|
|
ELECTIONS
| ||
|
Read: D&Z 8 |
"What do the theories say about elections?"
Empirically "What have social scientists discovered about elections?" "What can we discover about elections?"
Comparatively "What types of electoral systems are there?"
"What are
elections like in other countries?"
Theoretically
Elections are meaningless rituals. They are designed to tie the masses to the elite political system.
Elections are a vehicle by which those who are motivated to participate in politics can make choices as to who will facilitate the plural political system. Elections are thus a personnel choice where voters decide who will occupy political positions such as President, Governor, Mayor, etc.
At best, elections can hold politicians
accountable for their actions. (Voting as a retrospective
judgment.
Elections are one of the arenas in which people participate meaningfully in the decisions that affect their lives. In order to do this, elections must provide meaningful choices for voters, the candidates must differ on the issues, their stands must be clear and citizens must understand the differences between the candidates. (Ie., there must be a "responsible party system"!)
Empirically
Possible evidence to explore:
2) turnout rates in elections 3) the nature of electoral campaigns 4) why individuals vote the way they do
Characteristics of the American Electoral System There are 3 characteristics which shape interest articulation: regularity, unit rule and plurality
elections occur at specific intervals How
does the principle of regularity affect the behavior of people? of
parties? of candidates? 2) the parties are not really organized "between" elections 3)
candidates know in advance when elections are and can develop their own
strategies, including going "outside of the party" through
primaries a) media specialists b) image merchants
c) strategic planners
there is only one representative per district How does this affect the nature
of the interest articulation process? 2) how does this affect political parties:
3)
how does this affect citizen perceptions of the process?
While we tend to focus
on the impact of unit rule on legislative elections, let's take a look at
presidential elections. Perhaps the best example of the idea of unit
rule is:
The Electoral College (Now do you understand why chads, pregnant chads, and dimpled chads were so important, as well as machines that hadn't been cleaned, didn't work because of bent styluses, etc?) (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 all of this affect candidate strategy in presidential
elections?
Does it favor small or large states? The 2000 Presidential
elections has raised some of these questions. Here are proposals for
reform of the Electoral College which have been debated for decades!"
Proposals for Reform Who would have won under each of these circumstances? Are they any less questionable than having a 5-4 Supreme Court majority determine the outcome?
3) plurality a
first-past-the post system majority of
votes cast is not necessary in order to win only more
votes than anyone else (when election
involves more than 2 candidates, likelihood
of majority of votes cast is small) How does this
affect: 2) the nature of the outcome of the elections 3) the nature of representation |
