US
Government and Politics A2 Revision Notes
Elections and Voting
Presidential Elections
Basic facts
- Fixed-term elections occur every 4 years on the Tuesday after the first Monday of the month of November (occurs between 2 and 8 November) = laid down in article 2 of constitution
- First presidential election held 1788
- Vice-president becomes president if current one dies i.e. Lyndon B Johnson completed John F Kennedy’s term when assassinated
Requirements for a presidential candidate
-
Constitutional Requirements
- One must be a natural-born American citizen
- One must be at least 35 years old (youngest ever = Theodore Roosevelt – 42. Kennedy = 43 youngest elected president)
- Residency qualification of 14 years
- (Essentially not to have already served two terms as president)
-
Extra-constitutional requirements
-
Political experience
-
Good pools of recruitment for presidency:
vice-presidents, state governors and senators. Fourth HoR however very few serving members of the
House manage to get themselves regarded as leading presidential candidate.
Six/eleven candidates for Reublican presidential nomination in 2012 was state governor,
four from congress 0 three fro house and one from senate. Of 17 politiicains
who were nominated as presidential candidates in the last 12 elections to 2012,
nine were or had been senators six had been vice-president and six had been
governors. 1952 Eisenhow elected – former second world war genera;. Collin
Powell, ex army general = most recent serious contendor w/o this exp. And
Herman Cain had a brief moment of glory
-
HOWEVER:
Clinton, 8 yrars first lady and 7 years in senate was defeared by candidate
with the lease experience, Barack Obama who had been in the senate for just 3
years at the start of the election year.
-
Major party endorsement
-
The political endeavors of George Wallace
(1968), John Anderson (1980), Ross Pero (1992 and 1996) and Pat Buchanan (2000)
show that third-party or independent canidates do not lead to the White House.
-
Personal Characteristics
-
All presidential candidates for major parties
have been white males. Even by January 2013 – only 20 women out of 100 members
in US Senate and only one African American. All vice-presidents have been white
males. But 2008 = Obama elected first
black pres.
-
Advantage to be married – Has only been one
bachelor president – James Buchanan elected 1857. It was said that scandal
involving marital infidelity could rule out a possible candidate (Senator Gary
Hart pilled out of 1988 nomination race after press revealed pictures of him
with a scantily-clad model named Donna Rice on a yacht called monkey business).
but Bill Clinton managed to secure Democratic Party’s nomination in 1992
despite allegations surrounding Gennifer Flowers which surfaced. John McCain
2008 had divorced his wife in 1980 and married his current
-
Ability to raise large sums of money
-
Ability to raise money is crucial to a successful
bid for the presidency. Only billionaire candidates such as Ross Perot (1992)
and Steve Forbes (1996 and 2000) have been able to finance their campaigns from
their own pockets. President Obama raised a $125.2 million in 2011 and Romney
raised $56.1million. In the first 3 months of 2012, Obama raised a further
$66.4 million and Romney a further $30.2 million
-
Effective Organisation
-
Candidates who fail to put together an effective
organisation will stumble badly during the campaign. It is not coincidental
that candidates such as Michael Dukakis (1988) and Bob Dole (1996), who had
significant weaknesses in their campaign organisations, went on to lose the
general election. One of the major reasons why Hillary Clinton lost to Obama in
race for Democratic President in 2008 was his superior organisation. Important
factors behind Romney’s impressive victory in Florida Primary on 31 January 2012
were his superior fundraising and organisation in this large state compared
with his main rivals Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.
-
Oratical skills ad=nd being telegenic
-
‘Im no good at television’ Democratic candidate
Walter Mondale complained in 1984. Republican Senator Phil Gramm wen even
further in 1996 declaring ‘I’m too ugly to be president’ Bill CLnton’s oratical
skills and his telegenic looks were advantages that greatly contributed to his
victories in 1992 and 1996. Same with Obama.
-
Sound and relevant policies
-
A candidate must have policies that are both
practical and relevant.
Process
-
(1) Invisible
Primary
Definition:
The
period betw een candidates declaring an intention to run for the presidency and
the first contests of the primary.
Functions:
(a) To increase name recognition (hopes to
be mentioned in serious newspapers i.e. the Washington Post and NYT &
in-depth interview i.e. CNN & publish books Obama ‘Dreams of my Father’ and
‘The Audacity of Hope’)
(b) To announce entrance in presidential
race (i.e. first major Republican to announce candidacy was former House
Speaker Newt Gingrich 237 days before
Iowa Caucus)
(c) To increase organisation
(d) To money raise (31 Dec 2011 Mitt Romney
raised $56.1 million and Ron Paul $25.9 million)
(e) Intraparty TV debates (Between 5 May
2011 and end of that calendar year – 16 televised debates between would be
Republican Candidates
Formal Events:
(a)
Republican Iowa String Poll in August 1 year
before election. Not for incumbent presidents seeking re-election/renomination.
2011 won by Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney = 7th
(b)
Democrats annual Jefferson-Jackson day. Obama
2007 gave impressive speech propelling his campaign
(c)
Visiting key states i.e. Iowa and New Hampshire
who hold 1st caucuses and primaries respectively. By Iowa Republican
Caucuses, 8 presidential candidates had made 771 visits to states
Extra Info
Usually whichever candidate ending
invisible primary as a front runner would win primary but not case in 2008 for
both parties: USA Today/Gallup Poll conducted on 1-2 December 2007 Hilary
Clinton held 15% point lead over Obama and Rudy Giuliani had 10% point lead
over McCain
-
(2) Primaries
and Caucuses
Definition of presidential primary:
A state-based election to choose a party’s
candidate for the presidency. A presidential primary shows support for a
candidate among ordinary voters and chooses delegates committed to vote for
that candidate at the National Party Convention
Functions:
(a)
To show the popularity of the presidential
candidates
(b)
To choose delegates to go to the National Party
Conventions
Extra info on primaries
Super Tuesday = a Tuesday in
early Feb when a number of states coincide their primaries to try to gain
influence for their region
Front loading = when states
schedule their primary early in the election year believing earlier primaries
have more influence over candidate selection – i.e. number of states holding
their primaries/caucuses before end of March increased from 11 in 1980 to 42 in
2008. In 2012 however, rule changes made by RNC meant that only 30 states held
their republican primaries before the end of March
Modified primary = when only
registered party voters can vote along with registered independents, i.e. New
Jersey primary 2012 , registered Republican voters could only vote in the
Republic primary and same with democrats, but independents could vote in either
party’s primary
Winner-takes-all primary = Where
whoever gets the most votes wins all that state’s delegates (All Democrats ones
were proportional to the percentage of votes they got above a certain
threshold). In 2012, the Re
Early Primary – New Hampshire
-
For many years it is said no candidate could not
win the New Hampshire primary and then win presidential nomination (or even the
white house)
-
Been proved wrong Ã
Clinton (1992) Bush (2000) Obama (2008)
-
Stil spend loads of time there.
-
Victory in New Hampshire or Iowa or simply
exceeding expectations, brings; media coverage money and a boost in the opinion
polls. After Obama’s Iowa victory, Obama enjoyed pages of favourable stories in
Time and Newsweek. He was the cover story of Newsweek n 14 Jan. Following New
Hampshire win, John McCain became cover of Time on 4 Feb and front cover of
Newsweek the following week
-
In February 2008, Barack Obama was able to raise
over $50 million, at that time an all-time record for 1moths fundraising. He
also shot up polling (immediately after the Iowa caucaus he became level with
Clinton in the polls after being 15% points behind
-
Failing to live up to expectations can also be
devastating (i.e. day after coming third with just 15% in the Republican
Florida primary, Rudy Giuliani withdrew from the race)
Incumbent presidents and their primaries
- When incumbent presidents run for re-election, i.e. Obama 2012, little coverage or even no primary in some states i.e .New York – no democrat primary
- Incumbent presidents are usually renominated without any serious opposition
- However, Obama embarrassed when in 14 states, he won less than 90% of vote in 2012 primaries – i.e. West Virginia (59%) and Keith Judd, opposition who was serving a lengthy prison sentence for extortion won more than 40% of the vote
- 1992 George H.W Bush had tp fight off challenge from the conservative commentator Pat Buchanan in the Republica Primaries. Although he didn’t win any of the primaries or caucuses, his 37% in the New Hampshire primary was a great embarassmentand Bachunan went onto win more than ¼ of the vote in 12 states
- All three presidents who have ahd to fight off their primary challengers (Ford (1976), Carter (1980) and HW Bush (1992)) went on to lose the general election.
Open primaries vs closed
primaries
Open primary = A primary election
where any registered voter can vote in either party’s primary
Closed primary = A primary
election where only registered Democrats can vote in the Democrat Primary and
only registered Republicans can vote in the Republican Primary (note a modified
primary is a closed one but independents can vote in either party’s primary)
Pro of
Open Primary
|
Con of
Open Primary
|
Allows Outsiders to stand for candidacy
-I.E. in 2008
significant numbers of independents and Republicans opted to vote in the
Democrat primary for Senator Barack Obama – someone who was an outsider
|
Open primaries free candidates from political
establishment
-
Taking the
example of the republican party, as not all voters will belong to the party
which is holding the primary, candidates which may be considered by the party
establishment to be (for example) too liberal will be more likely to stand
for candidacy, as they will be more likely to get votes – especially from
democrat party members. Therefore candidates may win the primary who the
party does not believe supports their view
|
Risk is
too small, risk encourages voter engagement
|
May lead to sabotage
-Opposite party may vote in order to ensure that the
weaker opposition candidate is chosen, strengthening their chance of winning
the presidency à I.E. 2012 Wisconsin Republican Open Primary, 11% of
voters said they were democrats and while Romney won the open with 44% of the
vote, Santoram beat Romney by 20 percentage points amongst Democrats
|
Favours
voter wishes over party wishes
The public is no longer restricted to selecting
candidates who belong to their own party. This means they are therefore able
to vote for whoever best suits their own views – some right-wing democrats
for example, may identify more with the views of a left wing republican
candidate
-
I.E.
|
Allow
nominations which are inconsistent with party members views
|
Favours
moderate candidates
-
Encourages
bipartisan in politics and increases productiveness in government
-
Ends the its us
vs them attitude
|
Makes
politics bland
-
All
candidates end up being similar
-
Candidates will
be moderate with no core beliefs
|
They let
third party/ independents to vote
|
Pushes
third parties out of general elections
|
Can
violate the right to free association
|
Can also
violate the right to free association
|
Primaries
are too important in democracy to be closed
|
General
Election in open so primaries should be closed
|
Definition of presidential caucus
A state-based meeting to select a party’s
presidential candidate for that state. Held in a few large but thinly populated
states and has the same functions as presidential primaries (i.e. Iowa, Dakota
and Nevada)
Extra Info on caucuses
-Caucus turnout is generally lower than
primary turnout and tends to attract more ideological voters and therefore
candidates – i.e. Ron Paul 2012 a Liberatarian Republican had strongest showing
in caucus states i.e. won 36% in Maine Caucuses and 28% in North Dakota
Early Caucus - Iowa
-
Have been regarded crucial for a while now
-
As caucuses usually attract a low turnout (i.e.
2012 Republican caucuses in Wyoming attracted jusy 2108 voters), it’s not
regarded as important as first primary.
-
But Iowa 2008 Caucus proved to be v important –
-
Republican caucuses
In Iowa were won by
Mike Huckabee with 34% of vote, easily beating John McCain (13%). 3 months
earlier Huckabee was polling just 8% in the national polls and was fifth place
amongst the Republican candidates. Huckabee went on to win 4 more primaries and
2 caucuses as well as the state convention vote in West Virginia
-
Democrat Caucuses in Iowa – front runer
Hillary Clinton finishing third (29%) and Obama first (38%)
Strengths and weaknesses of the primaries
STRENGTHS
|
WEAKNESSES
|
Favours voter wishes over party bosses
-
Party bosses
may neglect important wishes of the people and instead only select candidates
that conform to their wishes. This is unlikely to help non-traditional
candidates or those with little experience – i.e. when those predicted by the
party establishment to do well perform not to the predicted extent – i.e.
Hillary Clinton thought to do well for the fact that she had experience
(Being the first Lady and also NOACN)
|
Primary voters unrepresentative of population
|
Opens it to outsiders
In last
30 years, 5 of 7 challengers have all be outsiders, I.e Bill Clinton and
George W Bush (both state governors)
-
Allows for a
wide range of candidates, which previous to 1972, where there was a
significant increase in the number of states holding primaries due to the
McGovern-Fraser Commission – I.E in the 2012 republican primaries candidates
ranged from ….. this improves minority representation and ensures that the
public have the choice of candidates who accurately reflect their views and
principles.
|
Limits Peer Review
|
Encourages debate on specific issues
-
As there are a
large variety of candidates up for presidential election, there are likely to
be a large variety of different views, particularly on specific issues, such
as
|
Front Loading
Front
loading (when states schedule their primaries early on in the year) mean that
invisible primaries are cut short. This reduces the amount of time that
candidates have to spread information about their policies and mean that the
public is left less informed and are more likely to make irrational
decisions. They also mean that the richest candidates are most likely to win
as they would have been able to give more resources, such as posters, which
would have persuaded votes in their favour.
The system therefore considerably favours those who are already well
known. Jimmy Carter was really the last candidate to rise from relative
obscurity to nomination in 1976. At no
time during the first 9 weeks of the 1976 primary season were there more than
2 primaries per week. This compares with 2004 when the candidates faced 12
contests in the first 3 weeks and up to 10 on a single day.
|
Increases public awareness of issues
-
As the
primaries go on for a long period of time, politics stays in the news for a
long time. Issues are constantly discussed and the public’s understanding of
issues build up and so they are able to form more informed viewpoints on such
issues I.E
|
Super Tuesdays
(When
different states primaries are set on the same day) also lead to uninformed
decisions as less time is given for candidates to focus their resources on
each state separately to ensure they can win. Research has shown that the
longer time a voter is given, they will vote differently
|
Disproportionate influence of early
primaries/caucuses
Considering
this, it could be said that the candidates that win are not necessarily the
most appropriate ones for the country as a whole. Also those who do badly in
the early rounds are more likely to pull out which reduces voter choice as
those in other states may have wished to vote for that candidate
|
|
Rigorous process means less suitable candidates
filtered out
|
Expense
These
costs are far beyond what most people could raise and many candidates drop
out early on as a result of not having sufficient funds to continue. Yet
again this could lead to better candidates for the job pulling out early, and
a less suitable person being nominated
|
Exacerbates party divisions
This
highlights and exacerbates any existing divisions, as support within the
party splits long them. Different wings of the party tend to support
different candidates, and so when the time for the presidential election
comes, half of the party is opposed to the candidate that has been nominated.
This can only weaken their chances of winning the election.
|
|
Process is too drawn out
The
official process lasts for 6 months, while the invisible primary takes up at
least the year before the election year. This means that primaries later on
in the year perform hardly any function as the presidential candidates are
usually already chosen and many have already dropped out, so all they are is
a financial drain and the public’s selection will have no effect
|
JUNE
2011
Does
public participation in the presidential nomination process advance or hinder
democracy?
(45 marks)
June
2013
‘The
system for nominating candidates is in need of reform’ (45 marks)
Choosing the Vice Presidential
candidate
- Until 1980 the vice presidential candidate (AKA Running mate) was always chosen and announced during the National Party Convention
- 1960-80 the presidential candidate made the selection himself and announced it at the National Party Convention
- 1984 – the Demoratic presidential candidate Walter Mondal borke tradition and announced his selection 4 days before the National Party Convention and this continued
- 1996, Republicans joined the bandwagon: 2012 Mitt Romney announced Paul Ryan as Vice presidential candidate 16 days before the NPC
STRATERGIES FOR CHOOSING VICE-PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATES
- ‘Balanced ticket’: balance may be looked for in terms of geographic region, political experience, age, ideology, race and religion. Best example = 2008 Barack Obama choosing Senator Joe Biden of Delaware à 65 compared to 47, senator for almost 36 years compated to less than 4, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee whilst Obama little foreign policy expertise
- ‘Potential in government’: -focussing on governing I.E 2000, George Bush selected Dick Cheney as he had no White House experience. Cheney served as both White House chief of staff to President Ford and secretary of defence to George H.W. Bush. Had also been a member of congress, Republican whip in the house of representatives. BETTER I.E. Mitt Romney choosing Paul Ryan in 2012
- 'Party Unity’: (rarely adopted) One way of reuniting the party after the primaries is for the eventual nominee to choose one of his former rivals i.e. Ronald Reagan selecting George H.W. Bush. Obama would have chosen Hilary Clinton in 2012 and Mitt Romney would have chosen Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich
National Party Conventions
-Definition: The meeting held once every
four years by each of the major (and some minor parties) to select their
presidential and vice presidential candidantes. Usually held in August or early
September of election year – usually lasts for 3 to 4 days
FUNCTIONS
Rank
|
TYPE
|
FUNCTION
|
SIGNIFICANCE
|
1
|
Informal
|
Enthusing ordinary voters – Through TV, golden
opportunity is through the acceptance speech (usually on the convention’s
final night) Ã Acceptance Speech: A nationally televised
speech delivered. Obama in 2012 Acceptance speech ‘The path we offer may be
harder but it leads to a better place’. And ‘A new tower rises above the New
York skyline; al Queda is on the path to defear; and Osama bin Laden is dead
|
YES:
-
Lots
of viewers, 30.3 million of GOP convention
-
Post
convention bounce – 2012 Mitt Romney (-1) and Obama (+3)
NO:
-
Viewers
in decline, 2008 38.9 million for the GOP
-
Professor
Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia stated ‘It is really surprising
how quickly convention memories fade’ as the bounce rarely goes onto predict
who will win
-
Television
coverage has actually decreased
|
2
|
Informal
|
Promoting Party Unity
-divided parties are rarely winning parties, they give
perfect opp to heal wounds
- 2008, Democratic convention, was important that the
party portrayed a united front following the bitter personal reivalry during
primaries between Clinton and Obama. Clinton and her husband felt aggrieved
when she didn’t win and both had stated that they didn’t believe Obama had
the experience to win, yet at the NPC, said ‘Barack Obama is my candidate,
and he must be our president.
|
YES:
-
in
many cases where divisions have not been healed, the party has not won, i.e.
2008, Republican Congressman Ron Paul refused to endorse John McCain; he held
a rival event across town
NO:
-
|
3
|
Informal
|
Enthusing the party faithful
Vital that party faithfall in all 50 states feel
enthusiastic and committed as they will be at the forefront of the
organisation i.e. Bill Clinton made an emotive speech in the 2012 convention
where he not only said you must vote and ‘You must re-elect President Barack
Obama’ but also enthused the party faithful to continue campaigning in their
own states
|
YES:
-
Use
quote explained in the previous thing
NO:
-
|
4
|
Formal
|
Deciding the party platform
-
Party
Platform is a document containing policies that the candidate intends to
pursue if elected president. It is used to gain support.
-
Is
put together by the Platform Committee under the directions of the Party’s
National Committee. It holds hearings around the country during the first 6
months of the election year, i.e.
-
National
Committee agrees to the draft platform which is presented to the delegates at
NPC. There may be debates called planks
-
I.E.
Democrats ‘We vekueve in restoring the basic values that made out country
great’
|
YES:
-
Some
important policy differences, i.e. over abortion – the Republican party was
very anti abortion, they stated ‘We … affirm that the unborn child has a
fundamental right to life…’, whilst Democrats asserted tgey ‘support Roe v
Wade’
NO: Parties have sought to avoid heated debates on policy
issues atheir conventions
-Both 2012 conventions were reduced to 3 days from the
traditional 4
- President candidate usually glosses over the policies in
a speech which is very vague
|
5
|
Formal
|
Choosing party’s presidential candidate
In the pre-reform days, delegates came to the convention
and made up their minds in the convention hall, but these days the vast
majority of delegates arrive at the convention as ‘committed delegates’ –
they are committed to voting for a particular candidate in the first ballot
if that candidate is still in the race. As the number of committed delegates
is known beforehand (as it is decided in primaries and caucuses) the result
of the convention ballot is, these days, a forgone conclusion. The
presidential candidate must receive an absolute majority of delegate votes.
In 2012 there were 2286 Republican delegates so Mitt Romney required 1144
votes to win his presidential nomination
-Nowadays it just confirms the candidate rather than selects
it
|
NO
Not since 1976 has the choice of presidential candidate
really been in any doubt at the opening of either party’s convention.
|
6
|
Formal
|
Choosing vice presidential candidate
See above
|
NO
-Convention is no longer even the forum for the announcement
of the running-mate. The last convention at which the running-mate was
announced was the Republican Convention in 1988
|
THE GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN
CAMPAIGN
FINANCE
Why reform?
(1) Expensive contests make it
impossible for people who do not have personal wealth or connections to
prosperous individuals/ organisations to run for office
(2) Elected representatives highly reliant
on individuals/ organisations who fund their campaigns may be more responsive
to donor wishes than voter wishes
(3) Donors, in turn, prefer to support
candidates who have a proven record of electoral success and of supporting
donor interests, meaning incumbents have a significant advantage in
fundraising, reducing likelihood of an effective electoral challenge
Watergate scandal
-
Discovery that senior advisors to President
Richard Nixon had paid people, out of campaign donations to break into the HQ
off the Democratic Party to find out their election campaign strategy, in early
1970s.
-
Revealed a number of questionable relationships
between the president and his donors, I.E. International Telephone and
Telegraph contributed $400,000 at the same time as the Justice Department
settled a lawsuit against them and milk producers saw an increase in Federal
subsidies after donating $600,000 to the President’s re-election campaign
-
This demonstrated a clear need for campaign
finance reform and Congress passed a series of laws in the following years
regulating how much could be donated and how the money could be used
REFORM
|
WHAT IS IT?
|
HOW WAS IT LIMITED?
|
FECA
(Federal Elections Campaign Act 1972) passed in response to Watergate scandal.
|
It
introduced:
Disclosure à All campaign contributions must be declared and
published so anyone who can see who has given money and judgements may be
made as to whether the elected representatives actions appear to have been
influenced by his/her donors.
Restrictions
on the size of donations Ã
To limit
the dependence of candidates on a small number of extremely wealthy donor.
Was hoped this would lead to a wide range of donors for each campaign so that
it would be unrealistic for them all to expect some form of reward.
Individuals could donate up to $20,000 to a political party but were limited
to contribution of $1000 per candidate in a primary or election.
Organisations were limited to contributing $5000 per election through a
POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (PAC). The law stated that PACs had to receive
contributions from a minimum of fifty donors and make contributions to a
minimum of 5 candidates thereby acting as a form of financial filter so that
the relationship between candidate and donor was not too strong. Also, each
citizen was restricted to making a maximum donation of $25,000 each year,
including to a political party
Reducing
election costs and reliance on private donations à If they
limited the the total amount of funds raised through private donations, the
Federal Gov would provide matching funds., boosting their campaign budget.
They must meet a number of criteria I.e. raise a minimum of $10,000 in small
contributions of no more than $250 each. Limit is $45million. PLS UPDATE
|
Buckley
v Valeo 1976
Supreme
Court upheld a challenge to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974, which
argued that it was unconstitutional to restrict how much a person could spend
of their own money on an election campaign. Meant personal wealth would be
exempt
1979
technical amendments by FEC
They
removed all restrictions on fundraising for campaigns to promote awareness of
elections, the issues being debated and efforts made to ensure that people
would be able to vote. This kind of fundraising became known as soft money.
Money donated directly to the FECA regulations were known as hard money.
These funds could be used to persuade voters to ‘vote for’, ‘elect’ or
‘defeat’ a candidate. Since 1988, in order to bridge the funding gap with an
opponent, the Democratic campaign began using soft money to ‘explain’ the
issues in ways that clearlu encouraged people to vote fot the candidate but
did not use the words which fell under FECA regulations. Since, all campaigns
have used this.
‘Failure
ot Enforce Commission’
The
Federal Elections Commission has been a fail because it is composed of six members,
3 Democrats, 3 GOP who are frequently in deadlock when deciding whether election
laws have been broken, so no action taken.
|
BCRA
(Bi-partisan Campaign Reform Act 2002)
Act was
sponsored most famously by John McCain
|
-
Hard-money
contributions by indiviuals increased to $2000 a year, but would be raised if
candidate was dacing a wealthy opponent
-
Contributions
from PACs remained same - $5,000 a year
-
Total
contributions an individual could make to individual campaigns, PACs and
political parties icnreaed to $95,000 every 2 years
-
Soft-money
donations banned
-
Pressure groups
banned from airing TV or radio electioneering advaers ne month before a
primary and two months before a general election
AIM: to
reduce amount of money being spent on election campaigns, to make candidates
more dependent on a large number of hard money doners than a small number of
intense soft money donors
|
527s
Political activists realised that the
ban on raising soft money did not apply to non-party organisations. Ahead of
the 2004 election, a group of trade union leaders set up organisations under
section 527 of the tax code to raise soft money to spend on Anti-Bush
adverts. In the election, 527s spent around $400 million. Of this, $146
millin was donated by just 25 people. However these individuals = not that
influential because they chould not co-ordinate with the political parties
and 527s decreased in the 2006 mid-terms and 2008 presidential elections
Citizens United Vs. Federal
Elections Commission (2010)
Supreme Court struck down several
campaign finance restrictions 21/01/10
-
Previously only
money that had been raised by companies and trade unions for campaigning
could be used to produce and air adverts aimed at influencing the outcome of
Congressional and Presidential elections. Now were able to use any funds
available to them for this purpose. Led to increase in aggressive negative
campaigining
-
Ban on
corporations and traede unions airing campaign ads 30 days before primary or
60 days before general election was lifted
However,
restrictions on direct contributions to candidates and requirements on orgs
to disclose election related expenditure were kept in place.
|
ROLE OF
TELEVISION
-
News
coverage – most Americans gain knowledge of campaign – i.e. CNN or ABC
World News tonight. These programmes = mainly news reporting of the events with
a small amount of analysis and comment
-
Politics
comment programmes – I.E. Sunday morning talk shows i.e. Meet the press and The News Hour each weekday evening on PBS. Have in-depth interviews
by respected interviewers and attract a more politically aware audience
-
Chat
shows – I.E. Piers Morgan Tonight – aimed at less politically aware
audience. FIND RECENT EXAMPLES
-
Political
Commercials – First one = 1952 when Dwight Eisenhower put out a 30second biographical
spot titled The man from Abilene. USE
A RECENT EXAMPLE
PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES
- Pattern: three 90 minute debates between the two major parties’ presidential candidates and one 90 minute debates between their vice-presidential candidates, occurring usually between late September and mid-October
- First was in 1960
- In 2012, three presidential debates sampled different styles; First à 2 separate podiums and asked questions by a moderator. Second à Town Hall style debate cerated 1992 (Candidates did not stand behind podiums but were seated on bar stools, facing an audience of undecided voters who put Qs directly to the candidates, moderator kept order. Third à candidates sat round a table with the moderator. Vice presidential debate between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan used the round table format
- 1992 = only time a third-party candidate was allowed to participate, when independent candidate Ross Perot took part in the three presidential debates and his running mate, James Stockdale, joined the vice-presidential debate. In 1980, President Carter refused to attend a debate to which third-party candidate John Anderson had been invited
DEBATE
RULES OF THUMB
Good
sound bites are helpful
-
Because not many voters watch the full debate
but may see clips of it in breakfast shows the next morning
-
I.E. 2008 when Obama kept trying to link McCain
with the unpopular President George W Bush, McCain said ‘Senator, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run
against President Bush you should have run four years ago’.
-
I.E. 2012 Obama accused Governor Romney of
favouring ‘the foreign policy of the 1980s. the social policy of the 1950s, and
the economics policy of the 1920s’
Debates
are potentially more difficult for incumbents than for challengers
Incumbents have a record to defend and
words spoken 4 years earlier that can be thrown back at them this time round
-
They nearly always head into debates as the
perceived front-runner, hence expectations on them are higher. This was a
problem for Obama in 2012.
-
Presidents often go into debate somewhat rusty
on their debate technique; Between June 2011 and February 2012, Romney
participared in 19 debates with his fellow Republican Presidential candidates
whereas the last time Obama had appeared in a TV debate was October 2008.
STILL SIGNIFICANT
|
NOT
SIGNIFICANT
|
-
Game changing moments
Carter V. Reagan 1980
-
President Jimmy
Carter vs. Republican Ronald Reagan. At the end of their 90 minute debate,
each candidate was given 3 minutes to make a closing statement. Reagan, who
went last posed a number of questions about the Carter administration to
which he knew the majority of the population would answer negative such as
‘Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?’
-
With Election
Day less than a week away, he shaped voting à Carter only one 6 states, plus the District of
Columbia, for a total of just 49 Electoral College votes
Reagan V Mondale 1984
-
Reagan quickly
shot back a jokey response to one of the four panellists asking a question
regarding the possibility of Reagan not being able to handle the pressure of
being President again due to his age, saying ‘ I am not going to exploit, for
political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience’. Led to an eruption
of laughter and Reagan went on to a 49 state victory
Obama V. Romney 2012
-
Up to this
point, Obama had a comfortable lead in in the polls, with neither the
selection of Paul Ryan as Governor Romney’s running mate, nor Obama’s
acceptance speech, boosting his poll numbers.
-
In first debate,
Romney was coherent, animated and quite aggressive. He looked Presidential.
-
Obama looked
disengaged, bored and flat. He looked like he was enduring the debate, not
enjoying it, letting many of Romney’s claims go unchallenged. Joe Klein in
Time Magazine stated this was ‘one of the most inept performances by a
president’ in a televised debate
-
Gallup Poll
found that of those who watched the debate, 72% thought that Romney had won.
Only 20% thought that Obama was the winner. Even out of Democrat viewers,
Only 39% thought Obama was the winner and 49% thought Romney was. Within a
week of the debate, Romney was leading in both the Gallup seven-day tracking
poll and the poll-of-polls published by the Real Clear Politics website. This
was the first time Romney had led in both.
|
-
Very rare, only take a couple minutes
These three
have really been the only ‘game-changing’ presidential debates, and in two,
the particular moment only lasted a minute or two. Therefore, it is safe to
say that the vast majority of the nearly 60 hours of presidential and
vice-presidential debates broadcast between 1960 and 2012 passed into
political obscurity within minutes of the debate’s conclusion. Also, although
the 2012 presidential debate significantly increased support for Romney, he
still didn’t end up winning
|
-
Verbal gaffes can hurt candidates
I.E. 1976
President Ford mistakenly claimed that Poland was not under the control of
the Soviet Union
I.E. 2000 Gore
caught making exaggerated claims to which the Bush campaign immediately drew
attention after the debate
|
-
Polls hardly change
The effect is
small, with an average shift of 2.3 percentage points, and it's hard to infer
causality with such a small sample. In any case, only two elections — 1980
and 2000 — saw the candidates trade places in the polls following the debate,
and in every case the poll leader after the first debate won the electoral
college.
Harvard's
Sunshine Hillygus and Stanford's Simon Jackson found minor negative effects
of the 2000 debates on Al Gore, but mostly among undecided or weakly partisan
voters.
The evidence
for debate effects on election outcomes is thus weak at best, and at worst
nonexistent.
|
-
Gives viewers idea of presidential aims
-
I.E the first
Romney vs Obama debate in 2012 began by tackling questions on the economy.
The mediator, Lehrer, asked what the major differences between the two over
the economy would be and how they would create jobs.
-
Obama mentioned
investing in education and training
-
Romney mentioned
creating independent North American energy, increasing trade with South
America and China, improving education and ensuring a balanced budget
|
-
Style is more important than substance
Style is more than substance
I.E. When in
Bush-Clinton debate 1992, Bush was filmed looking at his watch during the
debate, he appeared eager to end his discomfort.
I.E. Gore-Bush
first debate, Gore appeared overly made-up. He interrupted Bush frequently
and, while Bush was answering, he made audible sighs and rolled his eyes.
Within days, Gore was being ridiculed on Sunday
Night Live as being a smarty pants.
I.E. in first debate in 2012. Obama was
widely criticised for passive style he adopted throughout. Wasn’t so much
what the President did or did not say as his manner and style lost him that
debate. It is how you look and how you say it that is important.
|
-
Viewing figures increasing
- -1996 and
2000 viewed by average of only 40 million
- 2012 – 64
million, increase of 4 million from 2008
- 69 million
watched Joe Biden Vs Sarah Palin 2012
|
-
But were more viewers earlier on
Most viewed =
1980 debate between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan who logged nearly 81
million viewers
-Vary
significantly
|
ELECTORAL
COLLEGE
- Functioning:
- Each state is awarded a certain number of electoral college votes.
- This is equal to the number of house of representatives+ 2 (number of senators) AKA the state’s congressional representation
- (I.E. 2012 California had 55 (53+2)
- There are 538 Electoral College votes. To win the presidency, a candidate must win an absolute majority – 270
- The popular vote is counted in each state
- In all but two states (Maine and Nebraska), the candidate who wins the most popular votes, wins all the electoral college votes for the state – ‘Winner-takes-all’ rule
- Vice President announces result in January
- In 2001, vice president Al Gore had the privilege of announcing his own defeat at the hands of Governor George W. Bush by 271 Electoral votes to 266
- Under the circumstance of there being no electoral college votes majority, the president would be elected by the House of Representatives from the House of Representatives from the three presidential candidates with the most votes & vice president would be elected by the senate from the two vice presidents with the most votes. Balloting would continue until a majority occurs. 1800 and 1824 are the only times that the electoral college has failed to come up with a winner
WEAKNESSES OF ELECTORAL COLLEGE
|
STRENGTHS OF ELECTORAL COLLEGE
|
-
Suppresses the popular will
-
Allows candidate
to win the presidency despite winning a minority of votes across the country
as a whole. Has happened three times I.E: 2000 when Al Gore won more votes
than George W. Bush but lost the presidency in the electoral college. In 2004
a similar outcome was only narrowly avoided
|
-
The popular will almost always prevails
-
The ‘perverse’
result – where the popular vote winner loses in the Electoral college – is
rare. I.E. past 125 years, the election in 2000 provides the only example of
when this didn’t happen, and this was very close (just 0.5% of the popular
vote). Other two examples are 1884, 1872 and 1836. Of these, 1872 and 1836
are irrelevant because US democracy was much less developed. 1884 election
was corrupt but again as in 2000, the vote margin between the candidates was
very small (Less than 1%)
|
-
Possibility of Rogue electors
-
This essentially
suppresses the popular will as well. They are also known as ‘faithless electors’.
They do not vote for their state’s preferred presidential candidate. I.E.
2000, Barbara Lett Simmons, an elector from Washington, DC, abstained from
voting for Al Gore because she wanted to protest about the lack of
congressional representation for her state. Have been more than 80 faithless
electors since the Electoral College was established which has meant that the
wishes of millions of US voters have not been respected
|
-
Rogue electors unlikely
-
No rogue
electors have affected the outcome of an election.
-
Although
faithless electors are theoretically possible, they are rare and have never
affected an election outcome. If this is a problem, it can be dealt with by
state laws, as many states already have done
-
26 states have
passed legislation that requires electors to vote in accordance with the
wishes of that state’s voters
|
-
Leads to some votes counting more than others
-
Because the
number f electors allocated to each state is based on congressional
representation and since every state, regardless of its population size has
two senators, some states with relatively small populations are over
represented i.e. 2012 – the six least populous states together had the same
number of Electoral college votes (18) as Ohio, yet Ohio’s population was
more than three times the combined populations of the three smallest states.
This meant that a vote cast in Ohio carried less than one third of the weight
of a vote in one of the six smallest states = unfair, unrepresentative and
undemocratic
|
-
Ensures federalism exists
-
The Electoral
College allows states to choose the president, not narrow margins in the
popular vote.
-
Therefore, this
protects each state, no matter how large or small, still can have a say in
how it is run
-
This is an
important part of federalism and the US’ democratic system
-
The Electoral
College system means that smaller states are given a voice; they have a
minimum of 3 electoral votes – a national popular vote would drown out the
views of smaller states
-
- I.E. in 2012.
New Hampshire, Iowa and Nevada were three of the nine key swing states that
received a lot of attention, despite their relatively small populations
|
-
Gives undue prominence to a small number of states
-
Majority of
‘winner-take-all’ states are likely to vote in a predictable way – I.E. Utah
staunch Republican, 73% voted Romney in 2012, and Minnesota is a staunch
democrat.
-
Small amount of
‘swing states’ decide the outcome – and these garner the most attention from
politicians – I.E. the Obama and Romney campaigns spent almost $100 million
on television advertising in the crucial swing state of Ohio. They spent no
ad money in California however even though it’s population is 3 times larger
because it has voted for the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate every
time since 1988. The Electoral College eans that the candidates can
effectively ignore a large majority of the states in their campaigns. Candidates don’t visit, don’t advertise and
don’t address issues specific to them – can even be questioned how well the
will ultimately be represented in the White House
|
-
Creates Cohesiveness
-
Electoral
College requires a president to win votes from a wide variety of different
states. A president elected this way is more likely to govern with the
interests of all Americans in mind, whereas a national popular vote system
would allow the big urban states to impose a president on the rest of the
country. Makes the president more legitimate
|
-
Unfair to national third parties
-
1992, Ross
Perot, an independent candidate, won 18.9% of the popular vote. In 2000,
Green Party candidate, Ralph Nader won over 3 million votes (2.9%). None of
these candidates won a single Electoral College vote. Regional third-party
candidates fare better; in 1968, American Independent Party Candidate George
Wallace won 13.5% of the popular vote and won 5 states with 45 Electoral
voters because his support was concentrated in the Southern states
|
-
Promotes 2 horse race
-
Electoral
College system incentivises two party system which creates a clear choice.
Means president will almost always have gained over half the votes in the
country and be seen at home and abroad as having a strong mandate to
govern - In the current system, the
winning candidate has effectively won a vote at both state and national
level. This hurdle makes it difficult for any third parties to develop high
levels of support, which could then produce a winner with only around 1/3 of
the popular vote. Although unlikely to win, they would often prevent a
candidate winning an absolute majority of the popular votes and thereby
weaken the president’s mandate to govern.
-
In 26 of the 38
elections held between 1864 and 2012 (0ver 2/3rds), the winner gained more
than 50% of the popular vote
|
Winner-takes-all system distorts the result
In 11
elections between 1972 and 2012, the Electoral College could be said to have
seriously distorted the result on eight occasions. Although this distortion
did not occur in the 2000 and 2004 elections, the phenomenon returned in both
2008 and 2012. In 2012, Obama’s 51% of the popular vote was translated into
61.7% of the Electoral College vote.
It is
also possible for the candidate who wins the popular vote loses the Electoral
College vote as in 2000 when Al Gore won 48.4% of the popular vote to Bush’s
48%. But in the electoral college, Bush came out the winner by 271 votes to
266
|
REFORM
THAT COULD TAKE PLACE:
(1)
48 states adopt system used in Maine and Nebraska - awarding one electoral college vote to a
candidate for each congressional district (The constituencies used to elect
House Reps) However: this result would lead to the
results only being marginally different: indeed, in 2000 the Maine system would
have produced a less proportionate result, with Gore losing th eElectoral
College by 38 votes rather than by four. Neither would it have helped Ross
Perot in 1992 or 1996 (would have still gained 0 seats) . In 2004 it would have
exaggerated Bush’s winning majority from 286 to 317.
(2)
Proportional system introduced – Electoral Votes in each state proportional
to the popular vote in that state. There would then be a more equable
allocation of Electoral College votes. Such a system would be much fairer to
national third parties too, but then it would also encourage more voters to
vote for such paries thereby making it more likely that no candidate would gain
an absolute majority of Electoral College votes an throwing the election into
Congress
(3)
Direct election – Som opinion polls have recently shown that Americans
would support a move to a directly elected president, thereby abolishing the
electoral college – AKA the Direct Election Plan. FIND RECENT STATS
CONGRESSIONAL
ELECTIONS
-
Occur every 2 years. Therefore in every cycle of
congressional elections, the whole of the House of Representatives and
one-third of the seate are up for re-election.
Mid-term elections fall midway through the president’s 4 year term of
office
Constitutional requirements for
representatives and senators:
Category
|
Representative
|
Senator
|
Age
|
At least
25 years old
|
At least
30 years old
|
Citizenship
|
US citizen
for at least 7 years
|
US
citizen for at least 9 years
|
Residency
|
Resdent
of state they represent (for some must be resident in the congressional
district)
|
Resident
of state they represent
|
NOTE:
Congressional district = A
geographic division of a state from which a member of the House of
Representatives is elected. Congressional districts within a state are denoted
by members; thus a House member represents, for example, the 32nd
district of California
Nomination process – (1) must secure the
nomination of one of the two major parties. This may mean running in a
congressional primary – unlike pres. Primaries, congressional primary winners
automatically become that party’s candidate in the general election. These are
usually held between May and Sept – months running up to November. Sometimes
even an incumbent senator or representative might be challenged for the
nomination in the upcoming election and therefore will have to contest a
primary. In 2012 13 House incumbents lost primaries. For incumbent senators,
defeat in highly unusual I,e, in electons between 1982 and 2012, only 8
ncumbent senators were defeated in priamries
TRENDS IN CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS:
Coattails
effect
Occurs when a strong candidate for a party
at the top of the ticket – for president, or in mid-term elections for state
governor – can help other party candidates get elected at the same time. The
picture is of these other candidates riding into office clutching the coattails
of the presidential or gubernatorial candidate. Few modern0day presidents have
enjoyed much n the way of a coattails effect. The only clear example was Ronald
Reagan for the Republican Party in 1980 Republcians gained 33 seats in the
House and 12 seats in senate and nine incumbent Democrat senators were
defeated.
Recent elections – there has been a reverse
coattails effect. In 1992, Democrat Bill Clinton won the presidency but in the
same election Democrats lost nine sears in the House and made no gains in the
Senate. In 2012, +8 House Shift and +2 Senate shift. The question of whether
the president has strong coattails is an important one. Presidents can usually get more done in Congress the
more seats their party holds in the House and the Senate. It is also the case that
members of Congress who have been elected with the president’s help are more
likely to support the president than those who believe they have been elected
despite the president.
Split-ticket
Voting
Occurs when someone votes for the
candidates of different political partie for different offices at the same
election. People might vote for a Republican President but a Democrat member of
congress. Because elections in the US are more candidate and issue-orientated than
simply party-orientated, ticket splitting does not seem odd to American voters.
In 1996 the Republicans, having virtually admitted that their presidential
candidate Bob Dole would lose, appealed to voters in the last days of the
campaign to re-elect a Republian-controlled Congress. They did just that. In
2012 six states – five going for Republican Mitt Romney in the presidential
race by electing a Democrat senator, wwhilst Nevada voted for President Obama
but re-elected Republican senator Dea Heller. In West Virginia, only 35% of
voters supported Obama in the presidential race whilst 61% voted to re0elect
Democratic senator Joe Manchin.
Strong(ish)
support for incumbents
Evidence of quite strong support for
incumbents, with some high re-election rates duting the past two decades,
especially in the House. The four elections held between 1998 and 2004 saw
re-election rates in the House of over 95%. But the trend reversed again beteen
2006 and 2012 with 145 incumbents defeated in those four elections compared
with just 41 in the previous four. Those 145 members correspond to exactly
one-third of the House membership. But re-election still high in senate – only
10 incumbents defeared in three election cycles between 2008 and 2012
Fewer
competitive races in House elections
-Competitive sear is one that was one by the
incumbent by less than 10 percentage points. 1992 there were 111 competitive
raes but in 2004 this figure fell to 31. In 2012 = 65 and in 2014 =
- Most significant cause of this is
gerrymandering, with the vast majority of members now representing rock-solid
Democratic or Republican districts.
VOTING BEHAVOR IN CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS
Local
issues
Voters in congressionals tend to cast their
ballors on local issues and the recor of incumbent i.e. farm subsidies decide
votes in Kansas and Iowa but not New Jersey.
Record
of incumbent
This is the attendance at roll-call votes
in House or Senate and how they cast their vote. i.e. 2008 republican senator
Elizabeth Dole was defeated in North Carolina on the issues of being
ineffective, failing to look after the interests of North Carolinians, and
being too supportive of an unpopular resident – George W. Bush. Democrats rans
a series of TV ads in support of their candidate, Kay Hagen, criticising Dole
for her apparent failings.
MID-TERM CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS
President’s
party tends to lose
Eveidence that president’s party usually
loses seats in both houses in mid-term elections. In midterms between 1962 and
2010 the president’s party lost an average of 23 house seats and between two
and three senate seats. 2002 is the only year in the last 50 years in which the
president’s party gained seats in both houses in the mid-term elections. Voters
often see the mid-term elections as a chance to express their disappointment or
disapproval with the president’s previous 2 years in office.
2010
midterms
Democrats lost 63 seats in House – worst
mid-term performance by the president’s party 2 years int a presidential term
since the Republicans lost 75 House seats in 1922. Their loss of six senate
seats was not quite as bad as their 1994 lossses just 2 years into President
Clinton’s first term.
PROPOSITIONS,
REFERENDUMS AND RECALL ELECTIONS
Direct
Democracy: a system of government in which political decisions are made
directly by the people rather than by their elected representatives. Note this section refers to state govs not
federal governments
PROPOSITIONS (aka initiatives)
-
24 states have these in their constitution, the
most recent state = Mississippi 1992
-
Direct
propositions – proposals that qualify go directly on the ballot
-
Indirect
propositions – rules vary from state to state – in some states the
proposition Q goes on ballot even if lefilature rejects it, submits a new
proposal or takes no action at all. In other states the legislature can submit
a competing proposition on the ballot along the original proposal.
Steps:
(1) Filed
with designated state official
(2) Reviewed
for conformance with state legal requirements
(3) Given
a formal title and brief summary for inclusion on ballot paper
(4) Circulated
to gain required number of signatures from registered voters, usually a
percentage of the votes cast for a statewide office (i.e. US senator) in a
preceding general election
(5) Submitted
to state officials for verification of signatures
No. of signatures varies state to state –
Alaska 10% of votes cast in last general election and California 5% of votes
cast for governore in the last election
Once a prop. Is on
the state ballot the general requirement for passage is a majority vote. In the
decade running from 2000 to 2010 voters approved 45% of all initiatives
proposed.
Advantages of propositions
|
Disadvantages of propositions
|
(1) Provides a way of enacting reforms
on controversial matters that state legilatures are usually unwilling/unable
to act upon
|
(1) Lack flexibility of legislative
process – once a measure is drafted, approved and put on the state ballot, it
cannot be amended until after it has been adopted and in some states the
legilsture is severely limited in its power to amend laws passed by
proposition. The lprposition process lack debate compromise, hearings and
public input and amendment
|
(2) Increase responsiveness and
accountability
|
(2) Vulnerable to manipulation by
special interests – high spending cmapaigns and media advets feature somewhat
simplistic and misleading argument can carry the day
|
(3) Help increase voter turn out. I.e.
2004, the same-sex marriage ban proposition on the Ohio ballot in 2004
|
|
(4) Increase in citizen interest in
state policy issues
|
Initiatives from
2012
(1) Florida abortion initiative
This was known as amendment 6 AKA Florida abortion
amendment. It was on November 6 2012 state as a
legislatively-referred constitutional amendment, where it was defeated.
The proposed measure would have prohibited the use of public
funds for abortions except as required by federal law and to save the mother's
life. Also, it meant that the state constitution cannot be interpreted to
include broader rights to abortion than those contained in the United States
Constitution.
The proposed measure required 60 percent voter approval for
adoption. 44.9% said yes.
(2) Minnesota same- sex marriage initiative
Minnesota Same-Sex Marriage Amendment, Amendment 1, was on
the November 6, 2012 ballot in Minnesota as a legislatively-referred constitutional
amendment, where it was defeated. The measure would have defined marriage in
the Minnesota Constitution as between one man and one woman in the state.
52.56% said no.
Aftermath - the
legislature renewed a push to repeal the state's existing ban on same-sex
marriage. On May 14, 2013, the governor signed into law a bill that allowed
same-sex couples to officially marry beginning in August.
(3) California death penalty initiative
Proposition 34, was on the November 6, 2012 ballot in
California as an initiated state statute, where it was defeated. If the state's
voters had approved it, Proposition 34 would have eliminated the death penalty
in California and replaced it with life in prison without the possibility of
parole. It required persons found guilty of murder to work while in prison,
with their wages to be applied to any victim restitution fines or orders
against them. While Proposition 34 was defeated in 2012, Judge Cormac J. Carney
invalidated the state's death penalty on July 16, 2014. 52% said no.
Initiatives for
2014
2014 has an unusually low number of state wide ballot
measures - 158. The last time the number of state wide ballot measures dipped
below 160 was in 1988.
South Dakota
(1) Minimum
wage — RESULT: Passed: South Dakota currently has a minimum wage of $7.25.
Measure 18 would would raise it to $8.50 per hour in 2015. In addition, it
would raise the minimum wage for tipped workers (such as waiters) from $2.13 to
$4.25 per hour.
Alaska
Marijuana Legalization — RESULT: Passed: Ballot Measure 2
would allow adults 21 and older to possess up to one ounce of pot and maintain
six marijuana plants. The measure would legalize production and sales, which
the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board — or a Marijuana Control Board, if one is
created — would regulate. The measure would also tax marijuana at the point of
sale at $50 per ounce.
Minimum wage — PROJECTED RESULT: Passed: Ballot Measure 3
would bump the state's minimum wage from its current $7.75 to $8.75 in 2015,
then $9.75 per hour in 2016. After that, it would be adjusted for inflation.
Oregon
Marijuana Legalization — RESULT: Passed: Measure 91, would
allow adults 21 and older to possess up to eight ounces and four plants of
marijuana. It would also legalize production and sales, which the Oregon Liquor
Control Commission would regulate. The measure would also tax marijuana at the
point of sale at $35 per ounce, with the revenue set aside for enforcement and
education programs.
GMO-labeling Initiative — RESULT: Defeated: Oregon's
Proposition 92 would have required packaged foods with genetically modified
ingredients to include the words "genetically engineered" on the
front or back of the product "clearly and conspicuously."
ABORTION LOST 5 OUT
OF 5 VOTES ON ‘PERSONHOOD’ INITIATIVES.
·
According to exit polls, voters aged 65 or older made up 23 percent of the electorate — the highest in at least a
decade.
-
Latinos
made up 8% of electorate, consisted with previoius midterms
-
THE
LIBERAL PROPOSALS HAPPENED in places which voted rpublican showing population
is angry eith gov
REFERENDUMS
A referendum is an electoral device available in all 50
states by which voters can effectively veto a bill passed by the state
legislature. Rather than citizens taking the initative, referendus follow from
something the state legilators have already done. A number of states require
that changes to the state constitution must be approved in a statewide referendum.
In ther states, changes in state tax must be approved in this wat. In 2012
there were 115 rederendums put on the ballot by state legilatures.
24 states have a further provision – popular referendums. If
the state legislature passes a law that voters do not approve of, they may,
they may father signatures to demand a referendujm on the law. Usually = 90 day
period after the law is passed during which the petition must take palce. Once
enough signatures gathered and verified, the new law appears on the ballot for
a popular vote. While the referendum is pending the law does not take full
effect and if voters approve law – takes effect as scheduled, if rejected it is
effectively a veto – null and void.
RECALL ELECTIONS
This enables voters in a state to remove an elected official
from office before their term has expired. Recall elections can be seen as a
direct form of impeachment ( a legal process whereby politicians can remove on
of their own from office). 19 states permit recall of elections but only 8
states have ever used it: Arizone, Ca – 9 times, Idaho, Michigan, Organ, North
Dakota, Washington and Wisconsin
RECALL OF STATE
GOVERNORS
3 have happened. Most recent example = Republican governor
of Wiscnsin Scott Walker in June 2012 in which Fovernor Walker bear jis
Democrat opponent, Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett by 53% to 46%. This recall
election was triggered by opposition to Governor Walker’s implementation of
changes to state employee pension schemes and the limiting of the collective
bargaining rights of trade unions within the state
RECALL OF STATE
LEGISLATORS
Between 1913 and 2012 there were 36 recall elections of
state legislators There were inly 12 such recalls in 70 years between
1913-1980s. But there were 11 recall elections involving state legilators in
2011 and a further four in 2012. Of those 15, 5 were recalled and the other 10
survived.
-Marianna Marcelline
0 comments:
Post a Comment