Ch. 7 Notes: Voting and Elections

7.1 Voter Registration

  • Learning objectives summary:
    • Identify how the U.S. government has promoted voter rights and registration
    • Summarize similarities and differences in states’ registration methods
    • Analyze how states expand registration and reduce fraud
  • Overview of voter registration:
    • Before casting a ballot, most voters must register in their state; process ranges from a simple checkbox on a driver’s license form to long, detailed applications.
    • Registration helps governments determine who is eligible to vote and, in some cases, from which party nominees a voter can select.
    • Ironically, while government aims to boost turnout, registration can deter participation for some groups.
  • Registration across the United States (state-by-state variability):
    • Elections are state-driven, leading to diverse registration rules and voting procedures.
    • Examples illustrating variation:
    • An 85-year-old retiree with expired license might register quickly in California/Florida but may need a current government ID in Texas/Indiana.
    • Historical context: post-C Civil War era literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and poll taxes were used to disenfranchise Black voters (Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi).
    • Literacy tests were lengthy, arbitrary, and disproportionately administered to African Americans.
    • Poll taxes required payment to vote.
    • Grandfather clauses exempted those whose ancestors could vote prior to a cutoff; unconstitutional in 1915, but use persisted.
    • The 24th Amendment (1964) banned poll taxes; the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 expanded protections by forbidding discriminatory voting laws and authorizing federal examiners to oversee registration and elections in areas with a history of discrimination.
    • Shelby County v. Holder (2013): the Supreme Court struck down the preclearance formula of the VRA, reducing federal oversight and pushing election policy decisions to state/local levels. States subsequently altered voter ID laws and polling place configurations (e.g., North Carolina).
  • Modern developments in registration:
    • Oregon: automatic registration for many citizens; few registration requirements.
    • North Dakota: no voter registration required.
    • Arizona (2002): first to offer online voter registration; matches DMV data to ensure right precinct; those without driver’s licenses still require a paper form.
    • Online registration adoption: >18 states have online registration or are moving in that direction; initial online registration costs typically estimated at 250{,}000 to 750{,}000 per state (National Conference of State Legislatures estimates).
    • Security concerns influence adoption of online registration (fraud risk, ensuring citizenship and correct precincts).
    • Florida (2015): moved forward with online/expanded registration despite security concerns; state governor concerns persisted.
    • Texas leans toward traditional paper registration due to identity fraud concerns.
    • National Commission on Voting Rights (Sept. 2015): registration systems with simpler rules tend to increase turnout; states with simple registration had more registered voters.
  • How someone registers to vote (typical requirements):
    • In all states except North Dakota, a registration application is required.
    • Applications require: name, residency address, and often party identification (Independent available); some states impose a residency duration requirement (often 30 days).
    • Applications may include an oath or questions about felony convictions.
    • Online process: if a voter’s state records match, an online signature or affidavit can be accepted.
    • Paper applications for those without state documents; paper copies mailed to voters in states without online registration.
  • Timeline considerations and consequences:
    • Some states require registration 30 days before voting; others allow same-day registration (SDR).
    • Maine introduced SDR in 1973; 14 states plus DC allow SDR with proof of residency (driver’s license/utility bill).
    • Larger states (e.g., Michigan, Texas) require forms to be mailed 30 days before an election.
    • SDR states historically show higher turnout (e.g., 2012 presidential election SDR states saw about a 4% higher turnout than non-SDR states).
  • Eligibility to register (who can register):
    • General eligibility: citizenship, residence, age ≥ 18.
    • States impose additional requirements (competence to vote, not currently incarcerated).
    • Felony voting laws vary:
    • Kentucky permanently bars felons and ex-felons from voting unless pardoned by the governor.
    • Florida, Mississippi, Nevada allow former felons to apply for restoration of voting rights.
    • Florida’s 2018 reform restored voting rights for felons after sentence completion and debt payment.
    • Vermont generally allows voting in prison unless the crime was election fraud (
    • Maine allows prisoners to vote in state elections; Prisoner voting rules vary by state.
    • Additional eligibility nuances: some states require voters to refrain from gambling on elections (Wisconsin) or require taking a Voter’s Oath (Vermont).
  • Where to register and residency decisions for students:
    • College students face residence questions: register near campus or vote from home district?
    • Pros/cons:
    • Registering near campus simplifies voting locally but may require absentee ballots or travel; requires time to learn local issues.
    • Registering home may leverage familiarity with local elections and politicians but complicates voting logistics on campus.
    • Studies show students living more than two hours from home are less likely to vote than those near campus.
  • Impact of registration on turnout and policy:
    • The National Voter Registration Act (Motor Voter, 1993) aimed to simplify registration when applying for driver’s licenses and Social Security benefits; increased registrations by about 7% from 1992 to 2012 but did not markedly increase turnout.
    • Florida (2015 onward) and Oregon (automatic and automatic updates with address changes) illustrate ongoing reform efforts.
  • Quick reference to key terms and figures:
    • Voter Registration, Motor Voter Act (1993)
    • VRA (1965), Shelby County v. Holder (2013)
    • Online/automatic registration initiatives; SDR; residency rules

7.2 Voter Turnout

  • Learning objectives summary:
    • Identify factors that motivate registered voters to vote
    • Discuss circumstances that prevent citizens from voting
    • Analyze reasons for low turnout in the United States
  • Concept of turnout and measurement:
    • Turnout is typically calculated by counting ballots cast and dividing by the population eligible to vote.
    • Population baselines used for turnout calculations:
    • VAP: voting-age population (18+)
    • VEP: voting-eligible population (citizens 18+ who are eligible to vote, excluding those disenfranchised by law or imprisonment)
    • Turnout can be calculated using different denominators, leading to different impressions of turnout:
    • 83% of registered voters voted in the 2024 presidential election (out of all registered voters; represents ~46% of the total U.S. population).
    • 59% of the VAP voted in 2024; 64% of the VEP voted in 2024.
    • The highest turnout ratio is 84% when using the smallest population (registered voters).
    • Comparative snapshots:
    • 2020 presidential election: 62% of the VAP voted; 75% of 18–24-year-olds registered and 39% voted; 75% of 65–74-year-olds registered and 68% voted.
  • Factors that drive turnout:
    • Campaign targeting of likely voters (groups already likely to vote) and general targeting of registered voters.
    • Engagement of youth vs. older voters; age strongly predicts turnout.
    • Education, income, and socioeconomic status influence turnout; higher education and income correlate with higher turnout.
    • Demographics: White turnout tends to be highest among major groups in 2020; Latinos/Latinas and other groups show variable participation depending on state context.
    • Historical patterns: 2008 Obama campaign engaged youth via technology; 2016 and 2020 saw shifting youth engagement with varying levels.
    • Organizations and mobilization efforts:
    • Rock the Vote (1990) aimed to engage youth using music and pop culture; "When We All Vote" founded by Michelle Obama in 2018 to boost turnout, including 2020.
  • Factors that decrease turnout:
    • Non-mandatory voting laws (countries with compulsory voting achieve higher turnout).
    • Voter ID laws and other restrictions can depress turnout, especially among minority groups.
    • Historic/Shelby County v. Holder era changes to preclearance and registration rules.
    • Access barriers: long lines, limited polling places, and restrictions on early voting.
    • Early voting and mail-in voting debates: some fear early voting reduces the ability to react to late-breaking information; others argue it improves turnout by reducing congestion.
    • Notable examples of suppression or friction include long lines in Georgia (2020) and logistical changes in Texas (2020).
  • Key mechanisms and shifts in turnout policy:
    • Early voting and mail-in voting expanded in many states; 2020 saw widespread use of mail-in voting due to the COVID-19 pandemic; some states reported high turnout.
    • The impact of early voting on turnout is mixed: it can reduce or increase turnout depending on context and mobilization.
  • Perspectives on turnout metrics:
    • Debate exists over which metric best indicates democratic health: VAP, VEP, or registered voter turnout.
  • Quick reference to numbers:
    • 2024 presidential turnout among registered voters: 0.83 (83%)
    • 2024 turnout as share of total population: 0.46 (46%)
    • 2020 VAP turnout: 0.62 (62%)
    • 2020 VEP turnout: 0.64 (64%)
    • Youth turnout in some historical comparisons (e.g., 18–24 in 2016: 51% registered, 39% voted; 65–74: 75% registered, 68% voted)
  • Factors driving youth turnout improvements:
    • 2008 high youth engagement tied to Obama; 2012 saw a decline; 2020 saw record engagement for some groups due to mobilization efforts and the pandemic context.

7.3 Elections

  • Learning objectives summary:
    • Describe the stages in the election process
    • Compare primary and caucus systems
    • Summarize how primary returns lead to party nominations
  • Running for office and campaign finance (overview):
    • Running for office differs by term and level; costs can be substantial (e.g., governor runs require money, signatures, residency/age qualifications).
    • The amount of money raised shapes campaign viability and donor recruitment; war chests help attract further donations.
    • History of campaign finance regulation:
    • Tillman Act (1907): prohibited corporations from contributing to federal campaigns
    • FECA (Federal Election Campaign Act, 1971): required reporting of contributions and expenditures; created the FEC in 1974
    • Buckley v. Valeo (1976): upheld some FECA provisions but struck down limits on personal expenditures by candidates using non-federal funds
    • McCain–Feingold Act (BCRA, 2002): restricted party contributions and coordination; required candidates to include endorsements in ads; limited issue ads close to elections
    • Citizens United v. FEC (2010): struck down spending limits on corporations; allowed unlimited money via super PACs, with prohibition on direct candidate coordination
    • Spending footprints (illustrative figures):
    • 2020: super PACs spent substantial sums in support of/against candidates; total super PAC spending reached 2.13{,}000{,}000 (approximately) for the 2020 cycle; specific examples cited included major sums by The Senate Leadership Fund and Senate Majority PAC
    • 2012 vs 2016 vs 2020: historic sums by Restore Our Future, Priorities USA Action, etc.
  • Nomination stage (how parties pick nominees):
    • No constitutional mandate for nomination methods; states regulate via laws; parties and states often fund nomination elections to identify party nominees.
    • Primary vs caucus:
    • Closed primary: only party members can vote for that party’s nominees
    • Open primary: any registered voter can vote in any party’s primary
    • Top-two primary (jungle primary): all candidates compete; top two advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation
    • Caucuses: informal, lower-cost gatherings where party members decide preference and delegate allocation; more time-consuming; often involve realignment and debate
    • Caucus prevalence: at least six states (Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Nevada) still use caucuses for some nominations
    • Delegates: allocated based on state/district results; example: California had 494 delegates at the 2020 Democratic National Convention; Wyoming had 14 delegates; frontloading concerns lead parties to delay or shift dates for primaries/caucuses
    • Frontloading: states push primaries earlier to gain influence; penalties for early primaries include reduced delegate awards
    • Effects of frontloading:
    • Early states (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina) gain influence and traditional first-right status; other states push earlier times, creating a congested early calendar
  • Convention season:
    • After nominees are clear, conventions broadcast speeches, adopt platforms (planks), and select a VP candidate; conventions provide visibility and a potential 'convention bump' in public opinion
    • Modern adjustments due to COVID-19 (2020): partly virtual conventions; reduced live events
    • Platforms (planks): a cohesive list of issues that guide campaign messaging and policy emphasis; platforms can influence campaign strategy and external endorsements
  • The General Election period:
    • Timing: typically mid-August to early November
    • Simpler because there are two major parties; many voters are influenced by party identification, with independent voters crucial in swing states
    • Campaigns tailor message to attract independents and close-state voters; debates often play a key role in informing voters
    • Debates: a traditional feature; evaluate candidate performance under pressure; variable impact on polling and momentum
    • Historical debates and media: televised debates since mid-20th century; examples include Kennedy-Nixon (1960) and more recent debates; debates are followed by media analysis and can influence public perception
  • The Electoral College:
    • The presidency is decided by the Electoral College, not by direct popular vote in most cases
    • Composition: 538 electors; a majority requires 270 electoral votes
    • Allocation: most states use a winner-take-all approach; Nebraska and Maine allocate by congressional district plus two statewide votes (district system)
    • State-based allocation is based on the sum of its U.S. Senators (2) plus its number of Representatives; number of Representatives changes with apportionment by the Census every 10 years; since 1929, the total number of representatives is fixed at 435
    • Faithless electors: occasionally, electors do not vote for the candidate who won the state; notable instances include 2000 (DC), 2004 (Minnesota), and seven known faithless electors in 2016 (WA, TX, HI, etc.)
    • Certification: electors meet in December and cast ballots; votes are read in January by the president of the Senate (the Vice President)
    • Historical outcomes and contingencies:
    • If no candidate wins a majority, the House selects the president (one vote per state), a scenario that occurred in 1800 and 1824
    • Comparative nuance: Nebraska and Maine’s district method awarded two votes to state-wide winner plus one per winning district; 2020 example: Maine split 3–0 (Biden 3, Trump 1 in one district) while others varied by district outcomes
  • Midterm elections:
    • Occur in even-numbered years that are not presidential years; House members are up for reelection every two years, and one-third of the Senate seats are up for reelection
    • The president’s party often loses seats in midterm elections (reverse coattail effect); historical realignments reflect shifts in control between parties
    • The 2018 midterms are a notable example, with a switch of control in the House to the Democratic Party after eight years of Republican control
  • Quick reference numbers and terms:
    • Electoral College total: 538 electors; majority: 270
    • Nebraska and Maine use a district-based allocation method; other states generally use winner-take-all
    • Faithless elector examples: 2000, 2004, 2016 (seven faithless electors)

7.4 Campaigns and Voting

  • Learning objectives summary:
    • Compare campaign methods for elections
    • Identify strategies campaign managers use to reach voters
    • Analyze factors that typically affect a voter’s decision
  • Core campaign dynamics:
    • Campaigns aim to: (a) reach voters with candidate information, and (b) get voters to the polls
    • Targeting strategies focus on likely voters and those most likely to participate; voter pools vary by election and year
  • Fundraising and money in campaigns:
    • Money signals viability and long-term fundraising capacity
    • Emily’s List (Early Money Is Like Yeast): advocates for early contributions to recruit and assist women candidates
    • Fundraising patterns by party and candidate progression: early-season fundraising can predict subsequent fundraising momentum
    • 2016 fundraising snapshot (Republicans): Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz top the early fundraising; Trump’s strength came from media coverage rather than early fundraising; 2020 Democratic field narrowed with several candidates dropping out by March
    • The numbers (illustrative):
    • 2024 presidential/2024 cycle campaign totals: about 5.5{,}000{,}000{,}000 raised across parties
    • Congressional totals around 10.3{,}000{,}000{,}000; PAC totals around 2.7{,}000{,}000{,}000
  • Primary vs general campaigns:
    • Primary campaigns are more arduous due to multiple candidates and lack of a single cue from party allegiance
    • Name recognition is crucial for primary success; media exposure matters for newer candidates
    • General elections rely on appealing to independents and those not strongly aligned with a party; ad strategies focus on issue positioning, contrast ads, and turnout efforts
    • Historical ad examples:
    • Daisy Girl (1964) is the famous anti-Goldwater ad; 2008 Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton used issues-based ads to connect with voters
    • Johnson’s Daisy ad is cited as a seminal example of using emotion in political advertising
  • Campaign advertising and media landscape:
    • Ads have evolved from early radio/TV to internet and social media campaigns
    • Citizens United (2010) opened the door for corporate independent expenditures; super PACs can raise and spend unlimited sums but cannot directly coordinate with candidates
    • Shadow campaigns (PACs and allied groups) create negative ads without direct candidate coordination; notable examples include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (2004) and MoveOn (2004)
    • Modern campaigns use a mix of online content, social media, and traditional media; the 2008–2015 era saw prominent use of digital advertising and infomercials in campaigns
  • Technology, media, and misinformation:
    • Online presence, social media platforms, and digital ads have transformed political campaigning
    • Platforms have faced scrutiny for misinformation; some moderation actions have been taken (e.g., platform removal of problematic accounts)
  • Voter decision making (heuristics and reasoning):
    • Party identification remains a primary cue for many voters (straight-ticket voting)
    • Straight-ticket voting: voting for all candidates of the same party on a ticket; varies by state; can reduce ballot fatigue but may skip non-partisan down-ballot races in some states (e.g., Michigan)
    • Demographic cues: voters may consider candidate demographics (gender, race) and perceived competence based on appearance
    • Issue-based voting: abortion rights, gun policy, economy, etc.; single-issue voters weigh a single issue heavily
    • Retrospective voting: evaluating a candidate based on past performance and economic conditions; pocketbook voting and prospective voting are other modes of judgment
    • Incumbency advantage: incumbents win reelection at high rates due to name recognition, fundraising access, staff, and gerrymandering benefits; House incumbents reelection rate around 90%, Senate around 60–85% depending on cycle; incumbents also benefit from franking privileges and established campaign machinery
    • Gerrymandering: district drawing to maximize partisan advantage; stronger impact on House races than on presidential or Senate races
  • Visuals and “conviction” in campaigns:
    • Public attention to candidate appearance influence perceptions; debates and visuals can matter in shaping opinion
  • Summary points:
    • Campaigns blend fundraising, message crafting, media access, and grassroots organizing to maximize turnout and win electoral votes

7.5 Direct Democracy

  • Learning objectives summary:
    • Identify the different forms of direct democracy and why governments use them
    • Outline the steps required to place initiatives on the ballot
    • Explain why some policies are enacted by representatives and others by voters
  • What is direct democracy?
    • Direct democracy allows policy questions to go directly to voters for a decision, bypassing representatives in some cases
    • Forms include local and statewide mechanisms to approve or reject laws and constitutional amendments, budgets, or government actions
  • Forms of direct democracy (three main forms):
    • Referendum: a yes/no vote on a measure; can be legislated (legislative referendum) or citizen-initiated (popular referendum)
    • Initiative (proposition): a measure proposed and passed directly by citizens, bypassing the legislature; subject to court review for constitutionality
    • Recall: voters remove an official from office before the end of their term
    • Judicial appointment confirms: voter confirmation of a judge to remain on the bench; a form of direct oversight on the judiciary in some states
  • Process to place an initiative on the ballot:
    • Filing paperwork with the state to initiate the process; the proposed text is included for legality review and cost estimation
    • Signature collection: must gather a required number of registered voter signatures, often a percentage of votes cast in a past election
    • Stepwise approvals: state attorney general or other official may review for constitutionality and legality; a final ballot placement follows
    • Signature thresholds and time limits:
    • California example: 5% for a law and 8% for a constitutional amendment (of votes in the last gubernatorial election); California has many measures on ballots; duration for signature collection varies by state
    • Some states set shorter windows (e.g., 150 days) or longer windows (e.g., up to two years)
    • Signature collectors and compensation vary by state (Colorado restricts earnings; Oregon bans payments to signature collectors)
  • Ballot measure dynamics:
    • Ballot measures often feature more ideological content in primaries and more broad-social policy measures in general elections
    • The recall process can lead to expensive campaigns; e.g., California Governor Gray Davis recall (2003) and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker recall (2012)
  • Examples of direct democracy in practice:
    • Marijuana legalization: Colorado Amendment 64; 2012 legalization waves; Florida Proposition 8 (same-sex marriage) confusion and aftermath; state-level marijuana policies reflect tensions between state direct democracy and federal law under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA, 1970)
    • The CSA prohibits marijuana at the federal level; conflicts arise where states legalize medical or recreational use while federal law remains restrictive
  • Policy implications and debates:
    • Direct democracy can empower citizens to address policy impasses in legislatures; however, it also exposes voters to complexity, cost barriers, and potential manipulation by wealthy actors
    • The 2003 recall example and 2013–14 marijuana legalization debates illustrate tensions between direct democracy and federal law; concerns include the quality of information voters rely on when deciding complex issues
  • Key concerns and potential drawbacks:
    • Voter information overload and confusion on ballot measures
    • Influence of well-funded interest groups on signature collection and messaging
    • Difficulty of assessing long-term fiscal and policy impacts of initiatives
  • Direct democracy in practice today:
    • Some Western states are more accommodating of direct democracy (e.g., California, Oregon, Colorado); eastern/southern states have more limited direct democracy options
  • Quick glossary reference (selected terms):
    • Referendum, Legislative referendum, Popular referendum, Initiative (proposition), Recall, Signature collection, Frontloading, Front-loaded calendar, Ballot fatigue, Planks (in conventions)