Full Election Notes #1

Full Election Notes

From 1914, both the Senate and the House of Representatives were directly elected; previously, until the 17^th Amendment, they were indirectly elected.

Congressional elections are held every TWO YEARS Presidential elections are held every FOUR YEARS Mid-terms elections are held midway through the president’s 4 year term of office. > Therefore CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS coincide on ALTERNATE YEARS with PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS.

When there are congressional and presidential elections on the same day it is difficult to distinguish why people vote the way they do in one election as opposed to the other.

Congressional elections	Presidential elections	Mid-terms elections
Every two years; 1/3 Senators Entire House Held on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November HOP serve two years Senators serve six years	Every four years to elect the president The candidate with the most Electoral College votes wins the election – NOT the most votes nationally.	Halfway through office 1/3 Senators Entire House

Year	Type of election	President and what the election was fought upon	House	Senate	President
2000	Presidential	George W Bush – won the Electoral College but LOST PREFERENTIAL VOTING	Rep	Rep	Republican Bush
2002	Mid-terms	Entire House and 1/3 of the Senate 9/11 and the war on terror	Rep	Rep	Republican Bush
2004	Presidential	Bush – Iraq and Hurricane Katrina	Dem	Dem	Republican Bush
2006	Mid-terms	Entire House and 1/3 of the Senate Key theme of the mid-term, war weary nation	Dem	Dem	Republican Bush
2008	Presidential	Obama – Recession, fought on the economy	Dem	Dem	Democrat Obama
2010	Mid-terms	Entire House and 1/3 Senate Obama care, healthcare and economy	Rep	Dem	Democrat Obama
2012	Presidential	Obama – fought on healthcare	Rep	Dem	Democrat Obama
2014	Mid-terms	Entire House and 1/3 Senate Obama care, ISIS (doesn’t want ground troops as the USA are a war weary nation)	Rep	Rep	Democrat Obama
2016	Presidential

Primaries – an election to select the party’s candidate for elective office; presidency.

Who does it benefit or disadvantage?	Why is it positive?	Why is it negative?
Political interest - activity, whether in a primary or a caucus promotes political activeness.	Increased level of participation by ordinary voters 2012 turnout 15% 2008 turnout 30% Incumbent presidents are not an issue however; in 2008, the contest between an African American and a woman was enough for a 30% turnout	Widespread voter apathy; vary in every cycle of elections. Years where incumbent presidents are running, only one party has a genuine nomination contest, turnout is only 17%.
Ideological candidates do better in the primaries; Ron Paul, 2012 libertarian Republican won 10% of the vote in 40 primaries and caucuses. 5 of his votes exceeded 25% States that held caucuses – 21% average States that held primaries – 12% average Issues of unrepresentativeness are magnified in CAUCUS states	Greater choice of candidates – fourteen candidates in 2008	Voters are unrepresentative; voters tend to be older, more educated, wealthier and more ideologically developed.
Voters do not have confidence in disunited arties	Process is open to outsiders, so politicians who don’t necessarily have a national reputation Obama – 2008	Can develop into bitter personal battles – television commercials accused George W Bush of not telling the truth, likening Bush to Clinton.
Elite candidates are at an advantage; Obama – $45.4 million in April 2011 $300.1 million by June 2012 Obama effectively spent double of what Romney did on his election campaign. Romney – $18.3 million in April 2011 $153.2 million by June 2012	Power of party bosses is done away with, people have control; lessening the opportunity of corruption and making the process more democratic ‘Fat cats in a smoke filled room’	Process is dominated by media, especially TV. In 2008 there were 47 televised debates, even before the candidates were chosen (prior to Iowa)
		Process is expensive – campaigns start early and are expensive to run. Due to front loading, there is little time to raise money once the primaries have started.
The candidates and voters are disadvantaged by primaries as they often encompass campaigning qualities rather than presidential qualities.	Primaries act as a demanding test for a demanding job.  2008 – Obama was presented a stronger candidate after his gruelling primary battle with Clinton	Process is long – Obama announced his candidacy 332 days before the first primary whereas, Romney announced his candidacy 222 days before the first primary. The process being lengthy can discourage better candidates from running Lack of peer review – presidential candidates were previously selected by political professionals, who had a good idea of the qualities required for a president.

OPEN Primaries – A primary election in which any registered voter can vote in the primary of either party	CLOSED Primaries - a primary election in which only registered Democrats can vote in the Democratic primary and only registered Republicans can vote in the Republican primary
People are not required to declare their affiliation pre-election. Voters may arrive at the polling station, be given two ballots, one which they will use and the other which is returned.	Most states require people to declare affiliation when they register to vote and will only participate in the primary for the party they support.
Twenty states use OPEN Primaries	Thirteen states use CLOSED Primaries. Thirteen states use a modified form of closed primaries – independents are allowed to vote in at least one party’s primary.
Advantages J Enable wider participation in the nomination process Likely to reflect the views of the electorate in its entirety rather than activists, opening the nomination process to outsiders who have not built up a track record and strong relationship with the party activists.	Advantages J People who pledge affiliation show some sort of commitment and are likely to be better informed of the merits of the candidate. The party is protected from raiding – supporters of the other party who cross over and vote for a weak candidate. Example, mischievous Democrats voting for the weakest Republican so it is easier competition

Advantages and Disadvantages of Primaries to select a candidate for HIGH OFFICE

Advantages of Primaries J	Disadvantages of Primaries L
More democratic than party leaders deciding candidates.	Experienced party leaders will make a more informed decision on suitable candidates rather than the public.
Candidates who had little chance of being selected may be put forward for election; the influence of the party leaders is very much diluted.	Candidates campaign on personal qualities rather than policy – this shouldn’t be the case, more the promotion of the party’s message
The competing candidates offer a range of policies and election strategies provide a strong indication of whether the policies/strategies have the greatest appeal for the electorate – particularly if Independents are participating.	The competition between candidates of the same party can become so intense that insults and accusations cause the public image of the party to be tainted. This can also cause factions within the same party.
In OPEN Primaries, all voters have the opportunity to participate, increasing political participation by a wide cross section of the adult population.	In OPEN Primaries, raiding occurs, where supporters of one party cross over and vote for a weak candidate of the opposing party.
	If a victory emerges early in the process, voters in all states that haven’t yet held their primaries do not have the opportunity to play their part.

Front loading – states who tactically position their presidential primaries earlier in the cycle to increase the importance of their state in choosing major party presidential candidates. In the 1980s, Southern states held their primary on the same day, always in early March – dubbed Super Tuesday. This tactic was so successful that other states moved their primaries ahead of Super Tuesday in February – hence, FRONT LOADING. In 2008, twenty states held their primaries on the 5^th February, dwarfing all Super Tuesdays.

Front loading J	Front loading L
Front loading has meant that the nomination process is virtually over by the end of March. This has meant that any battles between members of the same party have been short – preserving the reputation and the resources for the election  campaign.	Front loading is ineffective because, the invisible primaries have grown in importance – requiring candidates to raise substantial funds and establish recognition, gaining endorsement from prominent party members, and making an impact in the first crucial weeks of the primaries. Front loading doesn’t work if the candidates are written off before the primaries even begin.
Support from the most prominent leaders of the party is highly beneficial to candidates in a compressed primary calendar. This gives leaders the opportunity to influence the choice of the candidate to represent them in election.	Front loading has been subject to criticism as there is still considerable importance of the first primary in New Hampshire and the first caucus in Iowa, as these carry early momentum into Super Tuesday.
	Front loading is problematic for candidates who perform unexpectedly well, like John Edwards in 2004, who have little time to build up their campaigns.
	Front loading presents the problem of creating a rushed atmosphere; many describe this as the primaries feeling like a cross country tour bus, where candidates stop long enough in each state to wave and move on, meaning that the public don’t really get to know the candidates.
	Voters in the states that don’t hold their primaries early may effectively become disenfranchised.
	The process creates a sense that election campaigns start early and last a very long time.

National Party Convention

Formal functions	Examples and evaluation	Informal functions	Examples
Choosing the party’s presidential candidate – each state delegate announces which candidate they wish to vote for. These candidates are selected in the primaries/caucuses To win the presidential nomination a candidate must receive an absolute majority of the delegate votes. If no candidate gains an absolute majority, balloting continues until one candidate dos	2012: Republicans – Mitt Romney Paul Ryan (vice) 2012: Democrats – Barack Obama Joe Biden (vice) The presidential candidate is selected at primaries/caucuses and the National Party defeating the significance of the National Party Convention being the place where the presidential candidate is selected. Merely, the candidate is publicised to the party and the supporters.	Promoting party unity – primaries turn into bitter personal battles. Internal party wounds are healed before the general election campaign begins; National Party Convention gives an opportunity to heal the wounds NPC is the only occasion in 4 years that the party meets together	This is done as the NPC follows on from bitter primary battles. Hilary and Barack’s personal battles could have cost them the election. The party was presented as united on all fronts as Bill Clinton, a previous well-known president spoke in favour of Obama, having supported his wife for the entire election campaign.
Choosing the party’s vice presidential candidate – this convention is primarily lost in terms of time. The vice presidential candidate is selected before the Convention, alleviating any purpose of the Convention in terms of formality of selection.	This function is also flawed as being part of the National Party Convention as the vice presidential candidate is selected at the same time as the presidential candidate – they run synonymously for election. 2012: Romney announced his running mate two weeks before the convention	Enthusing the party faithful – importance of ensuring that the party is faithful and enthusiastic and committed in all 50 states throughout the 9 week campaign	Ensuring the support is maintained and sustained throughout the election process; to an extent maintaining the work of the primaries is done – open tour bus – ensuring all the states are tackled.
Deciding the party’s platform, manifesto – no true debate; media often portray such debates as evidence of a divided party. Party platform – document containing the policies that the candidate intends to pursue if elected president	The party platform is another ineffective aspect and part of the National Party Convention. There is no real debate here; the purpose of the NPC is to heal the rifts of the primaries between leaders; In 2008, the purpose of the NPC was to heal the rifts between Obama and Clinton after their gruelling primary debate. Bill Clinton actually used the NPC to announce the Clinton’s approval of Obama for the job. “I am here first to support Barack Obama. And second, I’m here to warm up the crowd for Joe Biden”	Enthusing the ordinary votes – not present in the convention hall; this must be done through TV. Acceptance speech takes place over the TV; this is so important to ensure they believe they have the winning ticket/policies. Opportunity for: displaying presidential qualities, boost opinion poll ratings, ‘bounce’, outline of policies	Voters who had previously been won over by another presidential candidate – women were a big group of ordinary voters that Hilary Clinton had enthused. Obama had the role of ensuring he had the women’s vote.

To win the presidential nomination, 50% is needed:

2012: 2286 delegates attended the National Party Convention. 1144 votes were needed by Romney to win the nomination. This was achieved by late may, three months prior to the Republican convention, at the end of August.

The National Party Convention therefore confirms rather than chooses the presidential candidate

An argument suggesting the National Party Convention has lost its significance:

o   Presidential candidates are now selected in the primaries

o   Vice presidential candidates are chosen by the presidential candidates and announced before the convention

o   Parties often lay on scripted/sanitised conventions

o   Terrestrial TV gives less coverage to conventions

Presidential debates – held between the two major presidential candidates occurring in September/October. There is traditionally a debate held between the two vice presidential candidates

The first debates were held in 1960 – after 16 years, televised debates were held.                                                      

2012 sampled all three versions of debate:

1)    Two candidates at separate podiums

2)    Town hall style debates

3)    Candidates sat round a table with a moderator (used by the vice presidential candidates, Biden and Ryan)

The only time a third party candidate was permitted to participate was in 1992 – this was an independent candidate, Ross Perot. His running partner, James Stockdale joined the vice presidential debate.

In 1980, President Carter refused to show up to a debate where a third party candidate (Anderson had been invited) – he only came to the debate where Republican, Reagan had been invited. 

Carter v Reagan – 1980

At the end of their 90 minute debate, each candidate was given three minutes to make a closing statement;

I think when you make that decision; it might be well if you ask yourself, are you better off than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to buy things in stores than it was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we’re as strong as we were four years ago?

Ronald Reagan

Reagan posed a series of rhetorical questions that voters will think of negative responses towards Carter; On Election Day, Carter only won 6 states and the District of Columbia for 49 Electoral College votes. 

Reagan v Mondale – 1984

At the time, Reagan was 73 years old; his age was becoming an increasingly ‘worrying issue’ in terms of maintaining image. A member of the panel actually commented on Reagan being the oldest President in history, and the election process becoming tiring

… I just want you to know that I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.

Ronald Reagan

Reagan went on to a 49 state victory in the election

Obama v. Romney - 2012

Romney initially appeared to be second in the polls, prior to the debate. Neither the selection of Paul Ryan nor his acceptance speech at the Republican convention appeared to make a difference. Romney appeared animated, coherent and quite aggressive. Arguably, Romney was looking rather presidential  

The polls after the debate presented Romney as a clear winner – 72% of those who watched the debate thought Romney had won and only 20% thought Obama was the winner.

This was arguably the most remarkable debate of presidential history; how Obama still won regardless of the televised debate.

Most debates are not game changing events – however the three noted above prove different.

Debate rules of thumb

Rules	Explanation	2012 example
Style is often more than substance	What you say is not as important as how you say it and how you look.	President Obama’s was widely criticised for his passive style he adopted throughout the debate. However, whilst this raised Mitt Romney’s polls, Obama still won the election
Verbal gaffes can be costly	What is said at the debate is televised, live. What is said cannot be amended – so what is said in a context can be wrongly interpreted	‘I went to a number of women’s groups and said, ‘Can you help us find folks’ and they brought us whole binders full of women’ Mitt Romney – appeared as not willing to appoint women for top jobs
Good sound bites are helpful	Voters do not watch the full debate but see the highlights/sound bites	2008: Obama was sound-bitten; catching Obama attempting to link McCain to the unpopular G W Bush. 2012: Obama accused Romney of favouring ‘the foreign policy of the 1980s, the social policy of the 1950s, and the economic policy of the 1920s’
Debates are potentially more difficult for incumbents than for challengers	Incumbents have to defend themselves over the words that they’ve spoken four years earlier Incumbents go into the debates, appearing as the front runners automatically are assumed as the expectation of them is higher. Presidents often go into debates rusty than their counterparts, with little debate technique, having been in power for four years.	Between June 2011 and February 2012 Romney participated in 19 televised debates. Obama had appeared last in a televised debate was October 2008.

Debates, supplemented with televised commercials confirm what the voters feel about the candidates rather than changing voter’s minds completely.

Debates can also turn passive voters into active voters!

Are presidential debates really that significant?

YES, presidential debates are significant	NO, presidential debates are not that significant
The debates are the sole opportunity where candidates can address the American voters, unfiltered for an entire ninety minutes The audiences for debates are large, particularly for televised debates.	Rarely have a lasting impact on the outcome of the election
Sound bites can be played over.	Style is often more than substance; memorable points are usually trivial rather than substance. Often debates are rehearsed and candidates are giving their pre rehearsed answers
Debates are more important for new challengers as they can change the direction of the campaign.	Debates usually confirm the positon of the front runner in the race.
Viewing figures - 64million in 2012; 2008 – the vice presidential debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin got over 69 million viewers	Viewing figures often decline for later debates

How does the Electoral College work?

Electoral College Votes=          Congressional Representation in any state

ECV=   No. in the House + 2 in the Senate

Total of 538 Electoral College Votes – to win a presidency, a candidate must win 270, gaining an absolute majority

Whichever presidential candidate receives the MOST popular votes will receive ALL the Electoral College Votes in that state. Whilst this isn’t completely constitutional, 48 states have a law requiring it.

Maine and Nebraska – give out their ECVs depending on who wins the presidential vote in each congressional district.

The Electoral College NEVER meets: Electors meet in their own state capitols and send their results to the vice president.

Should no candidate win the absolute majority of 270, the President is selected by the House – with each state having one vote, so 50 votes in total. The Vice President would be elected by the Senate, each senator having one vote so 100 votes in total.

Proposed reform to the Electoral College

o   Abandon the ‘winner takes all’ for a more proportional system, used by Maine and Nebraska. Had all states used this system in 2012, Romney would have won – yet he lost the popular vote by 5 million votes

o   Pass state laws to prohibit any ‘rogue electors’ from casting their rogue votes

o   Abolish the Electoral College altogether and decide the election, purely on a popular vote. A potential problem with this is the weak mandate that the winner will gain, only receiving roughly 40% of the vote.

Should the Electoral College be replaced by a national popular vote?

YES – it the Electoral College should be replaced by a national popular vote	NO – the Electoral College shouldn’t be replaced by a national popular vote
The Electoral College supresses the popular will. It allows candidates to win the presidency despite winning a minority of the vote across the country. BUSH: 271 EC votes – 48% AL-GORE: 266 EC votes – 48.4% The will of the majority should meet/reflect the results of an election	The popular will almost always prevails. The current system delivers an Electoral College win for the candidate who wins the popular vote substantially. Obama has done, 51% in 2008, 47% in 2012 The Electoral College ensures that the candidate with the broadest support across states will win; 2000: Bush won 29 states; Al Gore won 21 states
Presence of faithless/rogue electors; Barbara Lett Simmons – who abstained from voting due to her protest in the lack of congressional representation for Washington DC (basically no representation) Rogue electors however, whilst existing have never affected the outcome of an election	Rogue electors are theoretically possible but rare; many states have laws put in place to deal with them and ensure they are representative of the people. 26 states have passed legislation requiring electors to vote in accordance to the wish of their state voters
It leads to some votes counting more than others (having a greater value) The number of electors allocated to each state is based on each state’s representation in Congress. Each state has two senators and a number of House representatives. Smaller states are overrepresented in the Electoral College. 2012: the six least populous states had the same number of Electoral College votes as Ohio (which is three times larger than the combined population of the 6 states. A vote in Ohio carried less than 1/3 of the weight of a vote in one of the six smallest states, making the Electoral College unfair, unrepresentative and undemocratic	The Electoral College provides decisive results through incentivising the two party system, providing voters with a clear choice. President would have had to gain 50% or more and have a strong mandate to govern for. Both a plurality state level and majority level is achieved through the current system. Third parties will find attaining high levels of support difficult. A national popular vote would make it easy for third party candidates to pick up votes; they’d be unlikely to win but would deny the winning candidate an absolute majority of popular votes
It gives undue prominence to a small number of states; all states apart from Maine and Nebraska award their Electoral College votes as ‘winner takes all’ where the majority of states can be relied on to vote a particular party’s candidate Alaska invariably Republican Minnesota staunchly Democrat Outcome is decided by swing states. Obama and Romney spent $100 million on TV advertising for the crucial swing state Ohio whilst no money was spent in California as it has been a Blue state since 1988. Due to the Electoral College, candidates are able to effectively ignore a majority of states in their campaign by focussing solely on the swing states that make a difference to advertise or address key issues in	It is the Electoral College that allows states to choose a President not just a narrow majority of the overall population. Changing the Electoral College to a popular vote would remove one of the major constitutional planks protecting the rights of states. Arguing that a federal system is undemocratic fundamentally undermines the USA’s historical democracy. Representation is broadly proportional but its biggest advantage is giving the smaller states a voice, as the Founding Fathers wanted, forming Federalism. In 2012, New Hampshire Iowa and Nevada were the three of the key nine swing states receiving attention despite their low populations.
It is an unnecessary anachronism. Under the 17th Amendment, each senator may be elected directly by its voters. These changes affirm the importance of the people being able to vote directly for their representatives in the federal government	Cohesiveness; the Electoral College requires a president to win votes from a variety of states, allowing them to govern with the majority of interests of all Americans, whereas a national popular vote would allow the big urban states to impose a president on the rest of the country. Obama had to win the big states like Ohio and Michigan but still had to win Nevada and Colorado to win the Electoral College. This increases the legitimacy when negotiating with Congress over legislation.

Campaign Finance Reform

Concerns have arisen that:

o   it is impossible for some people who do not have personal wealth/connections to run for office

o   elected representatives have become so reliant on the organisations/individuals who fund their campaigns that they have become more responsive to the needs of their donors rather than their voters

o   donors support those with a proven electoral success; incumbency advantage which reduces the likelihood of an effective electoral challenge

Raises the suspicion whether representatives can remain in office (as long as they have the financial support) rather than fulfilling the role of representatives being held to account

Potential benefits of private financing for elections

·       donors are making a political statement/ expressing opinion

·       donors take an active role in the campaign they support – raising overall level of political awareness

·       as well as financially, donors will take an active role in volunteering and attending rallies – proving it is not just a ‘chequebook membership’

·       donors are likely to share their political view, making them a source of political education

·       donors will vote and actively encourage others to vote, thus increasing turnout

Watergate – political corruption and campaign finance regulation: 

President Nixon had paid people to break into the Democrat headquarters to find out their election campaign strategy, probing a questionable relationship between the President and his donors. These hearings demonstrated the need for clear campaign finance monitoring; Congress passed a series of laws to regulate how much money could be spent and what the money could be used for.

FECA – The Federal Elections Campaign Act 1972 – replaced all legislation to address political corruption, and designed to reduce the influence of wealthy donors on elections. This was strengthened by the Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1974 passed in response to the Watergate revelations, requiring all candidates to disclose their sources of income, place limits on campaign donations and set up a system of public financing to reduce the need for reliance on wealthy donors.

The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) enforced the rules, by managing money in politics in a three point plan

1)    Disclosure – All campaign contributions had to be declared and published so anyone can see who has given money and judgements made on whether or not the elected rep’s actions have become influenced by their donors

2)    Restriction on the size of donations – to limit the dependence of candidates on a small number of extremely wealthy donors

3)    Reducing election costs and reliance on private donations – the 1974 law dangled a carrot in front of all candidates running for presidency; if they undertook to limit the total amount of funds raised through private donations, the Federal government would provide matching funds boosting the campaign budget without the need to invest further time and resources in fundraising

FECA – Federal Election Campaign Act, 1974 –

-       Limited individual contributions to a political party to $20 000 and to a candidate, $1000

-       Limited corporate contributions, $5000 through a PAC – the law stated that to prevent the close relationship between a candidate and a donor, PAC’s had to receive donations from 50 donors to donate to at least 5 candidates, therefore acting as a financial filter

-       Restricted to a total of $25 000 per year, to prevent donors from using multiple PACs including donations made to a political party.

What is the Federal Electoral Commission and why is it limited?

The ‘Failure to Enforce Commission’ – three Republicans, three Democrats, deadlocked into deciding whether election laws are being broken or maintained. Critics would like to see it removed and replaced with an organisation that heavily punishes those who break the election laws.

What is Matching Funds and why is it not a great system?

FECA dangled a carrot in front of candidates – if a candidate could raise $45million (in 2004) the federal government would provide matching funds to boost their election campaign budget automatically.  Matching Funds was only applicable to candidates with the widespread support and voter appeal across the country through raising $10 000 in contributions of $250 each. A further qualification for Matching Funds was small contributions of $5000 from at least twenty states – this would ardently illustrate the widespread support for a candidate outside his home region and support, actively and financially from other states.

Why have the reforms not worked? Why did the Supreme Court limit it?

FECA was weakened by the Supreme Court (1976, Buckley v. Valeo) limiting what individuals or PACs could spend either supporting or opposing a candidate. It was unconstitutional to restrict how much a person could spend, of their own money; exempting personal wealth from campaign finance  regulations, infringing 1^st Amendment rights.

Hard Money – money donated directly to the election campaign. Used to persuade voters to vote.

Soft Money – money spent on promoting awareness for elections to ensure people can vote. Effectively a way of getting around FECA by not using certain words that would infringe the regulation

BCRA – Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold law):

McCain made campaign finance reform the centrepiece of his campaign took pride in his reliance on small donors

-National party committees banned from raising/spending soft money

-Labour unions/corporations forbidden from funding issue advertisements directly

-Using union/corporate money to broadcast ads that mention a federal candidate within 60 days of an election/30 days of a primary

-Fundraising on federal property forbidden

-Increased individual limits on contributions to individual candidates/committees to $2300 to be increased for inflation in each odd-numbered year

-Banned contributions from foreign nationals

-‘Stand By Your Ad’ provision, resulting in all ads including a verbal endorsement; I am Barack Obama and I approve this message

The intention of the law was to effectively reduce the amount of money being spent in Federal Elections. Also, to make candidates dependent on a large number of donors making lots of soft money contributions

527s

Under Section 527 of tax code, trade union leaders began to raise soft money for Anti-Bush advertisements.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)which granted corporate/labour organisations the same right of political free speech as individuals granting to some groups the right of unlimited independent and political expenditure. ‘Using union/corporate money to broadcast ads that mention a federal candidate within 60 days of an election/30 days of a primary’ was also lifted

Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission (2010) led up to the setting up of independent expenditure only committees, known as Super PACs. They played a significant role in fundraising and spending in 2012.

Super PAC’s were perceived by supporters as a positive consequence for deregulation providing an important outlet for unlimited money in electoral politics – that are legally independent, merely function as extensions of one or more campaigns.

Super PAC’s or IEOC’s/Independent Expenditure Only Committees– fundraising committees which are permitted to receive unlimited contributions and make unlimited expenditures aimed at electing or defeating candidates in federal elections, they are completely forbidden from making any direct contributions to federal candidates or parties

AIMS of Campaign Finance Reform – were they achieved?

-        Limiting the size of donations preventing candidates becoming beholden to donors

-        Bringing transparency into campaigns by making donors identities public

-        Through limiting spending, keeping overall expenditure down and ensuring there is approximate parity between candidates.

Reform was required due to the rising cost of elections due to these factors:

§  The length of presidential elections

§  Professionalism within campaigning – professional campaign managers do more than the candidate themselves

§  Campaign techniques have become more sophisticated

Incumbency advantage – may serve to undermine the level of accountability that elections are meant to achieve

¯  They have experience and achievements through their time in an official position that an outsider could not contest with

¯  They are just increasing their public profile whilst an outsider is building one up from scratch

¯  In the case of Congress, they already have the direct access to the resources – franking privileges, websites and staff

¯  The expectation that the incumbent will win is enough to have groups that can influence policy/provide funding for

Contract for America – within the Republican manifesto

Proposing that all members of Congress were to be limited for serving for a maximum of 12 years (six terms in the House and two terms in the Senate) – didn’t get through Congress, and wasn’t presented as a constitutional amendment, yet some Republicans imposed term limits and left in 2006.

Redistricting

Political parties are using the electoral process to add greater protection for their incumbents. After a census done on a 10 year basis, if it is done to benefit one party over another, it is known as GERRYMANDERING; with the aid of such technology, it has become easier to create districts where a party has a significant but not overwhelming majority. When repeated various times, it can allow minorities to win many votes but few seats.

Iowa remains the only state that puts redistricting in the hands of impartial, neutral civil servants

6 for 06

Mid Terms – Congressional Elections – 2014

The President’s Party tends to lose seats

-        1/3 of the Senate is elected (2-3 seats are lost)

-        The entire House of Representatives is elected (average 23 seats are lost)

2002: historically, the year when the President’s party GAINED seats in BOTH the Senate (2 seats) and the House (5 seats)

Ways in which both the Senate and the House will NOT gain seats…If they are the President’s party

·       If a president has had a coattails effect, those who entered either the House or Senate on the President’s coattail will be outvoted with the opportunity. In the 2010 Midterms the House lost 3 Democrat representatives and 6 senators

·       Mid terms provide the opportunity to outvote those who have proved to be a disappointment to the presidents previous two years in office. Arguably, so many Democrat seats were lost in Congress to express dissatisfaction for the failure of Obama to turn around the economy. Others used the opportunity to address their dissatisfaction for the failed healthcare reforms

CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS – 2010

-63 House seats; -6 Senate seats – this was the worst mid term result since 1922

The 63 House seats that were lost included:

-        The last three standing committee chairmen who had (98 years of combined congressional experience),

-        52 incumbent representatives in the last two election cycles.

-        People who lost seats were Democratic House members in Republican states in 2008 – voting for McCain

Democrat losses in the Senate were due to the retirements of incumbents and open races in Illinois, Indiana, North Dakota and Pennsylvania

The Congressional losses could have been even more sever if the Republican Party’s Tea Party had not been put against the Democrats

28 or 72% of Congressmen lost their seats when put up for re-election – the McCain Democrats
11 who won, 9 voted no on the final passage of Obama’s healthcare reform bill

How significant are mid-term elections - 15 marks

The standing/authority of the President is likely to be affected. The 2014 defeat of Obama was heavily affected as the Senate victory of the Republicans in the mid terms changed the legislative branch of the government to become completely Republican. This effectively thwarted the power of Obama. Bills are unlikely to be passed through the legislative chamber, and the mid terms have meant that for Obama to get anything done, they will need to use an executive order – as done with Immigration.

The balance of power within the main parties may be affected. During the midterms, the Democrat Party candidates standing for re-election didn’t want anything to do with Obama – presenting them as moving away from Obama’s liberal stance and arguably shifting the Democrat Party to the right.

Midterms take place at alternate two tears; thus coinciding with the presidential elections. This can reduce significance for midterms it can take away from the main presidential show. Those standing for re-election can often ride in on the coattails of the President, due to a feel good factor in the country at election time. However, the significance of congressional elections and state elections being at the same time can mean that those who rode in on the coattails of the President are removed and cannot hide behind the President.

Congressional elections attract less public attention and have lower voter turnouts, despite being the main political event, 36.3% turned out in the 2014 Midterm election – worst in 72 years, despite being the most expensive set of elections costing $3.7billion.

President’s party makes LOSSES (see table). Rarely, the President’s Party makes midterm gains – this is known as the reverse coattails effect, which happened in 2002. This makes the President’s job easier as he is controlling a Congress of his own party majority; Bush national wave of support after 9/11

The theme of change was successful for the 2006 midterm which swept Obama into the White House in 2008. However, the themes of the economy, healthcare reform and immigration didn’t prove as successful as themes around the 2014 midterm and in effect moved voters away from the Democrat Party.

However, mid terms have a substantial impact:

CONGRESS	Senate			House
2012	Democrats: 53	Republicans: 45	Ind. 2	Democrats: 201	Republicans: 234
2014	Democrats: 46	Republicans: 54		Democrats: 188	Republicans: 245
Losses and gains	Loss of 6 Senators for Dem	Gain of 9 Senators for Republicans		Loss of 13 Dem Representatives	Gain of 11 Rep Representatives

Republicans currently controlling the Senate – what does this mean?

Mitch McConnell becomes majority leader; the day to day running of the Chamber falls to him. He will set the agenda, decide which bills come to the floor and manage the floor debate to advance the party’s agenda.

Republicans can take control on committee chairmanships, giving them significant authority to launch investigations, shape the policy debate in the Capitol.

This also means partisan gridlock for Obama. The current Congress has passed the least bills in history; this is not going to improve after these elections. Obama will not pass legislation into law, as he can simply veto bills he disagrees with. Obama becomes a lame duck president. 

Republicans made younger, more diverse gains to the legislative body that have been historically dominated by older white men.

œ First Haitain African American – Mia Love defeated her Democrat opponent Doug Owns

œ Joni Ernst, Iraq war veteran became the first woman to represent Iowa in the Upper Chamber

œ West Virginia, Shelly Moore Capito – first female Senator; first GOP Senator in 56 years.

œ Youngest Senator, Elise Stefanik, youngest woman elected to Congress.

œ Tim Scott, first GOP Senator to be elected by popular vote in the South since the Reconstruction era.

Six Senate races to watch:

North Carolina: Kay Hagan v Thom Thillis – Thillis pitched himself as a moderate, supporting prescription free access to birth control.

Incumbency doesn’t mean much to freshmen Congressmen…

Arkansas: Mark Pryor (Blue Dog) v Tom Cotton; Republicans have taken control of 5 out of 6 state federal offices in the state legislature, making Pryor very vulnerable.

Colorado: Mark Udall v Cory Gardener – Udall devoted far too much of his campaign to women’s rights concerning the cost of birth control and abortion. Gardener has a conservative platform for spending cuts and increased US energy production

Georgia: Michelle Nunn v David Perdue – campaign to overhaul income tax system, disbands the education department. Obviously opposes Obamacare

Iowa: Joni Ernst v Bruce Braley – opposes national federal minimum wage, supported anti abortion laws that would define foetuses as legal persons and wants to repeal Obamacare

Kansas: Greg Orman v Pat Roberts – Kansas hasn’t elected a Democrat to the Senate since 1932, and still didn’t in 2014. Incumbent advantage.

TRENDS IN CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS

Coattails effect – the effect of strong candidates for a party at the top of the ticket (ballot) helping other candidates of the same party get elected at the same time. Democrats are distancing themselves from Obama, illustrating the positives and benefits that can be made from the coattails effect

Reverse coattails effect – in 2000, the Republicans lost seats in both Houses (including 4 in the Senate) but Bush won the presidential race. Midterms were a reverse of the typical expectations of the midterms coattails effect as the Republicans won both the House and the Senate

-        Split ticket voting – the practice of voting for candidates of two or more parties for different offices at the same election

-        Straight ticket voting – voting for candidates of the same party for different offices at the same election

Advantages of Split Ticket Voting	The Decline of Split Ticket Voting
The electorate has moved beyond party labels; aside the party, other issues have become of critical cause for voting preference – for example a stance on a controversial issue.		6% voted split in 2012
Voters may feel compelled to opt for an incumbent from a challenging party rather than an untested challenger from the same party.	17 districts won by OBAMA were won by Republican Congressional candidates; 9 won by Romney were held by Democrat Congressional candidates. Greater voter homogeneity at regional level – purer Red/Blue states.
Used to achieve a more moderate policy agenda, attempting to avoid ideological extremes	Split tickets are due to the polarisation of the two parties
Voters could want a more liberal leaning Congress at the same time as a conservative presidency – however, this assumes a high level of voter political knowledge.	Decline of split tickets are due to internal discrepancies between two parties – the electorate are making decisions on which are more party centric rather than candidate centric
Allows candidates to move away from official party positions to get support from groups who might not otherwise vote for them. Maine votes Democrat in Presidential elections, yet has Republican Senator Collins. Collins isn’t as conservative as the right wing of the party who oppose gay marriage and abortion.	People before the Party Calls for the removal of straight ticket voting option, bill in the House of Representatives; ensuring split tickets provide a more moderate political climate.
15 states have the ballot format that discourages split ticket voting through the ballot format which allows them to provide one provincial cross to select candidates of the same party. Split ticket voting is more democratic and encouraged

Elections are issue orientated rather than party orientated. Ticket splitting results in a state supporting a presidential candidate from one party and a senatorial candidate from the other party

Strong support for incumbents – those who already sit in Congress have the opportunity to be re-elected. Re-election occurs due to financial advantage mainly.

Montana is known for high levels of split ticket voting. Romney won in Montana in 2012 whilst Democratic Senator Jon Tester won the Senate election at the same time. Montana is known to have voted for a Republican presidency and a Democratic Senator on 10 separate presidential election occasions

Propositions, referendums and recall elections

Propositions – initiative (enables citizens to bypass state legislatures by placing proposed laws on the ballot, on a state level or as a constitutional amendment on the state ballot)

DIRECT propositions – proposals that qualify go DIRECTLY onto the ballot

INDIRECT propositions – questions are submitted to the state legislature who must decide what further action should follow Some states, the proposition goes on the ballot even if the state legislature rejects it or submits a different proposal or takes no action. Some state legislatures can submit a competing proposal on the ballot along with the original proposal

Advantages and disadvantages of propositions

Advantages J	Disadvantages L
A method of enacting reforms on controversial issues that state legislatures are often unwilling or able to act on	The lack of flexibility within the legislative process; once a measure is drafted and put on the ballot, it cannot be changed after it has been adopted.
To increase the responsiveness and accountability of state legislatures/legislators	Propositions lack the benefits of the opportunity of amendment – they are set in stone from the beginning.
Controversial issues being on the ballot can be used to increase voter turnout: Ohio 2004, same-sex marriage ban which drew in large numbers of conservative Republican voters, who voted in Bush	Propositions are vulnerable to the manipulation by interest/pressure groups. For example, a proposition on gun control would be severely lobbied by the National Rifles Association
Propositions increase citizen interest in issues and encourage other forms of political participation (pressure groups)	Subjected to the tyranny of the majority as propositions require a majority to be passed – silencing of the minority.
Promotes a pluralist democracy – providing the greatest opportunity for the purest form of direct democracy.	Expensive to have rejected proposals still featuring on the ballot paper
Reinforces the idea of federalism	Causes voter apathy; too frequent occasions where the public are asked to participate politically.
	Politically uneducated people have the power of important decisions

Economic Minimum wage	Social Gun control	Social Marijuana legalisation	Social Gay rights	Social/Health Women’s rights
Alaska Illinois – raise MW	Alabama Washington – background checks	Alaska – legalise Columbia – possession Florida – medical	None as the Supreme Court has permitted gay marriage in 35 states – it ceases to be an influential midterm issue	Illinois – to cover contraception Tennessee – abortion regulation

Recall elections – enables ordinary voters in a state to remove an official from office before the expiration of their term – or a direct form of IMPEACHMENT

IMPEACHMENT – legal process where politicians can remove one of their own from office

19 states have recall procedures for state officials.

Republican governor of Wisconsin – Scott Walker, June 2012 who beat his Democrat counterpart, Tom Barrett by 53% to 46%.  The recall was on the basis of the opposition to Governor Walker’s implementation of changes to state employee pension schemes and limiting the amount of collective bargaining rights for trade unions.

Recall - device which increases democratic accountability not just at election time, but at any time during their office. Recall elections have been criticised as demeaning of the democratic process by allowing voters to indulge in buyers regret. Arguably, the power of recall initiates the destabilisation of the governing process by increasing instability and uncertainty.