Clinton struggled to reproduce the excitement generated by Barack Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns.

This lack of enthusiasm did not result in a sharp swing towards the Republican Party, but it did lead to significant gains for third party candidates.

RACE/GENDER

The Republican Party tended to have much stronger support from more college educated, professional white voters.

But in 2016, Trump had a 37-point lead from white voters without degrees.

This is much higher than the 26-point lead that Romney had in 2012.

One argument is that Trump’s opposition to free trade, and frequent promises to ‘bring back’ jobs that had been exported overseas, resonated strongly with workers living in areas that had lost manufacturing jobs - felt that only an outsider like Trump would be able to challenge the ‘Washington establishment’.

While Clinton had stronger support from female voters, it was still weaker than many had predicted prior to the election.

During one of the televised debates, Clinton told the audience that Trump was someone who had “called women pigs, slobs and dogs”.

Video footage was also released of Trump making degrading comments.

Yet, overall Clinton was 1-point down amongst women, leading to speculation that any personal feelings women had about Trump’s comments were overridden by other, seemingly more important factors.

Trump described Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists, claimed a judge was biased and ‘hostile’ because of his Hispanic heritage, and promised to deport millions of illegal immigrants and build a wall along the Mexican border.

Based on their own exit polls and interviews, they estimated that 79% voted for Clinton, with only 18% voting for Trump - slightly stronger support from Black, Hispanic and Asian voters than Romney did in 2012.

In 2012, 93% of African Americans voted for Barack Obama.

Women are generally more supportive of government intervention in the economy, welfare and affirmative action.

Women are generally more supportive of liberal social policies and are against foreign military intervention.

However, marriage could be more important because married voters tend to be white, older, religious and have a higher income.

In 2012, 46% of married women voted for Obama compared to 67% of non-married women.

RELIGION

In recent decades, Democrats have tended to receive stronger support from Catholic and Jewish voters, while Republicans perform best with Protestants and Evangelical Christians. Many speculated whether Trump’s controversial statements about women and minorities, combined with the fact that he has been divorced twice, would make it difficult for Evangelical Christians to support him.

However, exit polls show that, of this group (which makes up roughly one-fifth of all registered voters), 81% voted Trump, and just 16% Clinton. Protestants and white Catholics also favoured Trump, although to a lesser degree.

The more frequently voters attend church, the more likely they are to vote for the Republicans due to the church being socially conservative.

In 2012, 70% of Protestants who attended church at least weekly voted for Romney

INCOME

As a result of their support for more redistributive tax policies, welfare and worker rights, Democrats have traditionally had much stronger backing from lower income and unionised voters.

However, one of the explanations given for Trump’s surprising victory was his appeal to working class voters who feel that they have been badly affected by globalisation and free trade deals.

Clinton won a majority of the vote from those earning under $49,000, there was still a considerable drop from 2012.

Much of this loss translated into increased support for third party candidates, but Trump saw increased support from those earning under $30,000 by 4 points.

Clinton also lost considerable support from households belonging to a union.

Trump’s plans to renegotiate longstanding free trade deals, impose tariffs on foreign nations, and deport millions of illegal immigrants had led to a great deal of economic uncertainty, and it is possible that higher earners found Clinton’s less radical platform more reassuring - lost considerable support from those earning over $250,000

GEOGRAPHIC AREA

While Clinton won a smaller share of the vote from those living in cities than Obama, she still led Trump by 24-points, while Trump led in rural areas by as even larger margin of 28-points.

Trump’s success came largely from his support from rural areas and mid-sized counties with large numbers of blue-collar workers.

Clinton won by hundreds of thousands of votes in counties like Wayne and Oakland, which have populations over 1 million, but she lost in virtually all of Michigan’s smallest counties, with populations from 150,000 to just 3,000.

Question 34

What are the short-term influences on voting behaviour?

Answer 34

POSITIONAL ISSUES

The exit polls suggested that, as in most elections, the most salient issue in this election was the economy, followed by terrorism, immigration and foreign policy.

Trump proposed very divisive policies for each of these salient issues e.g. promising to, deport millions of immigrants - we might expect to find that sizable majorities were in support of these positions.

But the exit polls say that only 25% agree that illegal immigrants should be deported rather than offered legal status and a majority (54%) are opposed to Trump’s wall.

While 47% believe that Obamacare ‘went too far’, 48% believe that it either did not go far enough or was just about right.

Around 48% agreed with Clinton’s assertion that the country’s criminal justice system treats black citizens unfairly.

These exit polls make it difficult to assert that Trump was elected because of broad support for his policy platform.

21% said considered the fact that the next president would make at least one Supreme Court appointment was the most important factor influencing their vote.

Therefore, while many voters might not have agreed with Trump’s platform, they may have felt that their positions were much more likely to align with his choice of Supreme Court justice than Clinton’s likely choice.

60% of voters said the economy was the most important issue to them.

In October 2012, unemployment dipped below 8% and the Democrats to say this was a sign of economy improvement.

Obama’s campaign was helped by 53% of voters blaming Bush for the state of the economy.

VALENCE ISSUES

Many believed that it was unlikely that a candidate who had never held elected office before could beat someone with as much experience as Clinton.

Many commentators’ confidence that Trump could not win only grew during the campaign, as he repeatedly made controversial statements that seemed likely to offend women, minorities, veterans, and the disabled.

He was also beset by numerous scandals - for example, it was alleged that, due to a near $1 billion loss in 1992, Trump may have avoided paying taxes for nearly two decades.

But the exit polls also suggested that many voters were either dissatisfied (46%) or angry (23%) with the federal government, and there was a strong ‘anti-establishment’ movement for change.

The exit polls confirm that even many of Trump’s voters have an unfavourable view of him, considering him to be dishonest, untrustworthy and unqualified to be president.

39% said that they wanted a candidate who could deliver change, and of these voters, 82% voted for Trump.

While voters had a slightly more favourable opinion of Clinton, and considered her more qualified, many considered her to be almost as untrustworthy as Trump.

Throughout the campaign, Trump referred to Clinton as ‘Crooked Hillary’, and pointed to scandals that occurred during her time as Secretary of State as evidence that she was complicit in the Washington corruption that only he was prepared to clean up.

INCUMBENCY/PAST PERFORMANCE

Unless voters feel extremely positive about the economy and their current financial situation, it is always likely that a desire change will build over eight years.

Only 31% felt their financial situation had improved over the last four years.

Many voters (41%) argued that there had been little change, and 21% said that their situation had actually deteriorated.

Only 36% said that the economy was in either good or excellent shape.

While 53% approved of Obama as President, only 28% wanted the next president to continue his policies.

Trump regularly argued that voting for Clinton would essentially be a vote for a third Obama term.

CAMPAIGN

Commentators noted how many volunteers Clinton had rallied and how many offices her campaign had opened, with thousands more paid staff to help get-out-the-vote (GOTV). They also wrote about how advanced the Clinton campaign’s databases were, enabling them to target voters with specific messages.

Many derided the Trump campaign when it was revealed that it had spent more on ‘Make America Great Again’ hats than polling.

However, it is arguable that while Democrats needed an organised ground game to mobilise voters who were not particularly enthused, Trump could rely on excited voters, who were already attending his large rallies, to vote without the need for such campaign infrastructure.

By mid-October, the Trump campaign was reported to have spent around $238.9 million, while the Clinton campaign had spent $450.6 million.

Over the course of the election, Trump realised that, with a single controversial tweet, he could dominate the news cycle and enthuse his base without spending a single dollar.

Some have argued that, while the Clinton’s campaign rallied support from minority voters, it did not do enough to engage the white working-class males who ended up voting for Trump. As the polls led the Clinton campaign to remain confident in ‘Firewall’ states, it devoted more resources, made more visits, and spent far more on TV ads, in other swing states. However, as these Rust Belt states had experienced significant economic and industrial decline in recent decades, it has been argued that Trump’s anti-free trade platform was always likely to have a considerable impact.

Clinton’s narrow defeats in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, cost her the election.

OCTOBER SUPRISES

Two of Trump’s most damning ‘October surprises’ were the October 1st revelation that he may not have paid income tax for over 20 years, and the October 7th release of a 2005 video of him making lewd comments about women, which was followed by several accusations of sexual assault.

Clinton’s main October surprise surrounded her decision, while Secretary of State, to use a private email server, rather than an official State Department email account.

Critics argued that this use of a private server violated State Department protocols and even federal laws and was irresponsible given the confidential nature of the emails being sent to her. At Trump rallies, mentions of the email server soon led to chants of ‘lock her up

Just days before the election, Comey released a letter in which he said that an unrelated case had presented the FBI with a number of emails that “appear to be pertinent to the investigation” of Clinton.

The FBI may have swayed the 14% of voters who claimed to make their mind up in the last week of the campaign.

Question 35

Why is there a participation crisis in the US?

Answer 35

TURNOUT

Turnout of the VAP – 54.9% in 2012 and 55.7% in 2016.

In the 2014 mid-terms, nationwide voter turnout was just 36.4%, the lowest since the 1942 elections.

Undermines representative democracy as elected officials have a lesser mandate and less legitimacy.

Arguably causes waste of some of the public money spent on elections (e.g. money spent on public financing of campaigns, polling stations and the counting of votes).

Direct democracy turnout is also low.

The 2012 recall election of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker had a turnout of 57.8%, similar to the turnout of the 2008 election.

The results have a lesser mandate and less legitimacy, which is significant because the issues that are voted on can usually have a large impact on policy in a state.

May lead to suggestions that it would be easier to simply let elected representatives make decisions.

POLITICAL EFFICACY

The US electoral systems have caused low levels of political efficacy, which means that voters are less likely to believe that they can have an effect on the political system.

There are only six key swing states that can have an effect on the election results, so voters in safe states have little impact.

In 2012, 7 of the top 10 turnout states were swing states.

In the 2012 Presidential Election, 38 states were not visited a single time by the candidates because they were not swing states.

In the 2012 Presidential Election, 37.12% of California’s electorate (4.8 million people) voted for Mitt Romney, but Obama won the state, therefore all electors went to Obama and 4.8 million votes for Romney were wasted because they didn’t help him win a single elector.

$5.3 billion was spent in total on the 2008 elections.

50.8% of Congressmen were millionaires in 2013.

Undermines pluralist democracy - unfair on those who have less impact on results.

May result in negative feelings towards the government, leading to anarchist feelings.

ACCESIBILITY

Voting takes place on a Tuesday from 7am to 8pm, so many people could be at work or too busy to vote.

Voter registration laws have prevented some citizens from voting.

National Voter Registration Act (1993): required states to allow registration by mail and at other public agencies like driver’s licence offices or welfare agencies.

Help America Vote Act (2002): required states to allow votes not on the register, but who believe they should be eligible, to cast a provisional ballot which could be checked after the election.

Many states still have pre-election registration deadlines of 25-30 days prior to the election, which is usually the time that voters become most interested in the election.

States offering same-day registration had on average 12% higher turnout in 2012.

Shelby County v Holder (2013) undermined Congress’s power to approve state voter registration laws - within 24 hours of this decision, Texas and Mississippi had pledged to introduce new voter ID requirements, which would negatively affect poorer voters.

Undermines pluralist democracy as it is easier for some people to vote than others.

May promote elitism as it is harder for less wealthy and minority voters to register and turnout to vote.

May result in the infringement of one of the most important human rights.

Question 36

Why isn’t there a participation crisis in the US?

Answer 36

PARTISANSHIP

The Democrats have 42.5 million registered voters, and the Republicans have 30.6 million.

In the 2004, 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, 99% of all votes cast were for either the Democrat or Republican candidate.

Historically, only 10% of voters have said that they are definitely independent.

Shows that voters approve of the party they are aligned to, which should help to reduce negative opinions of politicians.

Allow parties to educate their partisan voters, therefore voters are more aware of key issues, which is more democratic.

Easier for less engaged voters because they can simply vote for their favoured party rather than have to be informed about specific candidates.

NON-ELECTORAL PARTICIPATION

The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) has over 40 million members.

It was estimated that a million people took part in the “Million Mom March” in 2000 in support of tighter gun regulations.

A 2008 survey showed that in the last 12 months 32% of people asked had signed a petition and 30% had contacts a government official about an issue.

Allows specific issues that aren’t directly covered by the two main parties in to be better represented, so helps to uphold pluralist democracy.

Allows people to promote issues that they care about, so they may be more motivated to participate.

Allows more grassroots participation, which may be seen as more democratic.

DIRECT DEMOCRACY

The 2012 “Colorado Amendment 64” initiative on marijuana had 68.55% turnout.

The 2012 recall election of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker had a turnout of 57.8%.

Direct democracy turnout is often higher than election turnout, for example turnout at Presidential elections was 57.1% in 2008 and 54.9% in 2012.

The results have a greater mandate, so are more legitimate, and reduces apathy.

In 2013, the Oregon state legislature passed Senate Bill 833, which made four-year driver licenses available to individuals without any legal documents to prove they were living in the US legally. Opposition groups soon gathered 71,000 signatures, enough to trigger a referendum, and in 2014, 66% of voters voted against the new law.

Question 37

Why is differential turnout significant?

Answer 37

PARTISANSHIP

A measure of how different definable groups within society turnout for elections.

89% of Democrats voted for Clinton and 90% of Republicans voted for Trump.

In a political environment where different social groups align strongly with a particular party, and voters hold firmly unfavourable views of the opposition, differential turnout/abstention becomes much more important.

As parties feel more confident in predicting how people will vote, they have become more concerned with influencing who will be motivated to cast a ballot.

Some have argued that, in 2016, Trump did a particularly good job of appealing to white working-class voters, who normally vote for Democratic candidates

Fewer voters were also willing to split their ticket than in 2012, i.e. to vote for a president and House Representative from different parties.

This is likely because the Democratic and Republican parties have polarised greatly in recent decades, and now offer voters very different positions on economic issues, like public spending, healthcare and taxation, and social issues, like gay marriage, gun rights, and abortion.

In the 2016 exit polls, 31% of voters identified as ‘independent’, but those who identify as independents today are actually more consistent in their support for a particular party than voters who said that they were “strong partisans” in the 1970s.

One difference between strongly aligned independents and ‘weak partisans’ is that independent voters are more likely to stay at home on Election Day.

SWING STATES

The fact that Clinton won the popular vote by over 2.6 million votes might give the appearance that the Democrats did a better job of encouraging their base to vote than the Republican Party.

However, this overlooks the fact that, nationally, Clinton received 396,318 fewer votes than Obama in 2012, and many of these lost votes were in crucial swing states, like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Ohio, which all voted for Obama in 2012, but Trump in 2016 - in these five Rust Belt states Clinton received over 1.2 million fewer votes than Obama won in 2012.

Rather than support the Republican candidate, many Democrats who were unwilling to vote for Clinton appear to have instead voted for third party candidates like Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, who between them saw an increase in support almost as strong as Trump’s.

And, as turnout was down in Wisconsin, Ohio, Iowa and Michigan, it also appears that many other Democrats stayed at home.

For example, in Ohio, Trump won almost 180,000 more votes than Romney, while third party candidates collectively received almost 170,000 more votes than in 2012.

In Wisconsin, Trump received 3,966 fewer votes than Romney in 2012, but, as Clinton lost almost 240,000 votes, Obama’s sizable lead there vanished.

Third party candidates benefited from this lack of enthusiasm for the two main candidates, collectively winning over 150,000 more votes in Wisconsin.

However, this still meant that around 93,000 people, many of whom likely voted for Obama in 2012, stayed at home.

With so many voters either abstaining or casting, what were arguably, protest votes for third party candidates, it becomes harder to argue that Trump won solely through his appeal to traditional Democrats.

MID-TERMS

Turnout is much lower at mid-terms.

In the 2014 mid-terms, nationwide voter turnout was just 36.4%, the lowest since the 1942 elections.

80 million people voted in 2010 compared to 130 million in 2008.

Minorities and youth voters are less likely to turnout at mid-terms.

The youth vote dropped from 18% of the 2008 electorate to 12% of the 2010 electorate.

The over 65 vote increased from 15% of the 2008 electorate to 21% of the 2010 electorate.

The Tea Party were able to make gains in the 2010 midterms due to the higher turnout of old and white voters compared to younger minority voters.

Minorities and youth voters being less likely to turnout at mid-terms is significant because it greatly benefits the Republicans, as shown by the gains they made in the 2010 mid-terms and the 2014 mid-terms.

GET OUT THE VOTE (GOTV)

Obama’s 2012 “Project Narwhal” enabled targeted advertising to be sent to specific demographics in order to increase turnout from Obama’s key demographics.

The project also encouraged people to spread viral messages about the campaign and claimed that 1 in 5 people contacted by a Facebook friend went on to register.

Clinton rallied many volunteers, and her campaign opened many offices, with thousands more paid staff to help GOTV.

They also wrote about how advanced the Clinton campaign’s databases were, enabling them to target voters with specific messages.

GOTV drives are significant because they can engage apathetic voters with politics, therefore help to educate the electorate and reinforce democratic principles.

VOTER DEMOGRAPHICS

Larger voter demographics may be more motivated to turnout to vote because they can have a greater impact on the election result.

Whites made up 79.2% of the electorate in 1996, but only 71.1% in 2012, which may have influenced the decrease in white turnout.

African Americans made up 11.9% of the electorate in 1996, but 12.5% in 2012, which may have influenced the increase in African American turnout.

It has been estimated that Hispanic people will become the largest ethnic group in Texas within the next decade, meaning the Democrats could potentially win in Texas, which is currently a Republican safe state.

The Democrats’ “Battleground Texas” is working to register many Hispanic and other disengaged voters in Texas.

Changing voter demographics impacting on differential turnout is significant because it may be seen as similar to gerrymandering as the success of a party can depend on where their voters are living, therefore this could reduce the mandate and legitimacy of the election results.

Question 38

Why is differential turnout significant?

Answer 38

PARTISANSHIP

A measure of how different definable groups within society turnout for elections.

89% of Democrats voted for Clinton and 90% of Republicans voted for Trump.

In a political environment where different social groups align strongly with a particular party, and voters hold firmly unfavourable views of the opposition, differential turnout/abstention becomes much more important.

As parties feel more confident in predicting how people will vote, they have become more concerned with influencing who will be motivated to cast a ballot.

Some have argued that, in 2016, Trump did a particularly good job of appealing to white working-class voters, who normally vote for Democratic candidates

Fewer voters were also willing to split their ticket than in 2012, i.e. to vote for a president and House Representative from different parties.

This is likely because the Democratic and Republican parties have polarised greatly in recent decades, and now offer voters very different positions on economic issues, like public spending, healthcare and taxation, and social issues, like gay marriage, gun rights, and abortion.

In the 2016 exit polls, 31% of voters identified as ‘independent’, but those who identify as independents today are actually more consistent in their support for a particular party than voters who said that they were “strong partisans” in the 1970s.

One difference between strongly aligned independents and ‘weak partisans’ is that independent voters are more likely to stay at home on Election Day.

SWING STATES

The fact that Clinton won the popular vote by over 2.6 million votes might give the appearance that the Democrats did a better job of encouraging their base to vote than the Republican Party.

However, this overlooks the fact that, nationally, Clinton received 396,318 fewer votes than Obama in 2012, and many of these lost votes were in crucial swing states, like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Ohio, which all voted for Obama in 2012, but Trump in 2016 - in these five Rust Belt states Clinton received over 1.2 million fewer votes than Obama won in 2012.

Rather than support the Republican candidate, many Democrats who were unwilling to vote for Clinton appear to have instead voted for third party candidates like Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, who between them saw an increase in support almost as strong as Trump’s.

And, as turnout was down in Wisconsin, Ohio, Iowa and Michigan, it also appears that many other Democrats stayed at home.

For example, in Ohio, Trump won almost 180,000 more votes than Romney, while third party candidates collectively received almost 170,000 more votes than in 2012.

In Wisconsin, Trump received 3,966 fewer votes than Romney in 2012, but, as Clinton lost almost 240,000 votes, Obama’s sizable lead there vanished.

Third party candidates benefited from this lack of enthusiasm for the two main candidates, collectively winning over 150,000 more votes in Wisconsin.

However, this still meant that around 93,000 people, many of whom likely voted for Obama in 2012, stayed at home.

With so many voters either abstaining or casting, what were arguably, protest votes for third party candidates, it becomes harder to argue that Trump won solely through his appeal to traditional Democrats.

MID-TERMS

Turnout is much lower at mid-terms.

In the 2014 mid-terms, nationwide voter turnout was just 36.4%, the lowest since the 1942 elections.

80 million people voted in 2010 compared to 130 million in 2008.

Minorities and youth voters are less likely to turnout at mid-terms.

The youth vote dropped from 18% of the 2008 electorate to 12% of the 2010 electorate.

The over 65 vote increased from 15% of the 2008 electorate to 21% of the 2010 electorate.

The Tea Party were able to make gains in the 2010 midterms due to the higher turnout of old and white voters compared to younger minority voters.

Minorities and youth voters being less likely to turnout at mid-terms is significant because it greatly benefits the Republicans, as shown by the gains they made in the 2010 mid-terms and the 2014 mid-terms.

GET OUT THE VOTE (GOTV)

Obama’s 2012 “Project Narwhal” enabled targeted advertising to be sent to specific demographics in order to increase turnout from Obama’s key demographics.

The project also encouraged people to spread viral messages about the campaign and claimed that 1 in 5 people contacted by a Facebook friend went on to register.

Clinton rallied many volunteers, and her campaign opened many offices, with thousands more paid staff to help GOTV.

They also wrote about how advanced the Clinton campaign’s databases were, enabling them to target voters with specific messages.

GOTV drives are significant because they can engage apathetic voters with politics, therefore help to educate the electorate and reinforce democratic principles.

VOTER DEMOGRAPHICS

Larger voter demographics may be more motivated to turnout to vote because they can have a greater impact on the election result.

Whites made up 79.2% of the electorate in 1996, but only 71.1% in 2012, which may have influenced the decrease in white turnout.

African Americans made up 11.9% of the electorate in 1996, but 12.5% in 2012, which may have influenced the increase in African American turnout.

It has been estimated that Hispanic people will become the largest ethnic group in Texas within the next decade, meaning the Democrats could potentially win in Texas, which is currently a Republican safe state.

The Democrats’ “Battleground Texas” is working to register many Hispanic and other disengaged voters in Texas.

Changing voter demographics impacting on differential turnout is significant because it may be seen as similar to gerrymandering as the success of a party can depend on where their voters are living, therefore this could reduce the mandate and legitimacy of the election results.