Past Paper Questions

Broad Themes:

  • Flaws in the election of candidates

  • Electoral College as problematic

  • Campaign Finance and problems

  • Two party system

  • Pressure Groups

  • Voting behaviour and indicators

Evaluate the extent to which the process of selecting presidential candidates is deeply flawed

invisible primary

in some ways its a successful way of narrowing down the number of candidates, and eliminating weak contestants

e.g. Democrats — 18 withdrew before vs 0 during the first primary

in 2023, 400 republicans registered to be the candidate while only 5 made it to the first primary

BUT

fundamentally about money and media

harder for smaller candidates to gain attention

people with better funds tend to be frontrunners

michael bloomberg exception, but causes an appeal to more elite interests

costs around $2 billion

small states vs state amplification

the primary process is important in ensuring that small states aren’t completely drowned out

due to the size of the larger states, if these states went first the results of the primaries would already be decided, making the voices in small states entirely irrelevent

BUT

actually causes the opposite issue and disproportionately amplifies small state voices

Iowa and NH go first — winning in Iowa increases total vote share by 27 points, 100% of all successful democrat candidates (2000-2016) won here first

but they only represent 1.4% of the population

and they are predominantly white

winner takes all

also hugely problematic because almost all states take a winner takes all approach to distributing delegates

leads to very disproportional results e.g. in New York, Trump won 60% of vote but all of the delegates

leads to unreflective results and lots of people going unrepresented

BUT

some states try and take a more proportional method e.g. Maine and Nebraska, attempts to make it more reflective

but this doesn’t always work e.g. in Vermont, Sanders won 80% of the vote, should have won 80% candidates but due to no other candidate getting above 15% he won all 16 delegates

Evaluate the extent to which national party conventions still play a meaningful role in presidential elections
Evaluate the extent to which the Electoral College is an outdated institution

The electoral college is the mechanism by which the US population indirectly elect their President and Vice President. While there are some benefits to the electoral college, such as the clear winner it provides and its protection of smaller state voices, these are overshadowed by the fundamental flaws of the electoral college — its failure to accurately reflect results, its exclusion of third parties and its amplification of small state voices — which make it an outdated institution.

There are arguably some benefits of the electoral college, such as its ability to produce a clear winner. With 538 EC votes, a winner needs to secure 270 votes to have a majority and thus win the election, otherwise the President is chosen by the House of Representatives. With the last time this happened being in 1824, the EC appears to reliably produce a clear winner. This is significant because it ensures the President has a clear mandate and prevents (for the most part, bar Trump’s claims of election fraud) a clear and undisputed outcome. This suggests that the EC is not outdated, as it effectively fulfils its function of producing a clear winner with a mandate. However, this is fundamentally undermined because the EC fails to produce accurate or reflective results. In both the 2016 and the 2000 election, the EC has made the loser the winner: in 2016, for example, Hillary Clinton won 3 million more votes than Trump but lost by 77 EC votes. The EC fails to produce accurate results, which is significant because it undermines the democratic legitimacy of the outcome of elections and undermines the mandate the President could claim. As a result, the EC actually fails to perform its function of producing a clear winner, because while the results might be straightforward they fail to accurately reflect the popular vote. As such, the EC is outdated.

Another fundamental problem with the EC is that it excludes third parties. Due to the ‘winner takes all’ nature of the EC votes (used everywhere apart from Maine and Nebraska), third parties are disproportionately excluded. For example, in 1992 Ross Perot won 18.9% of the popular vote but no EC votes. This is problematic because it leads to a system dominated by two parties, leaving significant portions of the population who vote for third parties unrepresented. In the Perot example, Ross Perot won almost 20% of the national vote — a hugr portion of the electorate — but none of thise voters saw themselves represented in the election outcome. This issue is exacerbated as other features of the election cycle also favour major parties: for example, to appear on TV debates you need more than 15% of the vote. In failing to account for third party votes, the EC leaves significant parts of the population unrepresented and produces a cycle where third parties are underepresented and thus struggle to gain any kind of platform, furthering their lack of representation. However, it could be argued that this is not the main flaw of the EC. In 27 out of 40 of the past elections, either the Republicans or the Democrats have won a majority of the vote — in some ways the creation of a two party system is a reflection of popular support more than the EC. Both the major parties could be seen as broadchurch parties, and therefore compensate for the lack of minor parties in the expansive diversity of views they offer. However, while this claim could be made, it is difficult to defend, with votes for third parties having tripled in 2016 (with no corresponding change to the EC) and dissatisfaction with the two main parties. Therefore, the EC creates a disporoportional and unrepresentative two party system, and is therefore outdated.

However, it could be superficially claimed that the EC still effectively performs its function because it ensures that the voices of small states are protected. In ensuring that all states have representatives, the EC prevents the overwhelming of small states by larger states votes. If votes were taken directly, then Presidents would focus far more on big state demands, overwhelming smaller states and leaving them unrepresented. However,

Evaluate the view that the most significant problem with the US electoral system is the failure to reform campaign finance.

failure to reform campaign finance

have been some reforms e.g. 2002 Bipartisan campaign finance reform act

There are regulations around campaign finance e.g. PACs are faced with strict regulations, individuals can only donate $3,300 to a candidate

BUT

largely undermined by loopholes in the system

super PACs are far less regulated, and while they cannot donate directly to a candidate there are ways around this

$2 billion dark money in the 2020 election

prevalance of huge donations means candidates are more likely to appeal to elite interests

the electoral college

most significant issue

invisible primary

Evaluate the extent to which the USA has a two party system

in the electoral college

Evaluate the extent to which gender, geographic region, and class and education played a significant role in the way people voted in the 2016 presidential election
Evaluate the view that race was the most important factor influencing the way people voted in 2020

Race:

Gender and age:

Class and education:

Evaluate the extent to which pressure groups perform useful functions in US politics
Evaluate the extent to which pressure groups have made a significant impact in the policy areas of abortion and gun control
Evaluate the extent to which there is agreement on the key ideas and principles between the Democratic and Republican parties
Evaluate the view that interest groups are more effective than political parties at influencing the outcome of Presidential elections
Evaluate the extent to which the main divisions within the Democratic party are significant
Evaluate the extent to which attempts to regulate campaign finance have been unsuccessful
Evaluate the extent to which incumbency conveys an unfair and undemocratic advantage in both congressional and presidential elections
Evaluate the extent to which presidential primaries are important
Evaluate the extent to which the Electoral College is in need of reform
Evaluate the extent to which the Supreme Court does a better job than interest groups at protecting rights

representation

interets groups are more representative and therefore represent a wider range of rights

100,000 across America, often represent minority rights e.g. NAACP, often also represent significant portions of the population e.g. 38 million members of the AARP

versus a very unrepresentative SC who are arguably less informed to protect rights; only ever been 4 ethnic minorities and 6 women

BUT

the representation of interest groups is actually shallow e.g. US chamber of commerce — just business interests but they put $82 million into the 2020 election

the SC independence and judicial expertise

influence legislation

interest groups can impact legislation affecting the rights of relevant groups

e.g. AARP supporting the passage of Obamacare, with attention to retired rights

NRA helping Manchin Bill fair (technically protecting gun rights)

BUT

interest groups can only hope to impact legislative decisions
SC make much more lasting impacts and direct influence in their ability to rule bills as constitutional

e.g. Brown vs BoE, Obergefell vs Hodges

perhaps importance is visible in that interest groups submit amicus curiae briefs to the courts

Continuous protection

could be argued that the SC is weak at rights protection because it cannot offer continuous protection

as an appellate court it almost entirely hears appeals (only heard 200 original jurisdiction cases) and only hears about 1% of cases appealed to it

interest groups continually represent their groups rights between elections, multiple access points

BUT

doesn’t matter because of the long-lasting impact of SC decisions