political campaigns and elections...political campaigns and elections elections and voting: why...

Political Campaigns and ElectionsElections and voting: Why should they matter to you?

Vocabulary

Glossary VocabularyCards

plurality

winner-take-all system

primary election

general election

caucus

party base

stump speech

coattail effect

Introduction

P O L I T I C A L C A M P A I G N S ...

2020 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

On Election Day, manypeople wait in long lines inorder to cast their votes.

Does any one person’s vote really matter? Some people do not think so.They contend that a single vote can hardly make a difference in anelection that involves millions of voters. Even at the local level, a singlevote is unlikely to have much impact.

In the presidential election of 2000, however, a relatively small numberof votes did matter. That year, Democratic nominee Al Gore ran againstRepublican candidate George W. Bush. More than 100 million peoplevoted in that election. When the votes were tallied, Gore had won thepopular vote by a little more than 500,000 votes. Although a margin ofhalf a million votes sounds like a lot, it represented only about one-halfof 1 percent of the total.

Despite Gore’s slim lead, Bush became president by winning theElectoral College vote. This was only the third time in U.S. history that acandidate had won in the Electoral College without receiving aplurality of the popular vote.

Not surprisingly, Bush’s victory in 2000 was controversial. The election


Level: A 2020 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

was so close that, in the end, it came down to a few contested votes ina single state—Florida. There, George Bush won by a mere 537 votes.This led some counties to recount their votes by hand. To stop therecount, Bush filed a lawsuit known as Bush v. Gore. The Court voted tostop the recount, as it violated the equal protection clause of theFourteenth Amendment. Under our winner-take-all system, that slimmargin of victory gave Bush all, rather than half, of the state’s 25electoral votes—and the presidency.

Of course, 537 votes, the number that effectively put Bush in the WhiteHouse, is more than 1 vote. If just 269 more Gore supporters had goneto the polls that day, and the same number of Bush supporters hadstayed home instead of voting, the result might have been verydifferent.

The Florida tally was not the only close count in the 2000 elections. InNew Mexico, Gore beat Bush by just 366 votes. An even tighter raceunfolded in Michigan, where congressional candidate Mike Rogers wona seat in the House by a mere 88 votes.

The 2000 elections show that a few votes can, and often do, matter.The importance of voting, however, goes well beyond the vote tally inany one election. Voting is one of the main ways that Americans takepart in the political process. An informed voter is likely to be anengaged citizen, and an active citizenry is essential to a healthydemocracy. In that sense, every American who votes is helping to keepour democratic system alive and well.

1. The Right To VoteElections are a regular feature of this nation’s political system. In fact,Americans hold more elections to elect more officeholders than anyother nation in the world. This emphasis on elections stems from theconstitutional principle of popular sovereignty. If political authoritycomes from the people, what better way to exercise that authority thanby voting? In a 2018 opinion survey, the majority felt that voting in anelection was a crucial part of citizenship.

Yet, a sizable percentage of Americans do not vote regularly.Furthermore, throughout our history, many Americans have beendenied voting rights. In many cases, the right to vote has been wononly after years of struggle.

Who Voted Then: The Gradual Expansion of Suffrage When the



U.S. Constitution was written in 1787, it said very little about elections.The Constitution did establish a procedure for electing the presidentand vice president. But it left most other details about elections andvoting rights to the states.

At that time, suffrage, or the right to vote, was limited in the UnitedStates. In 1789, most states restricted suffrage to white males whoowned substantial property. John Jay, one of the authors of TheFederalist Papers, expressed a view common to many of the nation’sfounders when he said, “those who own the country ought to governit.”

Over time, however, suffrage was gradually extended. During the1820s, a political movement to eliminate property qualifications forvoting swept the country. Propelled by Andrew Jackson, the first“common man” to become president, states opened their voting rolls toall white males. This political movement also pioneered the use ofpolitical parties to mobilize voters and get them to the polls.

After the Civil War, the adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment advancedthe principle of universal male suffrage. This amendment, ratified in1870, granted voting rights to all male citizens, including AfricanAmericans.

Early in the 20th century, other measures expanded voting rights evenmore. The Seventeenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, provided for thedirect election of senators. Previously, senators had been elected bystate legislatures. The Nineteenth Amendment, approved in 1920, gavewomen in all states the right to vote. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924helped extend suffrage to American Indians by granting themcitizenship.

The Civil Rights Movement and Suffrage For many AfricanAmericans, the expansion of suffrage after the Civil War proved short-lived. For nearly a century after the war, many states—especially in theSouth—found ways to deny suffrage to blacks, despite the FifteenthAmendment. They erected legal barriers, such as literacy tests and polltaxes, to keep African Americans from the polls.



In the 1950s and 1960s, leaders of the civil rights movement madeexpansion of voting rights one of their key goals. They organized massprotests, calling on the federal government to ensure that AfricanAmericans could exercise their voting rights, no matter where theylived. They achieved their first victory with the ratification of theTwenty-fourth Amendment in 1964. This amendment banned poll taxes,which had kept many poor African Americans from voting.

A second major advance came with the passage of the Voting RightsAct of 1965, which banned literacy tests. In some parts of the South,this law placed voter registration, or the process of signing up tovote, under federal authority. In the past, local election officials in theseareas had prevented African Americans from registering to vote. As aresult of the Voting Rights Act, the number of African American votersincreased dramatically in the South.

Voting Today: Easy Registration and Low Turnout The nextmajor expansion of suffrage occurred with the ratification of theTwenty-sixth Amendment in 1971. This amendment lowered the votingage to 18. Previously, most states had required voters to be at least 21years old. This amendment was adopted during national debates overthe Vietnam War. At the time, many people argued that if 18-year-oldswere old enough to be drafted and sent into battle, then they were oldenough to vote.

Today, there are four basic requirements to be eligible to vote in theUnited States. In most states, you must be

a U.S. citizen.at least 18 years old.a resident of the state.a legally registered voter.

To register to vote, you must fill out a form that asks for such basicinformation as your address and date of birth. You may also be requiredto provide the registrar of voters with proof of your identity.



Many voters believe that theirvote does not matter.However, the cumulativeeffect of non-voting can besubstantial. If mostAmericans fail to vote, thenelection results do notrepresent the will of themajority.

In general, voter registration closes a month or so before an election.However, North Dakota does not require residents to register beforevoting. Several other states allow voters to register at their pollingplace on Election Day.

To encourage more people to vote, Congress has tried to make thevoterregistration process easier. In 1993, for example, it passed theNational Voter Registration Act, better known as the Motor Voter Act.This law requires that states allow residents to register to vote whileapplying for a driver’s license. It also requires states to providevoterregistration forms at social service offices and by mail.

The Motor Voter Act has been quite successful in promoting voterregistration. By the 1996 presidential election, 18 million new votershad registered. Since the act was passed, there has been some increasein registration among voting-age Americans.

Increased voter registration, however, has not translated into highvoter turnout on Election Day. Voter turnout is the proportion of thevoting-age population that actually votes. Today, the United States hasone of the lowest voter turnouts among the world’s establisheddemocracies. Between 50 and 60 percent of American voters turn outto vote in presidential elections. In contrast, figures for many Europeandemocracies exceed 70 percent.



Political scientists point to a number of factors that might explain thisdifference in voter turnout. For example, ballots in some countries maybe simpler, with fewer candidates and issues to vote on than in atypical American election. U.S. elections take place on workdays, whichmeans that many voters must take time off from their jobs to go to thepolls. In many other countries, elections are held on weekends orofficial Election Day holidays.

In some European countries, such as Belgium and Italy, voting iscompulsory, not voluntary as in the United States. Voters who do notparticipate in elections in those countries may face fines or have theirright to vote revoked.

Low U.S. turnout rates may also reflect the fact that a majority of statesdeny convicted felons voting rights while in jail, on parole, or onprobation. Such restrictions deny about 3 adults in 100 the right tovote.

Low voter-turnout rates have fueled concern that Americans arebecoming less connected to their communities and see less reason toget involved in politics. Experts say that in the 2016 presidentialelection, only about 61 percent of voting-age Americans voted, adecrease from the 2012 and 2008 elections.

2. Choosing Candidates forPublic Office:The Nomination ProcessApproximately half a million people hold elective office in the UnitedStates. Candidates for nonpartisan offices, such as county sheriff,typically face one another in a single election. The candidate with thehighest vote totals wins. For most national or state offices, however,candidates must compete for their party’s nomination in a primaryelection. If they win this election, they go on to face the nominees ofother parties in the general election, held later that year.

Primary Elections: Closed, Open, Blanket, and NonpartisanPrimary elections, though common in the United States, are rare in therest of the world. The idea of holding elections to choose a party’snominees was popularized during the Progressive Era in the early1900s. Before then, nominees were often selected by party leaders whomet behind closed doors. Primary elections brought the selection



process out into the open and allowed party members to participate.Today, primary elections take several forms.

Closed primaries. States with a closed primary limit voting toregistered party members. Independents are not allowed to participate.In some states, voters may declare their party affiliation on Election Dayand vote in that party’s primary. In general, party leaders prefer aclosed primary because it limits voting to the party faithful.

Open primaries. States with an open primary allow all voters to votein primary elections. In this system, also known as pick-a-partyprimaries, voters decide which party primary to vote in on Election Day.Independent voters like this system because it allows them toparticipate in the primary of their choice. However, party leaders worryabout “raiding” in open primaries. Raiding occurs when voters crossparty lines to vote in the other party’s primary. Usually their purpose isto help nominate a weak candidate that their own party nominee canthen easily defeat in the general election.

Blanket primaries. In a blanket primary, voters can pick and chooseone candidate for each office from any party’s primary list. Today, thissystem is used in only a few states.

Nonpartisan primaries. Primaries are sometimes used to narrow thefield in nonpartisan contests, such as for school board or city councilelections. If one candidate wins a majority in a nonpartisan primary,that person takes office. If not, the two top vote-getters face each otherin the general election.



In 2016, eleven states held their primaries on March 1st, also known asSuper Tuesday. This number was larger in 2012, when 13 states heldtheir primaries on Super Tuesday.

Joining the Race: Self-Announcement, Exploratory Committees,and Drafts To participate in a primary, the person running for officemust become a declared candidate. This can happen in several ways.The most common is self-announcement, also known as throwingyour hat into the ring. Candidates simply declare their interest inseeking election to a public office. Self-announcement is usually doneat a press conference or other public event. In 2015, Hillary Clintonchose to self-announce her candidacy for president with a YouTubevideo.

Before making a formal announcement, however, the candidate mayform an exploratory committee. This is a group of advisers whoevaluate the candidate’s chances for election. Exploratory committeesoften take several weeks to test the waters and determine the level ofpublic support for their candidate. If the committee decides thatcircumstances are favorable, the candidate makes a formalannouncement of candidacy.

For presidential candidates, announcements are sometimes made as



early as two years before the election. By announcing early, candidatesgive themselves extra time to raise the funds and the support they willneed for the hard primary campaign ahead.

In some cases, candidates do not self-announce. Instead, they wait for agroundswell of public support for their candidacy. In effect, they allowtheir supporters to draft them into the race.

Establishing a Campaign Organization To win office, candidatesmust run a well-organized campaign. In most cases, this requires acampaign organization. These organizations vary in size andcomplexity.

Running for a city council seat might require a very small, localcampaign organization. This group might consist of no more than avolunteer campaign manager and a treasurer. The candidate workswith this small team to write speeches, print posters and flyers, andmanage other details of the campaign.

Running for president, on the other hand, demands a large, complexorganization. A presidential race requires the services of hundreds ofpeople, from unpaid volunteers to highly paid campaign professionals.Included in this staff would be a campaign manager, a public opinionpollster, a media consultant, a fundraising specialist, accountants,lawyers, and a press secretary. A presidential campaign organizationwould also have offices in every state. Of course, to set up and runsuch an organization requires money.



In April 2015, Hillary Clinton declared her candidacy by posting a videowhere she said, “Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want tobe that champion.” Clinton posted the video on YouTube and shared iton social media platforms. Republican candidate Donald Trumpannounced his candidacy in a speech in New York. He later shared thevideo of his speech on Twitter.

In choosing a campaigntheme and message,candidates often consult pollsand pollsters. This cartoontakes aim at the kind ofadvice pollsters may give.

Building a War Chest by Dialing for Dollars Jesse Unruh, aCalifornia politician, once observed, “Money is the mother’s milk ofpolitics.” Without money, a political campaign cannot survive for verylong. This is true at all levels, whether a candidate is running for a local



office or for president of the United States.

At the start of a campaign, candidates spend a great deal of time andenergy raising money the old-fashioned way. They “dial for dollars,”getting on the phone to ask associates and supporters for money. Theyhold fundraisers, such as $1,000-a-plate dinners, to solicit contributionsfrom major donors. They also organize direct-mail campaigns and setup websites designed to attract funds from large numbers of smalldonors. If a candidate’s fundraising efforts are successful, the campaignwill build up a war chest, or funds that can be used to move thecampaign forward.

During presidential primary campaigns, the candidate with the largestwar chest is often hailed as the front-runner. During the 2000 election,for example, George W. Bush raised a record amount of money early inthe campaign and became the leading Republican candidate. A yearbefore the first presidential primaries in 2016, Hillary Clinton andBernie Sanders were declared frontrunners in the race for theDemocratic nomination based on their early success at raising recordamounts of campaign funds.

Developing Campaign Strategies and Themes In most states, theroad to nomination in partisan races is the primary election. But somestates use a different method: the party caucus. A caucus is a closedmeeting of people from one political party who will select candidates ordelegates.

In a caucus state, small groups of party members meet in theircommunities to discuss the various candidates. Each caucus thenchooses delegates to represent its views at the party’s stateconvention. Approximately a dozen states hold caucuses. The bestknown are the Iowa caucuses, which take place early in presidentialelection years. The Iowa caucuses are watched closely because theyprovide the first indications of how well each candidate is doing atwinning the support of average voters.

To prepare for caucuses and primaries, candidates must develop acampaign strategy. If this plan of action works well and the candidatewins the nomination, some of that strategy may carry over to thegeneral election. Key elements of a strategy include tone, theme, andtargeting.

Tone. Candidates must decide whether to adopt a positive or anegative tone for their campaigns. This means determining how muchtime and money to spend stressing the positive things about their



candidacy and how much to spend criticizing their opponents.

Theme. Every candidate needs a theme—a simple, appealing idea thatgets repeated over and over. A theme helps distinguish a candidatefrom their opponents in the primaries. It is also critical in the generalelection, when candidates from different parties compete. Whenrunning for reelection in 1984, Ronald Reagan emphasized optimism,as expressed in his slogan, “It’s morning again in America.” For the2008 election, the late John McCain organized his campaign around thetheme of patriotism with the slogan “Country first.” In the 2016election, Hillary Clinton’s campaign used a number of slogans, mostnotably “I’m with her” to emphasize her hope to be the first femalepresident.

Targeting. Candidates must also decide whether to target specificgroups of voters. Is there any group—blue-collar workers, women, themiddle class, the elderly—that is particularly unhappy with the statusquo? If so, that group is a likely target for specially designed appealsfrom candidates.

Campaign strategy also involves how candidates moderate theirmessage for different audiences. For the primaries, candidates try toappeal to the party base. The party base consists of party activistswho are more likely to vote in primary elections than less-committedcentrists. This base also holds more extreme views than a centristvoter. As a result, candidates often emphasize more liberal orconservative views in the primaries than they would in a generalelection campaign.

Reaching the Voters: Retail Politics, Wholesale Politics, andMicrotargeting Candidates for public office try to reach voters invarious ways, both during the primaries and in the run-up to thegeneral election. Political scientists have identified three generalapproaches: retail politics, wholesale politics, and microtargeting.



To win elective office, candidates must first win their party’snomination. The process is similar for both congressional andpresidential candidates. Presidential nominees, however, have theadded step of the national convention.

Retail politics. This meet-and-greet style of campaigning relies ondirect contact with voters. Candidates take part in parades, dinners,and other local events. They stand outside factories and shopping mallsto shake hands and kiss babies. During these face-to-face encounterscandidates try to present themselves as in touch with ordinary people.



During the primary season, presidential candidates use differentapproaches to win the candidacy. They take part in retail politics tomeet and greet voters individually at events, like Hillary Clinton did atthis 2016 campaign event. They also use wholesale methods designedto reach large numbers of voters. One popular forum is the televiseddebate. Here, Republican candidates for president debate during the2015-2016 primary season.

Wholesale politics. Many voters can be reached only by large-scalemail or media campaigns. Candidates may develop direct-mailcampaigns in which thousands of letters are sent to voters asking fortheir support. Even more common is the use of both paid and freemedia. Candidates and their staff prepare television ads and take partin televised town hall meetings and debates. These broadcasts canreach millions of people at a time. The internet is also being used toreach voters on a large scale. Most candidates have a professionalwebsite that has an archive of campaign ads and a link that allowsvoters to directly donate to a campaign. They also use social mediaplatforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram to reach out tovoters.

Microtargeting. This campaign approach uses databases to targetnarrow groups of voters and then reach them with carefully craftedmessages. According to the Washington Post, candidates who adoptthis technique “use the latest data-mining technology to vacuum everylast scrap of information about voters.” Armed with that data, they“churn out custom-tailored messages designed to herd their supportersto the polls.” These messages present the candidate’s position onissues of importance to each targeted group. For example, a candidatemight target a message on social security to senior citizens.

Locking Up the Nomination A few months before the presidential



election, the Democratic and Republican parties each hold a nationalconvention in a major American city. In the past, party conventionswere a critical step in the nomination process. Party delegates wouldargue over the candidates, sometimes going through several ballotsbefore picking a nominee. On occasion, an underdog would emergefrom the pack to challenge, and even overtake, the leading candidate.

Today, however, presidential nominees are chosen through the primaryand caucus process. The winner then announces their choice for vicepresident. The national convention has, as a result, evolved into a ritualto formally announce the party nominees and present them to thenation. The nominees also work with party leaders to frame a platformfor the upcoming election, laying out the party’s position on majorissues. In addition, the convention helps unite the party and excite theparty base.

The Other Way to Run for Office: Nomination by Petition Not allcandidates for public office go through the usual nomination process.For independent or third-party candidates, there is another way to geton the ballot: by petition.

The petition process involves collecting signatures of a specific numberof qualified voters in support of one’s candidacy. The number ofsignatures needed depends on the office being sought.

The laws governing nomination by petition differ from state to state. In2016, a candidate running for president needed 1,000 valid signaturesto be put on the ballot in Washington state. In contrast, Californiarequired a candidate to gather the number of signatures equal to 1percent of the registered voters from the previous presidential election,or approximately 180,000 signatures.

These variations can make it difficult for independent and third-partycandidates to get on the ballot in all 50 states. In 2000, for example,Ralph Nader, the presidential nominee for the Green Party, appeared onthe ballot in 43 states. Four years later, Nader was able to qualify forthe ballot in only 34 states.



National conventions are held after the primary season ends. Theyused to be part of the nominating process. Today, party gatherings areoccasions for raising party spirit and cheering the party’s nominee.

3. Campaigning in GeneralElectionsOnce the primary season ends, the candidates who have won theirparty’s nomination shift gears to campaign in the general election.Although the Constitution calls for regularly scheduled elections, it doesnot specify when they should be held. Congress has set the date forpresidential and midterm elections as the first Tuesday after the firstMonday in November of even-numbered years. This is different fromparliamentary systems, in which the prime minister can call a nationalelection at any time.

Presidential, Midterm, and Off-Year Elections There are threetypes of general elections in the United States: presidential, midterm,and off-year. Presidential elections are held every four years oneven-numbered years. Midterm elections occur in the even-numbered years between presidential elections. Off-year elections



are held in odd-numbered years.

Elected officials in the United States hold office for fixed terms. TheConstitution sets the terms of the president and members of Congress.The only federal official affected by term limits is the president. TheTwenty-second Amendment, ratified in 1951, limits the president to twoterms in office. The terms for state officeholders are set by stateconstitutions.

Building a Winning Coalition: Motivating the Base While MovingToward the Middle Candidates gearing up for a general electionmust make a number of changes in their campaign strategy. One is toshift their attention from winning over their fellow party members totaking on the nominee of the other major party.

To appeal to a larger cross-section of voters, many candidates decideto modify their political message. In the primaries, the ideas andpromises that appealed to the party base, with its more extreme views,may need to be moderated to attract centrists and independents.Ideally, however, this move to the middle should be done in a way thatdoes not upset or alienate the party base.

Democrat John Kerry faced this delicate balancing act during the 2004election. During the primary season, Kerry presented himself to partyvoters as an ardent critic of the war in Iraq. He did this, in part, to drainsupport away from his Democratic opponent, Howard Dean. Dean’sstrong antiwar views had fired up the party base.



Once Kerry had won the nomination, however, he began moving to themiddle. In the run-up to the general election, he tried to soften hisantiwar message to win more support from moderate and independentvoters. However, his efforts backfired when his Republican opponent,George W. Bush, accused him of being a “flip-flopper” on the war issue.Kerry stuck to his more centrist position for the rest of the campaign,but he lost the election to Bush.

Voter turnout tends to be lower in midterm elections than inpresidential elections, as the graph indicates. Turnout in off-yearelections is usually even lower.

Issues Versus Image: Stump Speeches, Photo Ops, andTelevised Debates In the weeks leading up to the general election,candidates continue to hone their message and polish their image forvoters. They spend increased time on the campaign trail, making publicappearances and giving variations of their standard stump speech.This term harkens back to the days when candidates would stand on atree stump to deliver their speeches.



Politicians often use photoops to portray themselves ina positive light. Here, TexasSenator Ted Cruz poses withpresident Donald Trumpwhile campaigning forreelection in 2018. With aphotograph like this one,Cruz hoped to convinceTrump supporters to vote forhim. Cruz went on to win theelection.

During these final weeks, candidates make every effort to remain in thepublic eye. One way to do this is to stage photo opportunities, or photoops, for the media. The hope is that pictures of the event will appear onthe nightly news and in the next morning’s newspaper.

For congressional candidates, a favorite photo op involves jointappearances with the president or with their party’s presidentialnominee. The candidate hopes that being seen in public with such apowerful figure will give their campaign an extra boost. This boost,known as the coattail effect, may help a struggling candidate ride intooffice on the “coattails” of the next president.

The coattail effect does not always work as hoped. In 1992, DemocratBill Clinton won the presidential election, but his coattails were tooshort to help fellow party members. The Democrats lost ten seats inCongress that year. Four years later, however, Clinton won reelectionwith longer coattails. In the 1996 election, the Democrats won eightseats in Congress. The coattail effect remains unpredictable, workingfor some candidates in some campaigns while having little effect inothers.



Another way for candidates to boost their exposure is to take part intelevised debates. In presidential elections, these debates offer manyvoters their first opportunity to see and hear the candidates discuss theissues in any depth. However, the image that candidates project indebates may be just as important as what they have to say. Acandidate who is attractive, well-spoken, and relaxed during a debatewill probably fare better than one who appears stiff and ill at ease onscreen.

The impact of televised debates on voters is hard to assess. Whatcandidates do in debates may sway some voters, while simplyconfirming for others the choice they have already made. Nonetheless,candidates prepare carefully for these televised events, knowing thateven though a good performance may not win them that many votes, apoor showing could lose them the election.

Getting Out the Vote In the last days before the election, campaignworkers focus on getting out the vote. This means making sure that allvoters who are likely to support their candidate actually cast theirballots.

In the past, almost all votes were cast at a designated polling placewithin each precinct. Today, the majority of Americans still go to thepolls to vote on Election Day. However, a growing number of votersnow cast absentee ballots, or mail-in ballots that voters can useinstead of going to the polls. Since 2000, for example, the state ofOregon has conducted all of its elections by mail. A few states alsoallow early voting at designated voting places in the month beforeElection Day.

Campaign organizations use various tactics to get out the vote beforeand on Election Day. Before the election, volunteers talk with voters byphone or by walking through precincts and ringing doorbells to find outwho is likely to support their candidate. On Election Day, they set upphone banks staffed by volunteers who call supporters and urge themto vote. The organizations may also offer free rides to voters who haveno other way of getting to the polls.

Campaigns may also send poll watchers to polling places on ElectionDay. Poll watchers are volunteers who monitor the voting process. Theirmain job is to prevent voter fraud or efforts to intimidate voters. Pollwatchers may also observe the tallying of ballots to ensure that allvotes are properly counted.

Because most voting regulations are set by states and counties, voting



methods and types of ballots have varied from one community to thenext. In the past, most voters used some form of paper ballots or lever-controlled voting machines. Some paper ballots are relatively easy touse and count, while others are not. The infamous butterfly ballot usedin Florida in the 2000 general election confused many voters. As aresult, many voted for the wrong candidate by mistake.

Florida also had trouble with punch-card ballots in the 2000 election.Voters mark these ballots by punching out small bits of paper, calledchads, beside their choices. Sometimes, however, the chad does notfully detach from the ballot. These “hanging chads” make it almostimpossible for the machines used to count ballots to complete anaccurate tally. Every time such ballots are fed through the vote-counting machine, it comes up with a different count.

Florida was not alone in having problems. Across the country in the2000 elections, almost 2 million votes were not properly counted byvote-counting machines. To solve this problem, Congress enacted theHelp America Vote Act of 2002. The goal of this act is to help statesreplace their old voting machines and punch-card ballots with moreaccurate voting technology, such as optical scanners and touch-screenmachines. Progress, however, has been slow, in part because ofquestions raised about the accuracy and reliability of the newerelectronic voting systems.

Who Wins? Once the votes are counted, the winners of the electionare declared. In most presidential elections, the winner receives amajority of the popular vote. That was the case in 2004, when GeorgeW. Bush received 51 percent of the votes cast.



In Columbus, Ohio, thesevoters are using an electronicvoting machine during anelection. However, eachvoting method has some riskinvolved. Electronic voting,for example, is susceptible totechnological malfunctions.

When three or more candidates are competing, the winner sometimesreceives less than 50 percent of the vote. This occurred in both the1992 and the 1996 elections, when Bill Clinton won the presidency with43 percent and 49 percent of the popular vote, respectively. In bothcases, a third-party candidate, Ross Perot, captured enough votes toprevent either of the major party candidates from winning a majority.

Our nation’s winner-take-all system has a major effect on presidentialelections. In most states, the candidate winning the popular votecaptures all of that state’s Electoral College votes. Nebraska andMaine, however, use a different system. They allot Electoral Collegevotes based on the popular vote in each of the states’ congressionaldistricts.

Critics point out that the Electoral College system encouragescandidates to focus on populous states with the largest number ofelectors. In theory, a candidate can win the presidency by capturing the11 largest states and losing the other 39.



This map highlights the 11 battleground states targeted by both majorcandidates in the 2016 presidential election. These states are soevenly divided between Democratic and Republican voters that theycould swing either way, thereby adding crucial electoral votes to thewinner’s tally. Presidential campaigns spend far more time and moneyin battleground states than in states that already appear committed toone candidate or the other.

In general, however, candidates pay the most attention to a fewbattleground states, where the vote is likely to be close, whileignoring states where the outcome is more predictable. For example, aRepublican presidential candidate can easily expect to win Texas andother conservative southern states. Similarly, a Democratic candidatecan expect to win Massachusetts and other liberal New England states.For that reason, both sides target their time and money on states suchas Ohio, Florida, and Michigan, which can be won by either candidate.

The winner-take-all-system tends to reinforce the nation’s two-partysystem. Most public offices go to candidates of the two major partiesbecause one or the other is likely to win the popular vote. Third parties,which usually have a narrower appeal, have much less hope of winningseats in Congress or state legislatures. Although the winner-take-all



system promotes stability in government, it tends to exclude less-mainstream candidates from public office.

In contrast, many European democracies have adopted a proportionalrepresentation system. In these countries, citizens usually vote forparties rather than for individual candidates. A party wins seats inparliament based on its proportion of the popular vote. For example, ifa party wins one-third of the vote in an election, it is awardedapproximately one-third of the seats in parliament. Proportionalrepresentation thus gives smaller parties a chance to take part ingovernment.

The Electoral College Debate As important as the popular votemay seem, it is the Electoral College vote that decides presidentialelections. The framers of the Constitution devised the Electoral Collegesystem because they did not trust voters who were spread out over 13states to choose the head of the executive branch. Instead, they gavethat responsibility to a group of electors who might better know whowas best suited for that job.

At first, each state legislature chose its own electors. In 1789, all 69electors who had been chosen this way cast their ballots for GeorgeWashington as president. A majority cast their votes for John Adams asvice president. After 1800, states began allowing voters to chooseelectors. When you vote for president in the next election, you willactually be voting for electors who have promised to support yourcandidate.



Many Americans find theElectoral College systemconfusing at best— and atworst, undemocratic. Somewould like to replace it with asystem based on the popularvote. However, manyhighlight the benefits of thissystem, such as protectingthe interests of smaller statesand less populated areas.

The number of electors from each state equals the number of thatstate’s representatives in Congress. For example, Virginia has 2senators and 11 House members, giving it a total of 13 electoral votes.Washington, D.C. has 3 electoral votes. There are 538 electors in all,which means that a candidate must win at least 270 electoral votes tobecome president. If no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes,the House of Representatives selects the president, with each statecasting one vote.

Not surprisingly, the Electoral College system has provoked controversyover the years. The chief criticism is that it is undemocratic. Criticspoint to four elections in U.S. history—in 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016—in which the candidate who won the popular vote failed to win theElectoral College. Most recently in 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popularvote but lost the election to Donald Trump.

For years, critics have called for a reform of the Electoral College. Mostadvocate electing the president by direct popular vote. This changewould require a constitutional amendment. However, many Americansalso support the Electoral College system. Some states, especiallysmaller ones, fear that a reform would reduce their influence in



presidential elections. Under the popular vote system, candidates mightbe motivated to only campaign in large states.

An alternative option is the congressional district method. Under thismethod, now used in Maine and Nebraska, the candidate who wins thepopular vote in each congressional district gets that district’s electoralvote. The overall winner in the state receives the two additionalelectoral votes that represent the state’s senators. The consequence ofthis method is that if it was widespread, candidates might only focus oncampaigning in specific districts rather than in entire states.

Another option is the national popular vote. Under this plan, stateswould cast their electoral votes for the winner of the national popularvote. This change can be implemented by state legislatures, therebyavoiding the need for a constitutional amendment. In 2007, Marylandbecame the first state to adopt this Electoral College reform. Thereform will not go into effect, however, unless approved by enoughstates to constitute a majority of the Electoral College vote. Criticsclaim that there is little benefit to this method and argue that itdiminishes federalism since it reduces the states’ role in elections.

4. Financing ElectionCampaignsIn the United States today, elections are centered more on candidatesthan on political parties. This was not always the case. At one time,candidates relied heavily on their parties to help them win elections.Today, however, candidates behave more like independent politicalactors than party representatives. They depend mainly on their ownpolitical skills and the efforts of their campaign organizations to getelected.

The High Cost of Running for Office Money has played a large partin this shift from party-centered to candidate-centered elections. Ascampaigns have grown more expensive, candidates have come to relyincreasingly on their own fundraising abilities or personal fortunes towin public office. For example, presidential candidates in 2016 spent acombined $1.5 billion on their campaigns. On average, winningcandidates for a seat in the House of Representatives spent $1.3 millioneach. Winners of each Senate seat spent an average of $10.4 million. Infuture elections, the cost will likely be even higher.



American election campaignscenter on candidates ratherthan on parties. Note theabsence of party names onthese campaign posters. Inmany other countries, theparty affiliations ofcandidates play a muchlarger role in campaigns.

The high cost of running for office is a concern for various reasons.Candidates with limited resources may find it hard to compete withthose who are well funded. This lack of a level playing field inevitablyexcludes some people from running for office. In addition, officeholdersmust spend considerable time and energy building up their war chestsfor the next race, rather than focusing on the work of governing.

The main issue, however, is whether campaign contributions corruptelected officials. When candidates win public office, do they use theirpositions to benefit big campaign donors? In other words, do politiciansalways “dance with the ones who brung them,” as the old saying goes?Lawmakers generally say no, but the public is not so sure.

Two Strategies Guide Campaign Donations Political scientistshave observed that individuals and groups donating to campaignschoose from two basic strategies. The first is the electoral strategy.Donors that follow this strategy use their money to help electcandidates who support their views and to defeat those who do not.The goal is to increase the likelihood that Congress, their statelegislature, or their city council will vote for what the donor wants.

The second is the access strategy. Donors following this approach givemoney to the most likely winner in a race, regardless of party. If therace looks close, the donor might even contribute to both campaigns.



The goal is to gain access to whichever party wins the election. Donorsusing this strategy expect to be able to meet with the official theysupported and present their views on issues of interest to them.

Political scientist Michael Smith points out that neither strategy involvestrading money for a promise to vote a certain way on a piece oflegislation. Indeed, offering money for votes is considered bribery andis clearly illegal. Donors found guilty of offering bribes—and lawmakersfound guilty of accepting them—face prison sentences, not to mentionruined careers.

There have been well-publicized examples of such corruption.Nonetheless, political scientists find that most elected officials actaccording to their political principles, no matter who donates to theircampaigns. Donors who make large contributions to campaigns mightenjoy greater access to officeholders. But this may not translate intoinfluence over the actions of those officials.

Where Campaign Money Comes From Almost all of the moneyused to fund election campaigns comes from private sources. A fewwealthy candidates have been able to fund some or all of theircampaigns from their own assets. In 2010, for example, Linda McMahonof Connecticut self-funded almost her entire campaign by spending $50million of her own money on an unsuccessful bid for a seat in the U.S.Senate. The great majority of candidates, however, must reach out totheir supporters for funding.

Most campaign funds come from individual citizens. These donationsare often raised through direct-mail or internet fundraising campaigns.And they are typically fairly small, in the $25 to $100 range. Candidatesalso host fundraisers to raise money from large donors. In the 2017–2018 election cycle, the amount of money an individual could donate toa single candidate was limited by law to $2,700 for the primarycampaign and another $2,700 for the general election. These figuresare periodically adjusted for inflation.

In recent years, political action committees have become an importantsource of campaign funds. PACs are organizations formed bycorporations, labor unions, or interest groups to channel funds intopolitical campaigns. Similar to individual donations, PAC contributionsto a single candidate are limited to $5,000 per year.

Public Funding of Campaigns Another source of money for somecandidates is public funds. A few states, such as Arizona and NewHampshire, use public money to finance campaigns for governor and



state lawmakers. At the federal level, only presidential candidatesreceive public funding. This money comes from taxpayers who check a$3 donation box on their income tax forms. The money accumulatesbetween elections and is made available for both primary and generalelection campaigns.

To qualify for public funds, a candidate must raise at least $5,000 ineach of 20 states in small contributions of $250 or less. Once qualified,candidates can receive federal matching funds of up to $250 for eachadditional contribution they receive. The purpose of these provisions isto encourage candidates to rely mainly on small contributions fromaverage voters.

Public funds come with a catch. Candidates who receive public moneymust agree to limit their campaign spending. As a result, politicians areoften hesitant about accepting public funds.

The future of public funding for presidential elections looks uncertainfor two reasons. One is a drop-off in taxpayer donations for thispurpose. The other is a growing reluctance among presidential hopefulsto accept public funds and to limit their campaign spending.



Candidates running for federal office raise funds in various ways.Donors in some parts of the country contribute far more to campaignsthan do others. In 2016, California topped the nation in terms of totalcontributions, with New York, Washington, D.C., and Texas in second,third, and fourth place, respectively.

Reining in Soft Money and Issue Ads In 1974, Congress createdthe Federal Election Commission to enforce laws that limit campaigncontributions. The FEC requires candidates to keep accurate records ofdonations to their campaigns and to make those records available tothe public. This public disclosure allows voters to see the names of alldonors who contribute $200 or more to any candidate running foroffice.

Some Americans question if campaign contributions give someindividuals and groups more influence than others. Research has failedto prove that members of Congress sell their votes in exchange forcampaign contributions. However, despite this lack of evidence, thepotential influence of campaign contributions has led to someregulation.



Despite FEC oversight, campaign spending spiraled upward during the1980s and 1990s. Much of the money came from interest groups whohad found loopholes in existing campaign finance laws. Calls for reformled to the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in 2002, alsoknown as the McCain- Feingold Act.

The new law attempted to solve two main problems. The first was thegrowing use of soft money to fund election campaigns. Soft money isunregulated money donated to a political party for such purposes asvoter education. In theory, soft money was not to be used to supportindividual campaigns. For this reason, it was not limited by campaignfunding laws. In practice, however, parties used soft money to helpcandidates fund their election bids, thus boosting campaign spending.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act bans the use of soft money inindividual election campaigns. It also limits how much soft money anindividual can contribute to a party. Furthermore, parties can use softmoney only to encourage voter registration and voter turnout.

The second problem was the use of issue ads in campaigns. Issue adsare political ads that are funded and produced by interest groups ratherthan by election campaigns. In theory, these ads focus on issues ratherthan on candidates. Thus, like soft money, they were not regulated bycampaign finance laws. In practice, however, many issue ads werebarely disguised campaign ads. For example, such an ad might discussa pollution problem and then suggest that “Bill Jones,” a lawmaker upfor reelection, is “a friend of polluters.” Even though the ad did not say,“Vote against Bill Jones,” its intention would be to influence how votersviewed the lawmaker.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act bans the broadcast of such thinlydisguised campaign ads in the 60 days leading up to an election. Thispart of the law has been challenged in court, however, by groups thatsee the restrictions as an unconstitutional limit on their FirstAmendment right to free speech. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled inFederal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life that such adscould be banned “only if the ad is susceptible of no reasonableinterpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specificcandidate.”

Finally, the act contains a “stand by your ad” rule that requirescandidates to take responsibility for their campaign commercials.Beginning in the 2004 elections, candidates were required to appear intheir own ads and explicitly endorse the content.



One side effect of the reform act has been the growth of groups knownas 527 committees. These organizations are formed under Section527 of the tax code. Because they are not tied to a political party orcandidate, they are allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts ofmoney to support or oppose candidates.

Many people believe thatmajor donors to campaignshave too much influence inU.S. politics. Campaignfinance laws have had somesuccess in limiting specialinterest donations tocandidates. In addition,Americans can still voteleaders out of office if theleaders do a poor job.

In effect, 527 committees and their donors have found a loophole thatallows the continued use of unregulated soft money in politicalcampaigns. As Senator John McCain, one of the sponsors of the 2002reform law, pointed out, “Money, like water, will look for ways to leakback into the system.”

Super PACs have also emerged as significant backers of politicalcandidates. Unlike PACs, Super PACs may accept unlimited financialdonations for political spending. However, they cannot coordinate withcandidates or directly fund a campaign.

In 2010, two federal court cases paved the way for Super PACs. Thefirst was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In 2008,Citizens United, a conservative group, created a documentary of



Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton after the FEC allowedadvertisements for a documentary that criticized the BushAdministration during the 2004 election. The FEC prevented CitizensUnited from running ads promoting their film in 2009. The case came tothe Supreme Court that same year. In 2010, the Court held that underthe First Amendment, the Government cannot limit corporate politicalspending in candidate elections.

The second case is Speechnow.org v. FEC. The 527 committeeSpeechnow gathered funds from individuals, not corporations, toendorse the election or defeat of federal candidates. In 2007, FECinformed Speechnow that it must register as a PAC if within one year itraised or spent over $1,000 for federal elections. As a result,Speechnow and other individuals disputed the constitutionality of theFEC Act. They argued that by requiring a group to register as a PAC andlimiting the amount an individual could donate to a PAC, it violated aperson’s freedom of speech. The case reached the U.S. Court ofAppeals. In 2010, the court ruled that the government cannot limitcontributions of groups that do not directly contribute to candidates.

5. Voter BehaviorElections are important in a democracy. They allow citizens toparticipate in government. They also serve to check the power ofelected officials. When voters go to the polls, they hold officialsaccountable for their actions. In The Federalist Papers, James Madisonobserved that elections compel leaders

to anticipate the moment when their power is to cease,when their exercise of it is to be reviewed, and when theymust descend to the level from which they were raised;there forever to remain unless a faithful discharge of theirtrust shall have established their title to a renewal of it.

—James Madison, The Federalist No. 57, 1788

Elections are one of the things that distinguish a democracy from adictatorship. Nevertheless, many Americans do not vote.

Who Does and Does Not Vote In any given election, as many astwothirds of all Americans who could vote do not do so. When asked,nonvoters offer a number of reasons for not going to the polls. Manysay they are just too busy. Others cite illness or lack of interest. Politicalscientists who study voting point to three differences between voters



and nonvoters: age, level of education, and income.

Age. The percentage of people voting varies among different agegroups. Most voters are over the age of 30, and voting tends toincrease with age. Once voters reach 75, however, turnout begins todecline, mostly due to ill health. The younger a person is, the less likelythey are to vote. In the 2016 presidential election, only 46.1 percent ofall those in the 18 to 24 age group went to the polls. In contrast, over70 percent of those in the 64 and older age group voted that year.

Education. Voting also varies by level of education. Americans withcollege educations vote in much higher numbers than do high schooldropouts. Almost three-fourths of all eligible voters with Bachelor’sdegrees or higher voted in 2016. Less than one-third of those who lefthigh school without graduating cast ballots.

Income. Voting also varies with income group. Middle-class andwealthy Americans are much more likely to vote than are those living inpoverty. This difference may, in part, reflect the fact that income andeducation are closely intertwined. However, there may be other barriersto voting among the poor. People working at low-wage jobs, forexample, may find it difficult to get time off work or to findtransportation to the polls on Election Day.

How Voters Choose Among Candidates When deciding how tovote, Americans tend to look at three things: the candidate’s partyaffiliation, the candidate’s position on policies and issues raised in thecampaign, and the candidate’s characteristics.

Party affiliation. The party a candidate belongs to is the most criticalfactor that voters consider when choosing who to vote for. MostAmericans still align themselves with a party and vote for itscandidates. This is particularly true when voters are not familiar withthe candidate’s views or experience.

Issues. The issues raised in a campaign are a second factor that votersconsider when evaluating candidates. This is particularly true ofindependent or swing voters , who do not have a strong partyaffiliation. These voters tend to look for candidates who hold positionson the issues that are similar to their own positions.



Young adults do not vote at the rate that older Americans do. Theresult may be an age bias among lawmakers, who are more responsiveto the voters who elected them.

Candidate characteristics. Voters also choose candidates based onpersonal characteristics. These characteristics can be superficial, suchas the candidate’s image or appearance. Voters may be drawn tocandidates who seem friendly, trustworthy, or “presidential.” Acandidate’s characteristics also include their skills and experience. Forexample, a candidate might have a long record of public service thatgives voters confidence in that person’s ability to govern.

This last point touches on another important factor for many voters:whether a candidate is an incumbent already holding office. Unlessincumbents have performed poorly, voters tend to regard them as morereliable and experienced than their opponents. As a result, voters aremuch more likely to vote for an incumbent over an untested challenger.



The U.S. Census Bureausurveys nonvoters after eachelection to find out why theydid not vote. This table showssome of the reasons offeredfor not voting in the 2016election.

Is Nonvoting a Serious Problem? Obviously, it is desirable forcitizens in a democracy to participate in elections. But how serious aproblem is non-voting? Does non-voting behavior mean that peoplehave lost hope in their ability to make a difference? Political scientistspresent two opposing views on these questions.

One view is that nonvoting has negative effects on American society.When groups, such as poorer or younger Americans, do not vote, theyare effectively denied representation in government. This situation canset up a vicious cycle in which certain people do not vote becausegovernment does not serve their needs, and the government does notserve their needs because those people do not vote.

Another, more positive view is that nonvoting represents a basic levelof satisfaction among the population. According to this theory, manypeople do not vote because they are happy with the way things are. Ifthey were not, they would make the effort to vote.

SummaryElections play a major role in American politics. We have moreelections and elected officials than most other democracies. At thesame time, the electoral process is complicated and expensive, andmany voters do not participate.



Suffrage Early in our nation’s history, suffrage was limited to whitemales. As a result of laws and constitutional amendments, almost allcitizens 18 and older now enjoy the right to vote.

Primaries and caucuses Most candidates for public office must firstwin the nomination of their party. To do so, they compete in primaryelections and caucuses for the support of party members.

General elections The nominees of each party face each other ingeneral elections. There are three types of general elections:presidential, midterm, and off-year.

Campaign finance Money is a key factor in elections. Congress setup the Federal Election Commission to regulate fundraising andspending by candidates in federal elections. Nonetheless, the amountof money raised for and spent on elections continues to rise.

Voter behavior Voting varies with age, education, and income.Voters make choices based on party, issues, and candidatecharacteristics. Experts differ on whether nonvoting represents aserious problem or reflects a level of satisfaction with U.S. politics.



political campaigns and elections...political campaigns and elections elections and voting: why...

Documents