Lecture 8: Elections, Voting, Campaigns, and Participation

1. Lecture 8:Elections, Voting, Campaigns, and Participation POLI 10: Introduction to American Politics Summer Session I 24July 2013 Prof. Justin Levitt

2. Today’s myth: Turnout is down because campaigns run mindless negative attack ads which scare people into staying home instead of making a substantive argument that would encourage them to vote

3. Lecture Overview • The Electoral Process • To Vote or Not To Vote • Understanding Turnout and Participation • Mobilization and Campaigning • Voter Strategy

4. Last time • Political parties solve major coordination problems • Political parties connect elected officials to voters, donors, and interest groups • Parties have worked hard to serve as integral, permanent fixtures in the political process—today, party affiliation is important culturally as well as politically

5. Part I: Electoral and Voting Institutions

6. Overview • States have general control over electoral rules and systems • The Federal Government sets minimums—18 years old, no discrimination by race or gender—but states are free to go beyond this • While Federal Election timing is also set by the Federal Government, states are free to set their own timing for state and local elections

7. Electoral cycle—Federal Elections

8. State and Local Elections • Most States have elections that coincide with Federal elections (But NJ and VA elect in odd years) • 9 states elect their governor the same year as the President; 39 states do so with the Midterm election

9. Expansion of the Franchise I • During the 18th Century, the vote was limited to those who owned property or had assets worth over a certain value • The proportion of the population eligible to vote actually decreased between 1776 and 1830 due to increasing requirements • Andrew Jackson and the Democratic Party figured out in the 1830s that they could get their policies through by circumventing those “elites”—remnants of the Federalists—and appealing to an expanded electorate • Between 1830 and 1860, the vote was gradually expanded to all white males—parties helped by distributing tangible benefits • Even as new immigrants like the Irish got immediate rights (no citizenship needed), Black and Asian (esp. Chinese) residents raced increasing limits

10. Legacy of the Progressive Era • Progressives saw these mass parties as the problem and so tried to restrain them: • Replacing corrupt party members in the bureaucracy with professionals • Off-cycle local elections • Non-Partisan local elections (Nebraska still has a non-partisan legislature) • Literacy tests and poll taxes to ensure only those who were educated could vote • Citizenship requirements for voting • Expanded franchise to women and Native Americans who would support Prohibition and other Progressive goals • End party ticket voting by replacing it with the secret ballot

11. More about the Ballot • We use the Australianor secret ballot • The Australian ballot allows a person to select a candidate of any party in each race • Introduced during the 1880s and rapidly spread to over 90% of jurisdictions by 1896—helped usher in the Progressive Era • Replaced the Partisan ballot (see illustration below)

12. Ballots Compared Modern Secret Ballot, 2012 Party Ticket, 1876

13. Post-Progressive Developments • Primary elections • Also in the South, the “White Primary” • Party Conventions and Nomination processes • Expansion of the Franchise: • Women (1920) • Native Americans (1924) • Twenty-Fourth Amendment (1964) • Voting Rights Act (1965) • Twenty-Seventh Amendment (1971)

14. Current Debates • Backtracking from Progressive Era Reforms • Push to align local and national elections to increase participation • “Strong mayor” system to break local Iron Triangles • Redistricting Reform/Term Limits • Electronic Voting Machines • Voter ID/Voter Fraud • Absentee/Early Voting • Same-Day Registration

15. The Election Process Today • Most elections have two stages: • Primary • General • Presidential election is more complex • National coverage means that the primary process matters more • Other party officials also get a say—superdelegates • Electoral College means that the general election is not the end

16. Primaries • A primary election is held prior to the General Election to narrow the field • In closed primaries, only members of a particular party may vote in that party’s primary • In open primaries, voters may vote in the primary for the party of their choice (Note that the Supreme Court has banned this) • In blanket primaries, voters select their top candidate regardless of party (candidates from all parties on a single list) • Parties prefer closed primaries to control their brands, but the public pays for primary elections, so others argue everyone should have a say • Philosophers argue that top-two systems like the blanket party may reduce the possible negative impact of a plurality system

17. Typical Election Process

18. Presidential Election Cycle I • Iowa Straw Poll • (August) • New Hampshire Primary • (February) • “Super Tuesday” • (1st week in March) Conven-tion • Iowa Caucuses • (January) • South Carolina (Nevada-Dem only) • (Late Feb) • Other Primaries • (March-June)

19. Presidential Election Cycle II Inauguration (January 20th)

20. Part II: The Logic of Voting

21. Preliminaries • The historical question of when did people get the right to vote in American history is distinct from the economic and psychological questions of why do people vote and who do they vote for/how do they choose who they vote for • We also have to consider the parties again—if a party’s aim is to win, how can they do this most effectively? • We will assume that both voters and parties are rational in a broad sense

22. The Logic of Not Voting • Voting is difficult! • Who to vote for • Must register in advance • Must fill out the ballot • May need to travel to polling place or request absentee ballot in advance • Benefits may be small • Your vote won’t change the results • Direct tangible benefits may be miniscule (yay, a sticker!)

23. Changing the Question • Anthony Downs (1957) changed the question from “why don’t people vote” to “why should a person vote”. Logic: • A potential voter must weigh his or her utility of voting for Candidate A against Candidate B. • Most of the time, a single vote will not change the outcome • Therefore, the utility of switching a vote is tiny • Therefore, as long as the electorate is large, any cost should lead a person to rationally not vote!

24. The Paradox of Non-Voting • People do vote • In fact, people believe their vote matters, and are willing to put up with high costs to vote • Why? • Riker and Ordeshook (1968) proposed that it’s because people care about civic duty (Republican values) • We can also think about this in Liberal and Traditionalist terms—we may turn out as a show of group solidarity or social pressure

25. Differences in Turnout • Downs’ logic helps explain why different groups might show up at different rates • Voters with greater ability to absorb the costs of voting show up at a higher rater, as the table in your book (p. 490) shows • Institutions can also impact turnout—Ansolabehere and Koninsky look at one such case

26. Turnout over time

27. Turnout over time—another view

28. Why the difference? • Traditionally, divide by Voting Age Population (VAP) • Maybe exclude women (before 1920) and African-Americans in the South during Jim Crow • Michael McDonald had the insight that eligibility varies • We should divide by Voting Eligible Population • Only those who could legally vote should be counted • California 2012=45% by VAP, 56% by VEP!

29. Increasing Turnout • Some argue the US has low turnout because of low registration • Many of the reforms we saw earlier (Voter ID, Same-Day Registration) concern the costs of registration • Motor-Voter, internet registration, and permanent absentee voting decrease the cost, but are more open to abuse • How concerned should we be about fraud?

30. Part III: Political Engagement

31. Beyond Voting • Participationis a broad term for ways in which people become involved in politics. It includes not only voting but other forms: • Donating money • Working for a campaign • Attending public meetings • Attending party rallies • Signing petitions • Protesting • Giving time or money to interest groups • Joining interest groups • Actively seeking information • Participating in public debates • Contacting public officials for personal reasons • Contacting public officials for policy reasons

32. Engagement, 2011

33. Participation in Political Culture • Who participates and how they participate is influenced by two factors: • American political culture • Demographic background • Some forms of participation are more socially acceptable (joining a party, signing a petition) than others (protest) • This varies based on background

34. Turnout by Group

35. Engagement by Group

36. Immigrants and Engagement • New Americans often bring with them forms of political participation from their home countries • This can lead to culture clash—2005 Immigration Protests • In addition, immigrant groups are often targets for corrupt politicians—as on the Vernon and Bell City Councils • Some evidence suggests that as this process is generational • Lisa Garcia Bedolla looks at this phenomenon in different Los Angeles-area Latino communities

37. Part IV: The View from the Parties

38. Driving up Participation • Parties know that voters may find it difficult to vote, so they engage in practices to increase turnout among their desired voters • Republicans set up registration drives at suburban Walmarts, Democrats on college campuses • Parties have events and rallies constantly during campaign season, getting big-name speakers out in the public • Parties are actively engaged in focus groups and polling research to try to reach out to voters on specific issues

39. Campaign Engagement

40. Reaching the Public • While the social functions of parties are important, ultimately voters are choosing someone to run government • Parties use various strategies to convince people to vote for their candidate: • Branding • Policy Adaption (Median Voter Theorem) • Candidate selection • Advertisements/Media strategy • All of this depends on money!

41. Branding the Party • Parties are caught between the need to appeal to their core voters and attracting moderate voters • If they go too far in either direction, it opens the door for the other side • Parties are also caught between their national platform and local demands

42. Median Voter Theorem • A party needs 50%+1 of the vote to get elected • Voters will vote for the party closer to them on a policy issue—if I want defense spending at $400 billion, I will vote for $350 before I’d vote for $500. • Therefore, if I’m devising policy for a party, I want to capture the voter in the middle—the median voter • Therefore, parties will target their policies to the same voter—the median voter

43. Classical Median Voter Theorem

44. Limits of the Median Voter Theorem • If parties take the same position, how can we distinguish them? • Parties may have some sort of valence, personal or symbolic quality • Parties may be slightly left or right of the median voter—far enough to capture 50%, but not enough to allow the other side to capture the median voter • What about the extremes? • The classic reasoning is they have nowhere to go; however, they can stay home • Parties thus must not move so far to the center they lose their base

45. Median Voter Theorem on the Campaign • The problems of Median Voter Theorem are exacerbated in American politics because of the primary election • The Median Voter in a primary election is different from the Median Voter in a general election, especially in closed primaries • Candidates must often run hard to the right or left to win a primary election, then crawl back to the center for the general • Often leads to accusations of “betraying his/her base”—Meg Whitman on immigration

46. Political Chameleons: Candidates • One way of getting around this problem is getting a good candidate • Good candidates have positive valence: voters like them personally (the presidential candidate voters “most want to have a beer with” generally wins) • Parties can win seats by recruiting quality candidates—or lose by failing to do

47. Republican 2012 Primary

48. The Money-Incumbent Success Paradox • We would expect that donors want to give money to popular candidates—it’s what we see in the Presidential race • Even among challengers, we see that challengers who raise more money do better • However, for incumbent Congressmen, the most likely to be reelected raise the least, and as the amount raised increases, the likelihood of reelection decreases!

49. Challenger Spending: As Expected

50. Incumbent Spending: Paradoxical