added turnout and general elections notes

2 files changed, 191 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/rich/27_elections b/rich/27_elections
index 7c9151f..f1f98d7 100644
--- a/rich/27_elections
+++ b/rich/27_elections
@@ -55,3 +55,107 @@ How did it develop over time?
         - Also have to make those in power (men) care about the issue
             - Women boycott domestic work
         - Well-timed, uses WWI. 19th Amendment 1920
+- The black vote is very important for Democrats.
+- Women are a really big "swing" constituency, but is less monolithic
+  and more regional.
+
+Who runs for office?
+- Two types
+1) Self-starters = independent | not supported by party est.
+    - to gain publicity (for a non-political career)
+    - ex: possibly Trump, Mary Kerry for gov of CA
+    - specific policy issues
+    - political cause (not single-issue but a focus like Green Party)
+    - usually not a national election; state or regional
+2) Recruited (by the party) Candidates
+    - chosen based on "particular qualities" (electability)
+        - ex: funding
+            - either from the people---small-dollar donations for a
+              compelling story
+            - large-dollar donations for policy quality (often from
+              corporate/wealthy interests)
+        - past success like Trump being a great shuckster (built brand)
+
+What is the modern campaign like?
+- Used to be super personal, even 40--50 years ago.
+    - Candidates would go around, shake hands, etc
+- "Cyclical dependence on contributions"
+    - Campaign costs have increased severely
+        - Every dollar counts because high cost of failure
+        - Tens of millions for House races, billions for pres.
+- The Rise of "Political Consultants"
+    - Devise a campaign image OR a strategy
+        - Image = what the voter sees, messaging
+            - Also check viability for a candidate
+            - Polling based on "how does this sound"
+            - Case studies of "can this candidate win the election"
+        - Strategy
+            - How to win
+    - "Your role is to get fired"
+    - Often expensive: $300--700/hr
+
+Running for President
+Stage 1 - Primaries
+    - Closed primary = only members registered to the political party
+      can participate in the vote
+    - Open primary = voters can choose party primary to vote in but can
+      only choose one
+        - Vast majority of primaries are this kind
+        - Georgia's primary
+            - Has runoff for non-majority primary, requiring you to have
+              originally voted in that primary
+    - Blanket primary
+        - Can vote in either or BOTH primaries
+        - No state uses a pure form of blanket primary
+        - Ruled unconstitutional in 2000 for California
+            - Parties were forced to put candidates on ballot that they
+              didn't endorse
+- Alternative: Caucus method
+    - Completely different from a primary
+    - Iowa caucus
+    - Iowans care more about their vote
+    - Candidates are very personal, and since Iowa's pretty small;
+      candidates will actually visit every county
+    - Each town organizes a group of people together in one physical
+      location, like a high school gym.
+        - Grouped by which candidate you will vote for.
+        - Then people campaign to each other to move people around until
+          candidates pass a certain threshold number of suporters.
+        - A proportional representation is sent to the state caucus
+        - Long, drawn-out, time-consuming discussions
+- Conventions: after either system, this is like a "coronation party"
+  for the nominee.
+
+The Electoral College
+Stage 2
+Article II, Sec 1; Amendments 12 and 23
+- Four noble and not-so-noble reasons
+    - So that we know who actually wins, like pluralities can't be
+      disputed
+    - Ensure that everyone is actually represented
+    - Avoid "tyranny of the majority"
+        - States and federalism is important to the US
+        - Against "one person, one vote"
+    - Popular vote may have prevented the South from actually joining
+      the nation
+        - North had a greater population, and slaves didn't vote, but
+          South wanted sufficient power to join
+        - For first 36yrs, pres. was from Virginia
+- Makes turnout really important
+
+Technicalities
+- Ballots are an important consideration for electoral outcomes (like
+  modern argument over absentee ballots)
+    - All ballots are "Australian [secret] ballot"
+    - Office-block ballot: grouped by electoral office
+        - Multiple parties could claim a candidate for a party
+        - Can be a bit trickier, more complicated
+        - Greater emphasis on candidates than people (party affiliation
+          still there)
+        - WAY more common
+    - Party column ballot: grouped by party
+- Voting by mail
+    - Increases participation
+    - Changes the real end date of the election
+    - In case you can't get home or are out-of-district on voting day(s)
+    - Not built to handle pandemics
diff --git a/rich/29_turnout b/rich/29_turnout
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..267c35a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/rich/29_turnout
@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
+Turnout is critical to the health of a democracy
+- Democracy = policies are representative of the people
+- So how healthy is the US?
+1996 48.4%
+2000 50.7%
+2004 55.7%
+2008 58.2%
+2012 54.9%
+2016 55.5%
+- That's low, the second lowest of all industrialized democracies
+    - And the lowest, Switzerland, doesn't actually have important
+      national elections
+- What explains participation?
+
+The Decision to Vote or Not (real Political Science)
+- Socioeconomic factors
+    - Age: older people are more likely to vote
+        - 18--21: less than 1 in 3 chance of voting
+        - >21: 54%
+    - Education: education increases voting
+        - College educated people are way more likely to vote
+    - Minority status is a poor factor for understanding US voting
+        - Sometimes better for less free democracies
+    - Income
+        - More money -> more likely to be salaried -> more flexible hrs
+    - Actually pretty poor explanatory variables    
+        - Correlate with eachother
+        - Determine individual voting, not actual group participation
+        - National turnout is a group behavior
+- Motivational factors
+    - Catch-all category, in a way
+    - Satisfaction theory: people aren't dissatisfied with the system
+        - Voter turnout hasn't increased as distrust has increased
+        - The least satisfied are actually the least likely to vote
+          (wealthy, high education, older should be MORE satisfied)
+        - Doesn't really work
+    - Modern Campaigns' influence
+        - Actually explains some voter turnout
+        - Voters don't like "negative campaigns" and too political
+          atmosphere, so they don't vote
+        - But it's not enough because it was just as loud 100 years ago
+    - "Social Rootedness"
+        - Around 60 years ago, you would grow up, go to college, work,
+          live, and die in your community.
+        - Rootedness -> care about your community
+        - Has decreased a lot, corresponding with a decrease in turnout
+        - Doesn't fully explain spikes in voter turnout
+    - Cultural factor?
+        - Well, Americans like politics; political shows are super
+          popular. #1 show on TV is Fox News.
+        - No real measurement, almost undisproveable (pseudoscientific)
+- Institutional factors 
+        - Formal or informal, control the cost vs benefit and structure
+          of voting
+        - Actually establish who gets to play
+    - Structure of political competition
+        - How districts are organized and representation is decided
+        - US = winner-take-all, single-member districts
+            - Promotes single competitive districts, low party
+              representation
+    - Proportionality
+        - How # of votes received transforms into # of seats awarded
+        - The less proportional, the lower the turnout
+            - Parliament, ex. has higher turnout than US
+            - "my guy is going to {win,lose} anyway" (esp 3rd parties)
+    - Number of Parties (party competition)
+        - One argument goes this way: people outside the main parties
+          (like a communist more extreme than Dems or a fascist more
+          extreme than Reps)
+            - But people often vote strategically
+    - Unicameralism
+        - One chamber -> more turnout
+        - "A second source of competition"
+            - Lower tournout on non-presidential, non-senate years
+        - Statistically significant, but 2-3 percentage points
+    - Registration process
+        - Has improved a LOT in recent years
+    - Mandatory voting
+        - Neutralizes most of the cost of voting
+        - #1 institutional variable
+        - Still small penalties, even in compulsory voting states (ex.
+          Australia)
+            - Like doctor's note will get you out even
+        - Italy puts you on a list
+    - Electoral Format
+        - Plurality/majoritarian vs proportional
+        - Proportional improves turnout