POLS 206 Fulton Exam 3

why do we use the electoral college?

written in the Constitution so we have to

what did the FF intend the electoral college to do?

-moderate intense passions that people feel towards election
-curtail power of large & populous states
-increase influence of most knowledgeable & informed
-select President based on merit, not popularity
-minimize influence of state origin and political party

what did the FF fear would happen if there was no electoral college?

state legislatures would elect the "favorite son" from their state (and the President needs popular support from the whole country)

how many electoral college voters does each state have?

# senators + # MCs
(ex: TX has 36 MCs and 2 senators = 38 ECV)

how many total electoral college voters are there?

538

how many electoral college votes do you have to have to win the election?

270

when the average American votes, who are they voting for?

electors, NOT the President

elector

representatives for the candidates

how do you become an elector?

parties select people (usually activists) in state party conventions, or through appointment by state party leaders

how do electors cast their vote?

-meet in their state capitols and case votes in December

is the elector required to vote for the candidate their state wants?

no, they can vote for a different person intentionally or not vote at all in protest

where are electoral votes sent?

president of the Senate

when is the new President OFFICIALLY confirmed?

when the electoral votes are opened before a joint session of Congress in January

pro-forma

ceremonial; only do it because you have to

examples of pro-forma

-electoral votes in December
-confirmation of President in front of Congress in January

how is plurality related to the electoral college?

candidate with plurality of votes in the state sends their electors to the state capitol, meaning that candidate wins ALL the state's ECV

which states are ECV winner-take-all exceptions?

Maine & Nebraska (their ECV can be split by the Congressional District)

examples of winner-take-all exceptions

-1984 election
-1992 election
-2000 election

1984 election

Reagan won 97.6% ECVs, but only 58.8% of popular vote (majority)

1992 election

Clinton won 68.8% ECVs but only 43.4% popular vote (plurality)

2000 election

Bush won 50.4% ECVs, but only 47.9% popular vote (less than opponent)

does the popular vote matter?

no, winning the presidency is all about winning by efficient ECV margins

why not change election process that is based more on national popular vote?

FF wanted the election process to be like this, so to change it would require amending the Constitution

amending Constitution

-Proposal: 2/3 vote House & Senate
-Ratification: 3/4 vote state legislatures

campaign strategy

candidates spend more time campaigning in swing states with large populations (FL, NC, OH) rather than solid states

Duverger's Law

winner-take-all systems encourage formation of just 2 parties

what is Duverger's Law dependent on?

strategic merging and strategic voting

strategic merging definition

voters of parties with similar ideologies come together to ultimately prevent greater of two evils from winning

example of strategic merging

-if one state had 35% Rep, 40% Dem, and 25% Tea Partiers, Dem would win even though Rep and TP share similar ideologies
-Rep and TP would merge to collectively defeat Dem.

strategic voting definition

voters come to realize that there is no chance the 3rd party candidate will win the election (because of winner-take-all)

example of strategic voting

-vote Trump instead of McMullen to keep Clinton from winning, even though you want McMullen to win

examples of 3rd party candidates taking away votes from candidate

-1992: Perot had 19% popular vote, which ultimately helped Clinton win by costing Bush the vote

why do 3rd party candidates bother running?

-Americans want alternatives to Dems and Reps
-just because Duverger's Law says that 2 party systems are best doesn't mean 3rd party candidates have never emerged (they're just not consistent)

winner-take-all systems mean that...

there will NEVER be more than 2 viable political parties (not necessarily Dem and Rep, but never more than 2)

why do 3rd parties emerge?

- raise salience of an issue in hopes that it will be addressed by major parties
- provide leverage over major parties to emphasize their desires in office
- make history / gain fame

why is public opinion important?

- cornerstone of democratic theory (leaders are supposed to hear the voice of the people)
- delegate model

define delegate model

people trust their delegate to make the best decision

does the delegate model follow the FF's original vision?

no, FF wanted delegates to decide based on experience/knowledge

where do political beliefs come from?

political socialization

define political socialization

knowledge of formal institutions and processes of government that helps develop political attitudes towards actors, parties, and issues

agents of socialization

- influences political socialization
- examples include family, education, peer groups, media, socioeconomic status, race, and gender

American view of politics

generally homogenous (believe in individual liberty/freedom, political equality, and rule of law); difference is how ideas should be balanced

equality of access

everyone should have opportunity

equality of outcomes

everyone gets the same

where is polling conducted most of the time?

over the phone

what is the problem with polling over the phone?

leads to sampling bias because almost exclusively for landlines

what does a random population sample imply?

every person has an equal chance of being selected

margin of error

expresses the upper and lower bounds of the results

example of margin of error

Obama's approval ratings: 48% w/ MOE of +/- 3% (means his actual rating is between 45% and 51%)

relationship between margin of error and sample size

inverse

define diminishing marginal returns

after reaching a certain point, adding more subjects still decreases MOE, but at a slower rate

how many randomly selected people need to be polled to represent a population of 200 million?

only about 1,000

95% confidence interval

95% of the time, the sample will reflect the population w/in the margin of error (outside of range 5% of the time)

bias of Straw polls / Man on the Street polls / Viewer's Voice polls

- type of convenience sampling
- not representative of general population
- rely on volunteers to answer the question

Literary Digest poll (1936)

asked respondents whether they were voting for FDR or Alf Landon
- sent 10M ballots to people with car registrations and in white pages (aka the wealthy)
- received 2M ballots back that said Landon would win by landslide

importance of random samples

it doesn't matter how big your sample is; if it's not random, it won't be representative of the entire population

Question Framing (Wording) bias

- respondents can be led to express opinions based on the wording of a question
- may not reflect public's feelings towards issue b/c their expressed sentiment is based on framing

Non-Attitudes bias

- people don't have strong attitudes towards a particular subject
- response instability
- people state they have an opinion when they don't have any preferences

define response instability

people give different responses to same question if asked at two different times

Americans lack general knowledge

- only 70% can name the current VP
- only 40% can name 3 branches of govt.
- only 20% know that we have 100 US Senators
- 50% believe Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11
- 50% can identify at least 2 members of the Simpson family

what is the concern for Americans' ability to vote for leadership positions?

Americans as a whole lack general knowledge, so it may not be best for politicians to listen to the people

what are the 2 contradictory (but not mutually exclusive) interpretations regarding politicians basing their decisions off of public opinion?

- voters lack knowledge, which allows incumbents to manipulate the system to insulate themselves from electoral accountability
- voters may lack knowledge, but electoral accountability can still be obtained due to strategic decision making

how do political elites influence the population?

act strategically on expectations of who they think the winner is going to be, then produce outcomes for citizens to choose / react to

who do voters tend to vote for?

the strongest candidate (who they're presented with / exposed to due to political elites)

how do donors influence the election?

put "smart money" on the winner, which reinforces the advantages of the front-runner

strong potential challengers

don't want to challenge their current office, name recognition, and money; act strategically

weak potential challengers

have nothing to lose, have ulterior motives to running - name recognition, advertisement, resume building, etc.

strong/weak potential challengers problem

incumbents are strong because they face weak potential challengers, and potential challengers are weak because they face strong incumbents

types of races that signal to potential challengers now is a good time to run

open seat elections, races where incumbent is vulnerable (war, economic crisis, redistricting, scandal, etc.)

only about ___% of Congressional races signal to potential challengers that it is a good time to run

10

what type of race is the most money spent on?

races where potential challengers have a good chance of winning

strategic donors

- electoral expectations influence the decisions of campaign contributors
- give money to the expected winner (incumbents over challengers)

when an incumbent retires, the candidate from the same party does (better/worse) in the next election?

worse

when do incumbents get out of races?

when they expect to lose

why is the incumbent reelection statistic inflated?

because incumbents only run when they know they have good advantages (if all incumbents were forced to run, more would lose and the statistic would go down)

what is the incumbent reelection rate in the House and Senate, respectively?

95%, 85%

does correlation show causation?

no

alternative explanations for causal relationship

relationship may be an artifact of a variable that precedes it

why do people question whether you can buy yourself into office?

- the candidate that spends the most money usually wins
- DOES NOT make it a causal relationship (ability to win attracts donors)

retirement slump

difference between how incumbent party does in an election w/ their incumbent running vs. w/o their incumbent

when an incumbent retires, the candidate from the retiring incumbent's party loses about __% to __% of the vote

10% - 15%

how do political scientists measure the retirement slump?

- look at votes from same congressional district + same people
- incumbent runs and receives X% of the vote

what's wrong with the retirement slump measure?

- doesn't take into account the strategic side
- incumbents retire when they feel vulnerable
- electoral value of incumbency is over-estimated by the retirement slump (if the incumbent had to run, he would lose too)

the relationship between spending and vote-share is (positive/negative) for challengers

positive (the more a challenger spends, the better he does)

the relationship between spending and vote-share is (positive/negative) for incumbents

negative (the more an incumbent spends, the worse he does)

incumbent spending advantages

- incumbents never have a shortage of potential donors
- only have to spend what's needed to win the race (low amount)
- reactive spenders (raise & spend when reacting to vulnerability)

challenger spending disadvantages

- don't have an unlimited supply of $$$
- have to act like a winner to fundraise
- only raise and spend in proportion to their electoral prospects

why are challengers successful in raising $$$?

because they're on the offense against a weak incumbent

why is $$$ not as valuable in an election for incumbents?

the electoral district is already saturated with info about the incumbent (aka recognition is more valuable than $$$)

why is $$$ valuable in an election for challengers?

challengers lack other communication modes, so $$$ to generate name recognition is valuable

hard money

- self
- individual contributions
- PACs

who regulates hard money?

FEC (Federal Elections Committee)

soft money

- independent groups
- 527 groups
- Super-PACs
- unregulated, independent expenditures

do self-financed candidates generally do well?

no

examples of self-financed candidates doing poorly

- Steve Forbes (1996, 2000): $37.7M and $38.7M
- Ross Perot (1992, 1996): $63M and $8M

what is the benefit of loaning your own campaign?

generates name recognition and momentum (seed money)

what do self-financed candidates lack?

grass roots support

does $$$ alter electoral outcomes?

the ability to win attracts money, rather than money attracting votes

what created the FEC (Federal Elections Committee)?

1974 FECA (Federal Elections Campaign Act) ; born out of the Watergate scandal

how many members are in the FEC? How are they selected? How long are they in office?

6 members (3 Dems, 3 Reps); nominated by President, confirmed by the Senate; 6-year terms