Campaigns and Elections

I.                   Campaigns

A.    Political Participation

1.      Forms of Participation

a.       Political activists—individuals actively interested in politics, campaigns, and political parties enough to donate money and/or time to helping candidates and parties run election campaigns.

b.      Voting—most people participate in elections by voting for specific candidates

c.       Non-participants—participation in elections is largely defined by income levels—the more money one has, the more likely one is to donate a portion of that money to specific campaigns or to political parties (see Koch Brothers, etc.).

2.      Why People Participate—Americans participate largely from a sense of civic duty; most Americans, when asked, feel that they should vote, even when they do not. The difficulty Americans face in actually casting a vote (even before the passage of the numerous “anti-fraud” voter identification laws) is unprecedented in democratic governments.

3.      Who Participates?—participation in elections is largely determined by education levels (the more education one has, the more likely it is that one will vote in a given election); income level is also a factor, although less of a factor than education level.

B.     Historical Voting Patterns—It is ironic that among the largest democratic countries the United States is near the bottom in participation among those eligible, because the United States was among the first to create universal (white) suffrage.

1.      The Rise of the American Electorate—at the time the Constitution was ratified, voting was restricted to taxpayers or property owners. By the time of the election of Andrew Jackson, voting rights had been extended to all white men. Voting rights were extended to black men with the passage of the 15^th Amendment in 1870, although those rights were scaled back with the passage of literacy tests, poll taxes, and the “grandfather clause” that many Southern states resorted to restrict these rights for African Americans; for many, these rights were not regained until the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Woman, of course, did not get the right to vote in national elections until passage of the 19^th Amendment in 1920, and 18-year-olds were given the right to vote with the passage of the 26^th Amendment.

2.      Voting Turnout—despite the legal safeguards extended to voters during the 20^th century, the percentage of voting-age participation has actually decreased from its 19^th century highs. Scholars argue about its causes—or if it even really exists, given the likely levels of election fraud in the 19^th century—but at least part of the explanation should include the realization that American elections are largely non-ideological, with both major political parties campaigning from the center, where they can appeal to the greatest share of the electorate.

3.      Explaining—and Improving—Turnout—in other democracies around the world, when you become old enough to vote, you are automatically registered to vote. In the United States, the burden of registering to vote falls completely on the voter, who must find out the whole process themselves.

4.      Modern-Day Vote “Fraud”—for nearly as long as there have been elections, there have been attempts to steal elections. While allegations of fraud undermine public confidence in electoral outcomes, how real is this threat?

a.       Ballot-stuffing—much more prevalent during the 19^th century, but practically non-existent today—although the danger exists that computer hackers could change results in many electronic systems in use among local election commissions today.

b.      “Ghost” or “Cemetery” Voting—while urban machines may have been able to round up enough people to take around to various polling stations to swing an election in the 19^th and early 20^th centuries, that threat is non-existent today.

c.       Voter “Caging” and the Suppression—many of the fears of non-existent voter fraud are used to attempt to suppress votes from minorities and poor people through voter “caging” operations, where votes individuals cast are challenged by allegations of ineligibility or fraud.

C.     Political Campaigns—are largely run by personal followers of a candidate (or a team s/he hires), rather than by a political party, which had been the case in the past. The turn to the primary election has probably been the greatest contributor to this trend.

1.      Strategy—because state parties want to increase their influence in which candidate becomes the candidate of their party, the dates for primary elections (and caucuses, for that matter), are mostly front-loaded at the beginning of an elections year. This means that candidates have to begin campaigning earlier and earlier (witness the ongoing Republican Party primary campaign, which began in earnest more than a year before the party holds its next convention). Candidates (or at least, their campaign staff) must also be aware of the intricacies of each of the state primaries and caucuses (whether they are winner-take-all, or proportional—failure to realize this cost Hilary Clinton the victory in the 2008 Democratic primaries).

2.      Using Television—There are two ways of using television: by running paid advertisements; or by getting on nightly newscasts. To get on newscasts, candidates must plan “events” that will attract cameras, and be early enough in the day to make the evening news.

a.       Social media—while some candidates are more adept at using social media than others, nearly every candidate today has a “presence” on a variety of social media sites, especially Facebook and Twitter.

D.    The Effects of Campaigns—No one knows for sure how effective campaigns are in convincing voters to back a specific candidate (analysis of campaigns always comes after the fact, and consists mostly of suppositions of what strategies actually worked, without any hard data to actually back those suppositions up).

1.      Party loyalty—although throughout the 20^th century there were more people who claimed to be Democrats than Republicans, Republicans tend to display greater party loyalty, and are less prone to “crossover” and vote for the candidate of another party (there are very few “Obama Republicans,” for instance, than there were “Reagan Democrats”).

2.      “It’s the Economy, Stupid”—James Carvelle’s famous edict is perhaps one of the most profound insights into the American electorate. If the economy is doing well, the American people tend to be content with how things are being run; if the economy is not doing well, there tends to be demands for change.

3.      Single-issue political groups—while scholars are still unsure of the impact that single-issue groups have during a general campaign, they do have a significant impact during primary campaigns, where their number of committed voters and money have a much greater effect.

E.     How to Win the Election—the victor in most elections usually only has to convince 20 percent of the voters, because 80 percent have already made up their minds based on party affiliation. Running against an incumbent during a bad economy also increases one’s chances immensely—or one who has been accused of some kind of personal indiscretion. Voters may also be divided between those who are retrospective voters (who look to what previous candidates of a particular party have done) and those who are prospective voters (who wonder what effect the proposed policies of a particular candidate will have in the future).

F.      Election Outcomes-the only outcome that matters, of course, is who wins, but scholars often look for patterns that they think signal “party realignments.”

1.      Party Realignments—so-called “critical elections” (the defeat of the Federalists by the Jeffersonians in 1800, the rise of Jacksonian Democrats in 1828, the collapse of the Whig party between 1856 and 1860, the 1896 triumph over William Jennings Bryan, the 1932 New Deal coalition, the rise of Ronald Reagan)—is this a pattern, or happenstance?

2.      Party Decline—with more voters having a less-defined identification with a particular political party, more voters “split” their ballots—that is, vote for candidates from both major parties

3.      Winning coalition—The waning strength of parties to deliver voters ironically makes them more reliant upon those voting blocs that traditionally vote for party candidates.

G.    Modern Technology and Political Campaigns

1.      Television, Radio, and Newspapers—the traditional sources of information have lost much of their appeal to today’s voters. Radio, in particular, broadcasts largely to a self-selected audience (are there any left-wing radio shows?), so any efforts there are merely preaching to the choir. Most television today can largely be viewed without bothering to watch commercials, and is also largely narrowcast to a select audience.

2.      Direct mail and the Internet—both are still useful for fundraising, although direct mail, the method used to reinvigorate the political right, has been superseded by use of the internet (witness Obama’s fundraising this past month).

H.    Elections and Money—“Money is the mother’s milk of politics.”

1.      The Impact of Money—Generally, the candidate who has the most money to spend is generally the most successful.

2.      Where Does the Money Come From?

a.       Individuals/Corporations—now that the Supreme Court has decided that corporations are people, too …

b.      Political Actions Committees (PACs)—special interest groups like labor unions and business groups raise money to contribute to candidates, as well

c.       “Soft Money” and 527s—attempts to regulate political contributions (largely thrown out by the recent Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court) created a loophole, whereby restrictions on contributions to candidates were gotten around by contributing money to “independent” groups who advocated on behalf of a party or candidate, but did not “coordinate” those efforts with the party or individual.

d. Citizens United and Super PACs

I.       The Effects of Elections on Policy—although we cynically think that elections have no effect on our day-to-day lives, they do sometimes effect great changes (ending slavery, the New Deal, etc.). Our election system today rewards those who can portray themselves as “outsiders”—even if they have been intimately connected with the political system all their lives—and are willing to devote three-to-four (or six-to-eight, in some cases) years of their lives to campaigning for office.