From 406da5e66da599d0aca74e7bc9b57e508659b345 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Holden Rohrer Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2020 00:24:06 -0500 Subject: added turnout and general elections notes --- rich/27_elections | 104 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ rich/29_turnout | 87 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 191 insertions(+) create mode 100644 rich/29_turnout (limited to 'rich') 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 -- cgit