Iowa Caucus move

Florida Primary lawsuit

California changes

California changes dead?

 

The General Election
and the Electoral College

 

 
The general election campaign revolves around the operation of the Electoral College. 

Hopefully, all of you are familiar with the basics of its operation!


The Electoral College


The Electoral College is a very accurate reflection of the basic charactistics
of American elections (regularity, unit rule, and plurality)!

How is the Electoral College an example of regularity?

(Ans.: Election his held on the first Tuesday after the
first Monday in November every four years!)


How is the Electoral College an example of unit rule?


(Ans:  if a candidate gets a plurality of votes in a state
she/he gets all of the state's electoral votes!)


How is the Electoral College an example of plurality?

(Ans:  if a candidate gets one more vote than anyone else,

he/she wins the state and all of its electoral votes.

 
Win by 1 vote or 99% - 1%, the result is still the same)


(Note:  Plurality is replaced by the concept of majority when it comes

to total EC votes needed to win--there you need a majority--270 of the 538 cast!)
 


How does this affect candidate strategy in presidential elections?
 

Does it favor small or large states?

Role of multi-state media markets




Proposals for Reform of the Electoral College


Traditionally there have been three general proposals for
the reform of the Electoral College:


1) proportional plan

apportion state ec votes in proportion to candidate percentage

carry out to three decimal places?


2)district plan

treat each congressional district as a unit and award 2 votes
(Senate seat equivalent) to candidate who captures a plurality in the state


3) popular vote plan

do away with the EC all together
person with most votes wins?
 

40% rule?
runoff?


What would the impact of each of these plans be in a close election? Presidential Election in 2008?
 



Patterns of Presidential Elections


Political scientists have explored the history of party systems
and presidential elections and generally concluded
that at least 5 distinct historical eras can be identified.

These different eras identify different parties,
different issues, and key elections which have fostered new eras.


History of US Party Systems
 

System Period Leading Parties Events/Issues
1 1788-1824 Federalists
Dem/Reps		 Parties evolving/ 
Power of the national government
2 1824-1854/60 Whigs
Democrats		 Conventions/
Economic Issues
Slavery
Regional Conflict
3 1854/60-1896 Republicans
Democrats		 Urban machines and political bosses/
Reconstruction
States' Rights
4 1896-1932 Republicans 
Democrats		 nonpartisan election
weaking of congressional parties/
Regulation of big business
5 1932-1968? Republicans 
Democrats		 Race/ Civil Rights
Communism
Vietnam
Welfare state politics
6? 1968-present Republicans
Democrats		 Economy
Quality of Life


One of the most interesting approaches to the study of presidential elections is

 

Walter Dean Burnham's:



Theory of Critical Elections  


Burnham argues that one should view elections in light of two questions:

1) did the party in the majority (the party with the dominant percentage
of identifiers) remain in power or lose?

2) did the fundamental issues remain the same or change?

Answering these two questions leads to a four-fold typology:


party in power WINS party in power LOSES
issues remain  THE SAME MAINTAINING DEVIATING
issues CHANGE RECONFIRMING REALIGNING


Dealignment??


Some question whether Burnham's approach is still valid, 

as elections since 1968 have often yielded "divided government"

, ie. one party dominates the White House, 

the other party dominates the Congress,

and either party can dominate governorships.

Was 1968 a realigning election?

It certainly doesn't fit the standard criteria!


There are those who argue that the 1968 marked not a new realignment,

 but the dealignment of American politics!



According to the dealignment explanation, partisan identification 

is no longer an important factor in voting.

They argue that the following three trends conspire to make

 partisanship irrelevant:
1) parties have lost control of the nomination process through changes in the primary system
2) the media encourages the growth of maverick candidates
3) the changing nature of American campaigns encourages the growth of the "candidate-centered" campaign organization.




What does this change in the nature of the presidential selection process portend for the eventual winner?

Most argue that the institutional connection is weakened!



Along with this general weakening of the institutional connection 

is another concern:

Now that a candidate has won, how do they govern?


Often the people who helped the candidate get elected 

possess campaign skills more than governing skills!!

In the process they are very likely to have run against "the establishment"

 within their own party! (Such as McCain in 2000, Carter in 1976, etc.).

Without "institutional" support from your own party, how do you govern?

 

Thinking Comparatively

Now that we have explored the presidential selection system, let's make some comparisons!

1)  How does the electoral system work in your country?

2)  Does the presidential candidate "owe" his selection to "the people" or to "the party"?

3)  If he/she owes their selection to "the people", how does this impact the "popular connection"? The "institutional connection"?

4)  If he/she owes their selection to "the party", how does that influence the "popular connection"? The "institutional connection"?

5)  Assuming that you know something about the differences between party members/identifiers in the US and your country's system explain how one could argue that the institutional connection  trumps the popular connection in most parliamentary systems?