POLS 3110 Final
Primaries
Why do parties nominate one candidate?
To more guarantee a win for party, party narrows down the number of candidates that would divide up the vote
Process includes state and local
Caucuses
Small groups, exclusive, informal
Conventions
Started by Anti-Masonic party -> avoided exclusivity
Adopted by other parties, hope to receive feedback from constituents
Direct Primaries
Closed Primary
Voters must be officially registered w/ party
Semi-closed primary
Exceptions- independents
Some states allow independents but not members of of 3rd parties
Open primaries
Voters can request the ballot of any party upon arrival- not pre-registered with any party
Vote all the way down one party’s ballot
Allows the voters to choose the more interesting or competitive race -> not common for voters to strategically vote for non-affiliated party
Top 2 Primary
A general primary sponsored by state rather than party
Attempt to elect more moderate candidates
Usually do result in Rep v. Dem
Strategic voting
Doesn’t really happen
If it does happen, sincerity is more likely
Crossover Voting
Voter chooses to vote in a primary not matching their identification
Sincere preference for other party’s candidate
Raiding
Strategic vote in an effort to pick the weakest candidate in order to draw votes away from stronger candidate
Preferences for Primary formats
Party (Party Organization) prefers caucuses
Party organization lost power with primaries
Politicians (party Government) prefers conventions
Electorate (party Electorate) prefers primaries
Should core political power lie with the voters?
UT Caucus Convention Process
Feb-Mar
Mar- Neighborhood Caucuses “Precinct”
Size depends on how popular party is
Ex. Pref. Lyon’s 2 person Democratic Caucus
Focus: election of delegates
County and state level
Convention
For delegates chosen
State level is about 4000 delegates
County level is about a few hundred delegates
Delegates vote
State level: votes > 60% -> win nomination (chosen as nominee)
If less than 60%, advance to a primary
County level: vote percentage varies: 60-70%
Positives
Caucuses are deliberative
Governors cannot possibly speak to every registered voter, but they are more likely to be able to speak to delegates
Negatives
Not as inclusive as primary
Held at very specific times -> limits who attends
Not a random sample, those who have the time and opportunity
Tend to be older, more male, less moderate
Delegate votes are secret ballots
Voters may not know if delegates are accurately representing them
Failing support for UT caucus system
Compromise -> vast majority of incumbents gather signatures as insurance against delegates who may not like them
Presidential Nomination Process
Don’t trust polls put out by candidates themselves
Will bias toward candidate
Candidate begins “campaigning” right after election
Campaign Process
First Phase: Assessing
Candidate trying to get mentioned and stay relevant
Not officially announcing candidacy
Establish name recognition
Second Phase: Exploratory and Entering Phase
Signals intent, begin raising money
Begin making campaign trips
Start in Iowa or New Hampshire, etc. (1st in nominating)
Allowing candidates to raise funds significantly expands the pool of potential candidates
Candidate not able to raise funds leads to early retirement from race
Invisible Primaries
Endorsements are most important in low-information environments -> matter more in primaries than in general election
Third Phase: Declare Candidacy
October 2023 was already too late for Democrats to consider a candidate different than Biden
1968 Election: Humphrey skips primary process -> caters to delegates -> wins 2% of Democratic vote -> not elected President
Delegate reform
80% of delegates are bound to vote by popular result
20%: Super Delegates: not bound, proper judgement used by the politically informed
Super Delegates are unlikely to become decisive
Republicans end primaries by March- more winner take all states
Democrats take longer- more proportional vote states
Primary Process
Frontloading: states try to start primaries earlier and earlier to remain relevant
Every four years, before the Iowa caucus, attention is given to adding more Ethanol to gasoline -> raises prices of corn -> popular among corn farmers in Iowa
Super Tuesday: many states holding primaries on the same day sometime in Spring
Any system that privileges one group over another is problematic- so why do we do primaries state by state? Why not at the same time?
Early states will fight back because they won’t have the same influence
State parties wouldn’t have the same influence
Candidates adjust their strategy depending on the state
3 M’s of Campaigns
Money
necessary, but not sufficient to win the election
One cannot buy votes
Messaging
Mayhew’s strategy of affecting advertising
circulating candidates name unaffected by issues
Advertising
Favorable name association
“I’m a good person”: holding hands with grandkids
Credit Claiming
Candidate claims responsibility for a policy that constituents will like
Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet -> not credible
Must be something the candidate sponsored or co-sponsored
Could also be casework done by the candidate -> services individual constituents
Congress tours
Position taking
“I want to improve education for our children”
Not specific
Mobilization
Consider Cost of Voting
High educated and higher class are more likely to participate
Those who vote are more likely to vote again
“Mobilize the Base” strategy
Get those who are guaranteed to vote for a specific party or candidate to turnout to vote
Contest of getting established supporters to turnout to vote
Goal is not to maximize turnout of all voters, only those likely to voter for their party
Democrat strategy of targeting assisted living homes to help the elderly to vote
Cost of Voting
Utility = Probability (Benefit) - Cost
U=p(B)-C
Utility: benefits of voting
Pros of Voting
Social, sticker, civic duty, right to complain about politics
Benefits must be weighted y the probability that one’s vote will be decisive
Economic only impact
Costs of Voting
Stamp cost: determined to not be a poll tax, no effect on number of voters
Time: time not working, time driving to polls or dropbox, time researching candidates
Gas prices, babysitter
Costs will always outweigh the benefits
So why do people vote at all?
Utility = Probability (Benefit) - Cost + Duty
D: Civity Duty holds power
Psychological benefit can outweigh economic costs
Powerful enough to motivate 60% US citizens, weak enough to not motivate 40%
Increase Voter Turnout
Solution would have to involve decreasing the costs or increasing the benefits of civic duty
Make voting required make voting easier
Tax benefits for voters
Polarization
Better description of electorate is voters choosing between 2 options
Mobilization: persuading people to voter, period
Negative Partisanship: portraying the other party as worse
Harris campaign portrayed Trump as a fascist
Trump campaign lumping Harris in with Biden (“Biden-Harris presidency”) -> negative association
Alternative: Narrowcasting (aka Broadcasting)- started in 2000s
Cable television -> niche news networks (FOX, MSNBC)
Established and ready made mobilization base of voters
Rise of Internet -> Microtargeting
Target individuals with info already known about them
2016 Trump could target higher educated and religiously observant conservatives to communicate that he would replace current SCOTUS justices with conservative justices
Political affiliation can no longer just be guessed by religious affiliation or education level, partly because microtargeting polarizes and is so specific
Targeting: one audience may receive more focused messages on economy while another will get messages on SCOTUS
Parties divided over cars, music, sports, etc.
Symptoms of polarization leaching into everyday lives -> no agreeing even on mundane choices
Fundamental problem of democracy
Campaign Finance
Stats
2016 election cost 2.4 billion
Total money spent to elect representatives in 2016 was 4.1 billion
Amount Dsiney spent in 2016 in ads- 2.1 billion
56.2 billion spent each year on shoes in the US
7.1 billion spent on potato chips
Less spent on 2 presidential candidates combined than chips, shoes, and internet service provider advertising
Congressional races with higher advertising -> voters are more likely to identify candidates, their name, and political leanings
Should the question be switched from, ‘is there too much money in politics’, to ‘is there enough’?
The issue arises from who provides the money
Concerns over whether the candidate feels they owe donators
Expectation: the more money a campaign spends, the higher the vote percentage they will receive
Reality: Lower percentage of vote associated with higher spending
If the incumbent is spending more money, then that means the race is more competitive
The more competitive the race, the less likely the incumbent is to win
Spending on campaigns has minimal returns
Trump is not going to be spending money on name recognition- everyone already knows his name
But the minimal returns may make all the difference in a close race
Money is a necessary factor in competitive elections, but it does not guarantee a win
Influential and necessary, but not sufficient enough on its own
Elections cannot be bought
Regulations on Campaign Finance
There are three major policies that address campaign money systems and discourage corruption in funding
F.E.C.A (1971)
Federal Election Campaign Act
Transparency in contributions
Labor unions, corporations, and groups banned from making contributions
Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
Contributing to campaigns is an expression of free speech
Money is the megaphone of politics -> method to spread opinion, but it is still critiqueable
CGI (Compelling government Interest)
Narrowly Tailored
Both used to assess how much money can be spent
Caps on overall money that can be contributed is not the key to preventing corruption
Instead limits the contributions from one donor for one campaign
No one donor is making a large enough contribution to change the outcome of the election
Contribution limits are a narrowly tailored way to prevent corruption
Government funds cannot be used towards campaigns
Congress employees carry 2 phones if involved in campaigns
B.C.R.A. (2002)
Individuals -> $2,000 per year per candidate
Parties
Political Action Committees (PACs) -> $5,000
Created for specifically contributing to campaigns
Corporations or labor unions have to form a PAC to prevent corporate funds being contributed to a campaign
Candidates -> no limits (would infringe on free speech)
Exceptions to and Ways Around Campaign Finance Restrictions
Bundling
Compiling donations from different sources to contribute to one campaign
Individual contributions do not exceed limit, but 1 person “bundles” them and is able to advocate for their issue positions
Cannot be eliminated because individual contributions cannot be eliminated
Donations must be disclosed
Independent Expenditures
Can be made in unlimited amounts as long as it is independent of the campaign
Ex. running an ad for a candidate independently of their campaign
Cannot coordinate with the campaign, but donations must be disclosed
CRCC v FEC (1996)
Political parties can make independent expenditures
Citizens United
corporations/Unions can make independent expenditures
Super PACs created to make independent expenditures
Issue Ads
Don’t have the same disclosure requirements, but cannot coordinate with the campaign
Engaging in political speech not specifically aimed towards or supporting a particular candidate
Ran widely in the 90’s, restricted by BCRA
SCOTUS upheld BCRA restrictions -> issue ads banned within 60 days of an election
More vague, but still implications of who the audience should vote for
“Call Bill Cambell and let him know what you think”
Opposition to Campaign Spending and Alternatives
Overturning Buckley?
If result was less campaign spending -> decrease in voter turnout and public knowledge
Not likely at all
Voluntary Restrictions
Incentive offered for candidates to voluntarily restrict their campaign spending
Incentive: government matched fundraising or fully government funded
Incentive taken because it is believed that time is better spent on tasks other than fundraising
Not taken by any serious presidential candidate since 2008
Public Funding
“Clean elections”
Challenge: taxpayers would not want to support a billion dollar expenditure
Would result in doing away with bundling
Millionaires Amendment
Handicap big spending -> becomes a liability
Every time a candidate spends, their opponent receives the same amount
Reflection on Campaign Spending
Restrictions have negative implications for democracy
Historically, Republicans are in favor of spending and Democrats are in favor of restrictions -> as wealth lines shift, platforms on spending may shift as well
Should we open everything?
Disclose everything OR
Disclosure is illegal
Median Voter Theorem
Applies to Congress members
Have to convince the median voter to get the needed amount of votes
“Rational Vote Buying” strategy focuses on median voters
It would be rational to persuade the medians vs the voters who are guaranteed to vote for you- interest groups/candidates often instead focus on strengthening guaranteed voters
Evidence in favor of vote buying is very weak
Only a narrow population who can be bought -> risk isn’t worth it
Find competitive races and invest in favored candidate
Partisanship in the Branches
Congress
Parties are never mentioned in the Constitution
Indicates speaker of the House and Vice Presidential Role
Congress can organize itself- positions, committees, etc.
House of Representatives
Speaker: Mike Johnson (R-LA)
Speaker is elected in caucus
Don’t divide up the party by running on floor (Schooler)
Majority Leader: Steve Sculise (R-LA)
Minority Leader: Hakeem Jefferies (D-NY)
Whips
Promote party discipline
Organize whip counts
Whip Counts: assessing the favor for legislation in order to decide whether to apply pressure on voting a certain way
Senate
VP only gets involved as a tie breaker
Not involved 99% of the time
Advocates for the Presidential agenda
Disruptors of process are disliked
Peer pressure to follow norms
Negative Agenda Control
Parties are strongest when exercising Negative Agenda Control
Hastert Rule
Policies supported by the majority of the majority are passed
Policies not supported by the majority of the majority aren’t passed
Ideology
Choosing Majority and Minority Leaders
Leaders get chosen from center of distribution
Too Conservative/Liberal: often doesn’t reflect constituents
Too moderate: might not advance party platform enough
Must also be communicative and easy to work with
Policy
Policy works to same way- preference is for policy to satisfy center of distribution
Era of the Speaker-Czar
1880-1910 (ish)
Speakers are incredibly powerful
Rules Committee
Determines rules under which legislation can be considered
Committee Chairs
All appointed by speaker
Incentives/Sanctions
Example of Influential Speakers: Reed. Cannon
1910: Revolt Against Cannon
Adaptation period
1910-1930(ish) -> Transition
1930-1970(ish) -> Committee Government
Ability to name Committee Chairs is taken away from Speaker -> Seniority Rule for Chairs
Senior Member is Chair, cannot be kicked out unless they aren’t voted back by constituents
Informational Perspective: Committees are mainly an informational role, are hoped to function less on a partisan basis
Distributional Perspective: Representatives join committees in order to earn subsidies benefiting their constituents
1970
Democrats in control of the House
In control from 1950s-1994
South is overwhelmingly Democrat -> not competitive
Seniority Rule
Southern Democrat Committee Chair
Majority of majority wants to push Civil Rights reform
Can’t pass because they have no support from chairs
Democrats decide to violate Seniority Rule
Senior chairs not supporting the majority are thrown out
Subcommittee Powers
Power Vacuum from chairs leaving -> more power to the Speaker and Party Leaders
1970s-1994: Transition
1994-Present: Strong Parties
Increased by fundraising by leaders
Conditional Party Government Theory
Help us understand the circumstances under which Congress members are willing to delegate authority to certain positions
Conditions dictate how much power is given
Also describe the ebb & flow of preferences for authority
Conditions
Inter-Party Polarization: polarization between the two parties
Intra-Party Homogeneity: parties are similar
Executive
Includes President and Presidency
Includes executive agencies (EPA, etc.)
Administers and implements the execution of the law
Neustadt
Modern Presidency Theory (1940s-1980s)
Eisenhower, Carter, Johnson
Elements
Presidents are trying to be non-partisan, “above the fray”
Work across party lines
Make judgements on policies independent of party
Focus on Legacy
Results in Candidate Centric elections
Candidate promises to be different from party
Focus on appealing to a broad constituency
Win via coalition building
Try to persuade centrists
Transition Period (1980s-2000s)
Incorporates both theories
Reagan: leans to policy partisan
George HW Bush
Clinton
1995: Partisan Presidency
1997: Modern presidency
Partisan Presidency (2000s-Present)
GW Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden
After Bush, Presidents have been more pushed to being partisan -> out of necessity instead of choice
Involved “in the fray”
Use party as a vehicle to win and set policy
Push the platform of the party
Win by mobilizing the base
3. Judicial
Federal
Have discretion over the docket -> see about only 60-90 cases each year
Justices nominated by President and confirmed by Senate
Presented as fair, nonpartisan, and committed to reviews the law carefully and as intended
Nominees do not state their positions on policy, only give general reports on how they would approach the cases
Interviewed about ideology and qualifications
If qualified, very straightforward to be confirmed
Partisan nominating and voting
One party will usually vote in favor of nomination by their president, other party against
Local Courts
Circuit and District Courts -> Senatorial Courtesy
Senatorial Courtesy: example of partisan influence
Partisan Influence on Policy Interpretation
Legal Model
Determination based off of fact, law
No influence from politics, party, etc
Mechanical process
Attitudinal Model
Judges’ decisions are based on their ideological values
Still consult law & fact, but are more personally influenced
Most likely attitudinal is more accurate, legal is naive
State Courts
Appointment
Elections
Contestable Partisan
Contestable non-partisan
Retention/Merits
Hybrid between appointment and retention process
Implications
accountability/Independence (Brayce and Boye)
Death penalty not reversed in states where death penalty is popular