Post Midterm Study stuff

• The presidency is decided not by the national popular vote but by the Electoral College

• The Electoral College has racist origins — when established, it applied the three-fifths clause, which gave a long-term electoral advantage to slave states in the South — and continues to dilute the political power of voters of color. 

• The Electoral College has racist origins — when established, it applied the three-fifths clause, which gave a long-term electoral advantage to slave states in the South — and continues to dilute the political power of voters of color. 

•  538 members

• Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia use a winner-take-all system, awarding all of their electoral votes to the popular vote winner in the state. Maine and Nebraska award one electoral vote to the popular vote winner in each of their congressional districts and their remaining two electoral votes to the statewide winner.

• Members of the Electoral College meet and vote in their respective states on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, after Election Day

• Article II of the Constitution, which established the executive branch of the federal government, outlined the framers’ plan for electing the president and vice president.

• As a result, delegates from the South objected to a direct popular vote in presidential elections, which would have given their states less electoral representation.

• which applied the three-fifths compromise that had already been devised for apportioning seats in the House of Representatives

• In other words, electors are now pledged to vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state. However, the Constitution does not require them to do so, which allows for scenarios in which “faithless electors” have voted against the popular vote winner in their states.

• Only 5 states, however, impose a penalty on faithless electors, and only 14 states provide for faithless electors to be removed or for their votes to be canceled. 

• If no ticket wins a majority of Electoral College votes, the presidential election is sent to the House of Representatives for a runoff. 

• Meanwhile, the vice-presidential race is decided in the Senate, where each member has one vote. 

• The Electoral Count Reform Act, enacted in 2023, addresses these problems. Among other things, it clarifies which state officials have the power to appoint electors, and it bars any changes to that process after Election Day, preventing state legislatures from setting aside results they do not like. 

• Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPV), an effort that started after the 2000 election. Under it, participating states would commit to awarding their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

•  If enacted, the NPV would incentivize presidential candidates to expand their campaign efforts nationwide, rather than focus only on a small number of swing states.

• For the NPV to take effect, it must first be adopted by states that control at least 270 electoral votes. In 2007, Maryland became the first state to enact the compact

• The body was a compromise at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia

• between large and small states

• They explicitly rejected a popular vote for president because they did not trust voters to make a wise choice.

• The 1800 election deadlocked because presidential candidate Thomas Jefferson received the same number of Electoral College votes as his vice presidential candidate Aaron Burr.

• as prescribed by the 12th Amendment, Congress passed a new law to create a bipartisan Electoral Commission. Through this commission, five members each from the House, Senate, and Supreme Court would assign the 20 contested electoral votes from Louisiana 

• Florida, South Carolina, and Oregon to either Hayes or Tilden. Hayes became president when this Electoral Commission ultimately gave the votes of the four contested states to him

• On December 10, in a landmark 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the Florida Supreme Court’s recount decision, ruling that a manual recount would violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause

• This discrepancy between the Electoral College and the popular vote created considerable contentiousness about the electoral system.

• Electoral College suffers from another difficulty known as the “faithless elector” issue in which the body’s electors cast their ballot in opposition to the dictates of their state’s popular vote

• ​​In the Baca v. Hickenlooper case, a federal court ruled that states cannot penalize faithless electors, no matter the intent of the elector or the outcome of the state vote.

• There is a risk that the Electoral College will systematically overrepresent the views of relatively small numbers of people due to the structure of the Electoral College.

• This institutional relic from two centuries ago likely will fuel continued populism

• and regular discrepancies between the popular and Electoral College votes

• Americans by and large still want to do away with the Electoral College, but there now is a partisan divide in views, with Republicans favoring it while Democrats oppose it.

• That vagueness has allowed some states such as Maine and Nebraska

• to reject “winner-take-all” at the state level and instead allocate votes at the congressional district level.

• National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), which is a multi-state agreement to commit electors to vote for candidates who win the nationwide popular vote, even if that candidate loses the popular vote within their state.

• That is a laborious process and a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College would require significant consensus—at least two-thirds affirmation from both the House and Senate, and approval from at least 38 out of 50 states.

• It is time to move ahead with abolishing the Electoral College before its clear failures undermine public confidence in American democracy, distort the popular will, and create a genuine constitutional crisis

• But each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party’s nominee (and that trust is rarely betrayed). 

•  It is entirely possible that the winner of the electoral vote will not win the national popular vote. 

• But if the difference in the popular vote is small, then if the winner of the popular vote were deemed the winner of the presidential election, candidates would have an incentive to seek a recount in any state in which they thought the recount would give them more additional votes than their opponent. 

• The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal

• The Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states (by population) lose by the mal-apportionment of the Senate decreed in the Constitution

• and since presidents and senators are often presidential candidates, large states are likely to get additional consideration in appropriations and appointments from presidents and senators before as well as during campaigns, offsetting to some extent the effects of the malapportioned Senate on the political influence of less populous states.

• The Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast.

•  No form of representative democracy, as distinct from direct democracy, is or aspires to be perfectly democratic. Certainly not our federal government. 

• It can be argued that the Electoral College method of selecting the president may turn off potential voters for a candidate who has no hope of carrying their state

• Knowing their vote will have no effect, they have less incentive to pay attention to the campaign than they would have if the president were picked by popular vote, for then the state of a voter’s residence would be irrelevant to the weight of his vote

• Even in one-sided states, there are plenty of votes in favor of the candidate who is sure not to carry the state. So I doubt that the Electoral College has much of a turn-off effect. And if it does, that is outweighed by the reasons for retaining this seemingly archaic institution.

• What makes our political system unique? 

  • Have separate elections

  • Bimercial legislature (the house and the senate)

  • Federalism ( 2 different levels of government)

    • Further decentralisation like cities, counties, and school boards

  • All candidates get elected independently of parties 

  • Candidates’ party can lose the election no matter what kind 

  • Compared to most parliamentary places ( like 1 parliament person in Britain) 

    • Citizens can vote for 1 person in parliament and know they are casting a ballot for a party because the party that wins the majority votes in parliament selects the prime minister 

  • US has fixed elections (they use dates for these elections like term length), very predictable and just happen no matter what 

  • People pick mostly because there's an election, not only because this is a policy problem 

  • In parliamentary democracies, most occur every 5-6 years, but it can happen when the party splits and no longer holds a majority, then another election is held. Also, when a party is in power and says they're very popular, they can call a snap election so that they can get people to reelect them 

  • Single member simple plurality 

    • Each election district has only 1 winner 

    • Most of the time, all you need is a majority vote (the person who wins gets all rewards)

  • In other democracies, proportional representation with multi-member districts 

    • Parties get their seats in proportion to the number of votes that they got (if a party gets 10% of votes, they get 10% of the seats) 

  • US system has independently elected candidates, but other systems have their elections tied to how the actual parties themselves do 

  Campaign Finance

  • In US, presidential candidates can get federal funding but most don’t take it because it's not a lot of money

  • In other countries, parties get subsidies to run their elections because they are seen as an essential part in the political system 

  • US has nominations where people run for their party nomination through a primary, and whichever for whatever party gets the most votes gets to be in the national election under the party name 

  • In these elections, it's not a party-run campaign, and the party may give some help, but not really 

  • There's no formal review on who gets picked for the party nomination, it's basically just on the voters 

  • In other countries, the members pay dues, and they get to decide who the nomination should be 

    • Party selects them

  • Lack of peer review in US nomination process shows political weakness 

    • In 2008, a candidate for the Democratic presidency (Obama) won the Democratic nomination over Hillary Clinton, who was much more experienced for the role 

    • In 2016, Trump won over many other candidates who had so much more experience in politics 

  • In 2016 and 2020, Bernie Sanders was competitive but not even a democrat, but was allowed to participate for the Democratic nomination, which was rare and wouldn’t happen in other places 

  • US has permeable parties, they don’t control any actual government or dominate, but they do influence it 

  • Weak also in terms of voter identification and the parties aren’t strong enough to run candidates’ campaigns 

  • In Britain, the party will run the campaign 

  • US sometimes party and interest groups will play important roles in this 

  • Americans have ambivalence in parties and have some distrust

    • Seen in the Constitution through the decentralization of power, such as the many kinds of governments that are had

    • In America, people also see politicians as corrupt 

    • Also can be seen in schooling, and you’re always told to vote for the best candidate (regardless of parties) 

    • Most Americans accept fundamental structures of the political system, all agree on the idea of political discourse 

    • Will differ on pursuing goals, but on how to do it, and about improving things within the system, but not about the system itself 

  • Debates over social and economic policy, and view stuff in the lens of the wealthy and the not so wealthy, including capitalism, and people talk a lot about certain causes, and so many parties are central, but then candidates in them aren't as central 

  • Most of the time, the focus is on candidate’s personality and minor issues, most of the bigger issues are agreed upon, such as capitalism and federalism 

  • Contemporary developments and campaigns, including the mass media, which helps with tangible stuff for people 

  • Technology: pollsters phone stuff and are heavily relied upon and reinforce sare candidate-centered system 

  • Makes our system unique because it is candidate-centered, institutions’ separation of powers by federalism helps make it a candidate-centered system, also elections laws such as timing, win all take elections, finance system, all also get us to campaign campaign-centered system 

  • Weak political parties can’t give out nominations or run campaigns, and aren’t very ideologically firm, also contributes to a candidate-centered system also contributes to a candidate-centered system, plus media is better at dealing with personalities 

  • Great Britain and other democratic candidates stand for a party whereas in the US, people run for a party 

  
  

  Frameworks

  • No framework can explain a way of an election but there are some basic assumptions 

    • Evaluate a framework by its utility and explanatory power

    • 1st framework is used to make election predictions, Aggregate Indicators 

      • Assumes campaigns don’t actually matter but uses indicators than involve national events such as economic conditions, distribution of partisans (who affiliates with what), looks at foreign affairs, mood of the country, public opinion polls 

      • When looking at presidential and congressional elections, the president’s party will usually pick up seats in the presidential year, but in the midterm year, the president's party will probably lose some seats because voter turnout is lower 

      • If during midterm election year when president isn’t like the party will suffer more than if the presidents popular

      • Good at predicting but not at explaining why this stuff happens 

    • Second framework focuses on candidates parties interests groups and the things they do to win votes and how voters respond to them and they assume that parties run to win 

      • Not always true, 2016 Maryland governor ran for president not only to win but because it was his governor second term he also wanted a high profile appointment nad could keep his face in the public image, and be more of a national player and help him level up political career

      • Strategic environment: rules and norms such as constitution, election laws, party laws, election constraints etc, also party of this is voters, 

      • Then there's events and conditions: such as calendar stuff (elections) some are unpredictable such as crises and also media which is an strategic environment because candidates must work with it

      • Also actors, parties and candidates, media is also an actor because they have their own goals and norms (some are partisans or news organizations that wanna deliver really accurate news and earn more money and prestige) 

      • These 2 things lead the strategies to raise money and get votes and get good media coverage

        • 2 campaigns: votes and then resources 

        • Parties want to elect people who share their policies and views so that they can get stuff done in government

• Framework for understanding Political Campaigns 

  • Caveats 

  • Components 

    • Actors

    • Strategic Environment

      • Electoral College: Compromise, to elect a president who has approval by the people and who is respected by other politicians

      • Government regulations 

      • Who votes

      • Current events and conditions

    • Strategies

  
  

  Electoral College, Process Envisioned

  • Each State's Electoral College votes = number of MCs 

  • Election meets in November

  • States decide the method of selecting its electors

  • Electors meet in state to select 2 candidates

    • At least 1 from outside of state

  • Votes delivered to President of Senate, counted in front of all Mcs

    • Majority votes = president

    • 2nd place + vice president

  • No majority, house chooses from among top 5 vote getters 

    • Most votes= president, 2nd place = VP

    • Each state has one vote 

    • If the in house for VP, the senate chooses 

  • Didn't anticipate political parties

  
  

  Presidential Nominations

  • Evolution of Process

  • Allocation of delegates to states

  • Delegate Selection, primaries, caucuses

  • Types of delegates

  • Allocation of delegates to candidates

  • Nomination Calendar

  • Strategy

  • Campaign Finance

• Republican insurgency: Tea Party and people like that, might be willing to have a government shutdown to get what they want 

  
  

  RINO= Republican in Name Only, calling out people who are more traditional in conservatism and don't fully align with Trump

  
  

  New Democrats: begging with Bill Clinton (fiscal conservative, pro welfare reform, to the left on moral issues; LGBTQ etc)

  Progressive democrats: Sanders, Warren, Pelosi (liberal on moral issues, care more about moral issues than economic issues, but fiscally liberal in their support of that too), tribal wing of the democratic party 

  Blue dog democrats: want strong military, don't want a ton of spending, willing to work with republicans 

  Problem Solver caucus: pragmatic, work across the aisle on solvable issues 

  
  

  Party Transformation/Development

  • Parties change when they lose

    • Ideas for change come from the leaders of different factions 

    • When they suffer a severe loss, they seek new leaders who will try to implement changes 

    • Cycle will repeat

  • History of Party Systems

    • Two-party plus systems 

    • Parties change, appear, disappear in response to electoral fortunes 

      • Ex decline of certain parties before the civil war and the rise of the New republicans (look in book) 

  • Party organizational development

    • Old-fashioned political machines 

    • Peripheral organizations

    • Intermediaries

  • Party Networks 

    • Around the PIG, PIE, PO are superPACs, think tanks, media personalities who all support a certain party and help the party elect its candidates

• Whenever there's an office, there should be both a democratic and a republican committee 

• State central committee whose priority is to elect a governor 

• If the committees don’t want to works together then it won’t 

• The only reason for these committees will come together is to get their candidate to win and most of the time that means putting resources towards split seats/purple states 

• States that are purple at the presidential level they are often purple for other lower level offices 

• Old fashioned political machine existed up until the 1940s 

  • Says elections are basically local affairs and all efforts were coordinated by county committees 

  • By helping people in the county, they would persuade people to vote for their candidates 

  • When needing money they would turn to groups to get the money to show what they were gonna do with it (strong intermediaries between the people and the government)

• National committees were very weak, didn’t meet continuously and only came together for elections 

• Parties used to be peripheral, they didn’t really influence people as much because new technology was available to people running for office (in 1950s) thus changed to be more candidate centered also happened because of civil service requirements which created more of a meritocracy and whoever earned it or proved to be most experienced to get the job, no longer based on partisanship

• APS reported that congressional candidates were the orphans of the political systems 

• Parties as intermediaries

  • Still candidate system

  • National parties are now stronger

  • Also were capable of harnessing technology that others couldn't 

  • Locals couldn’t give unlimited amounts of money to people they wanted to support because of new campaign spending laws so parties redistributed funds from wealthy places to places where there were hotly contested elections 

  • Candidates needed to now get consultants and parties helped to do that matching up for the candidates

  • Rise of outside money 

Trends in Party Identification

• Number of independents has risen as both the Democratic and Republicans lose voters 

Party Coalitions Evolve

• Which voters can the parties count on for support

• Data from Pew Research Center 

  • Voters have gotten older over time and this can really be seen in the GOP

  • Also overtime the democrat support from working class people has been halved since 1996 but their votes from college grads has doubled 

  • Among all voters there's been a decline in religion but an increase in people unaffiliated with religion have been attracted to the Democratic party 

  • GOP is mainly conservative/ very conservative whereas the democratic party is more split between the moderates and liberals 

PIG 

• The presidency

• Congress

• Judiciary

How Parties Behave

• APSA Report (responsible parties)

  • Edmund Burke is the inspiration

  • Adheres behind certain goals and ideals, less focused on electibility and more focused on policy

• Pragmatic parties

  • Leon Epstien model

  • Not worried about ideology worried about getting as many supporters of their party into office 

  • Once they get offices they can get stuff done and having a broad amount of people from the party in offices will allow these issues to get worked on

• Recently both parties have moved towards the responsible approach instead of the pragmatic approach and focused more on voters issues 

Political Parties

• Organized attempt to win power

  • United on the basis of shared political ideas

• Edmund Burke

  • Party consists of a people who share a national vision and work in national interest

• Leon Epstein

  • Says political party is an group however loosely organized run under a label

    • Label is associated with candidates because they must have some commonality of interest

    • If your the nominee than you get the party support and resources

• Michigan School

  • Social and popular basis of support that exists for candidates, public officials 

    • Basis of support that exists for a party  

Implications

• Who is a party member?

  • One is based on vision (Burke) one is based on claiming a label (Epstein) one is based on 

• Who should be allowed to run for a party nomination?

• Bernie Sanders? Donald Trump in 2016?

  • Should Bernie sanders been able to compete for the democratic nomination 

    • Burke says he shouldn’t be able to run for democratic nomination because he wasn’t a democratic before

    • Epstien says that he could maybe be? Might say because he’s running for the nomination and so that he could since he would become a democrat if he won the nomination

    • Michigan school would say yes because he claims to be a democrat or will be so he should be able to run 

  • Should Donald Trump be able to run in 2016?

    • Burke would say no 

    • Epstien would say that yeah if he wins the vote and says he's a republican than sure 

    • Michigan school would say why not 

What do Parties do?

• Nominate and seek to elect candidates (used to run the nominations)

• Campaign and educate and inform citizens on why to vote for their sides

• Organize the government (pick the leaders)

• Parties influence who serves on the cabinet

• Propose and oppose policies

• Latent functions:

  • Simplify politics for anyone 

  • Aggregate interest 

    • Build coalitions around interests to win 

    • They tend to be enduring aggregations (people who pick a side tend to stay on that side) 

  • The big 10 

  • Set political agenda

  • Organize the government 

    • Can’t see the leadership races that happen in government that's kind of closed and only happens amongst colleagues 

  • Build bridged across a political system that separates power 

  • Wealthy well organized interest (corporation, trade association, union, American medical association) and offset the power of those groups who are in a position to sue or create collalitions 

• Political parties and interest groups are both mediating institutions that stand between the people and the government 

  • Both try to get the interests of their people to influence 

Parties vs Interest Group

• Parties are much more important 

• Interest groups just don’t have as much influence on the agenda because they usually care about specific things not broad interests 

• Interest groups actually spend much more than parties 

• Interest groups don’t have their own candidates

• Interest groups spend tons of money on lobbying

  • Need to work with partyship leaders to get anything done

• Interest groups often compete with each other

• Parties possess loyalties and mobilise a ton of people 

• Symbolically parties are much stronger than interest groups

  • Influence what voters see, interpret and respond 

• Parties last longer than interest groups