C HAPTER 8

CHAPTER 8

The General Election: Campaign Finance The General Election: Campaign Finance and Campaign Strategyand Campaign Strategy

Once the field of candidates has been Once the field of candidates has been narrowed narrowed through the nomination process, through the nomination process, the scene of the the scene of the party battle shifts to the party battle shifts to the general electiongeneral election

Nominations are intraparty struggles, whereas Nominations are intraparty struggles, whereas the the general election is an interparty general election is an interparty struggle that struggle that operates in a different type of operates in a different type of political environmentpolitical environment

In the general election competition, there is In the general election competition, there is normally a higher level of citizen interest, an normally a higher level of citizen interest, an expanded electorate, larger campaign expanded electorate, larger campaign

expenditures, expenditures, and greater media exposureand greater media exposure

Financing ElectionsFinancing Elections

Although money is not the only critical Although money is not the only critical campaign campaign resource, without money the basics resource, without money the basics of a campaign of a campaign are impossible to obtain, since it are impossible to obtain, since it is needed to is needed to purchase a headquarters, purchase a headquarters, consultants and staff, consultants and staff, polls, media polls, media advertising, and traveladvertising, and travel

As the technology of campaigning has As the technology of campaigning has become more become more advanced and the electronic advanced and the electronic media has become an media has become an indispensable part of indispensable part of campaigns, campaign costs campaigns, campaign costs have escalated have escalated dramaticallydramatically

The escalated cost of campaigns for House The escalated cost of campaigns for House and and Senate is shown in Table 8.1Senate is shown in Table 8.1

Table 8.1. Average Expenditures of House Table 8.1. Average Expenditures of House and Senate Candidates, 1986-2004and Senate Candidates, 1986-2004

Election Cycle Average

ExpenditureIncumbent Average

Challenger Average

Open Seat Average

House of Representatives

1986 $259,544 $334,386 $124,815 $431,213

1988 $273,380 $378,544 $119,621 $465,466

1990 $325,145 $422,124 $134,465 $543,129

1992 $409,836 $594,729 $167,891 $439,795

1994 $420,132 $590,746 $225,503 $543,464

1996 $516,219 $678,556 $286,582 $647,336

1998 $547,635 $606,915 $238,739 $748,790

2000 $594,691 $774,159 $295,316 $1,115,100

2002 $624,110 $828,946 $255,831 $1,044,111

2004 $679,320 $966,038 $261,029 $1,407,231

Senate

1986 $2,789,360 $3,307,430 $1,976,286 $3,358,295

1988 $2,802,690 $3,748,126 $1,820,058 $2,886,383

1990 $2,592,163 $3,582,136 $1,705,098 $1,599,792

1992 $2,891,488 $3,850,323 $1,826,251 $3,004,464

1994 $3,868,298 $4,581,199 $3,803,230 $2,932,537

1996 $3,550,866 $4,236,694 $3,139,479 $3,310,759

1998 $3,767,087 $4,737,372 $3,114,238 $2,715,954

2000 $5,344,611 $4,346,427 $2,481,378 $16,542,755

2002 $4,061,791 $4,268,889 $2,501,111 $7,445,833

2004 $5,209,710 $6,454,615 $2,352,692 $7,675,294

Source: Federal Election Commission data.

Financing ElectionsFinancing Elections

The level of campaign spending is related to the The level of campaign spending is related to the candidates’ chances of winning and the candidates’ chances of winning and the

closeness of closeness of the contestthe contest

Because of the escalating cost of campaigns, the Because of the escalating cost of campaigns, the inevitable differences among candidates in their inevitable differences among candidates in their financial resources, there have been periodic financial resources, there have been periodic demands for regulation of campaign financedemands for regulation of campaign finance

The resulting statutes have used the following The resulting statutes have used the following methods to regulate campaign finance:methods to regulate campaign finance:1.1. Public disclosure of contributions and expendituresPublic disclosure of contributions and expenditures

2.2. Contribution and expenditure limitsContribution and expenditure limits

3.3. Public funding of campaignsPublic funding of campaigns

Public DisclosurePublic Disclosure

The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) requires requires that all contributions of $200 or more that all contributions of $200 or more must be must be identified and all expenditures of $200 identified and all expenditures of $200 or more must or more must be reportedbe reported

Candidate Committees must also file periodic Candidate Committees must also file periodic preelection reports and a final postelection preelection reports and a final postelection

report report with the Federal Election Commission with the Federal Election Commission (FEC)(FEC)

The FEC maintains an online searchable The FEC maintains an online searchable database of database of candidates, parties, PACs, and candidates, parties, PACs, and donors to increase the donors to increase the transparency of the transparency of the sources of candidates’ financial sources of candidates’ financial supportsupport

Contribution and Expenditure LimitsContribution and Expenditure Limits

Candidates for federal office may raise money Candidates for federal office may raise money from from individuals, political action committees individuals, political action committees (PACs), and (PACs), and party committees:party committees:

-- Individual contribution limits to federal candidates were Individual contribution limits to federal candidates were doubled after the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act doubled after the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act

(BCRA) (BCRA) from $1,000 to $2,000 per campaignfrom $1,000 to $2,000 per campaign

-- PACs can give no more than $5,000 to any one PACs can give no more than $5,000 to any one candidate candidate per campaignper campaign

-- Parties can give no more than $5,000 per campaign to Parties can give no more than $5,000 per campaign to any any one candidate one candidate in House elections, and no more than in House elections, and no more than

$37,000 per campaign and candidate in Senate $37,000 per campaign and candidate in Senate electionselections

In addition to direct contributions, party In addition to direct contributions, party committees committees are also authorized to make are also authorized to make coordinated expenditures coordinated expenditures on behalf of the party on behalf of the party and its candidates (e.g. for and its candidates (e.g. for polls, media polls, media production, and campaign consultants)production, and campaign consultants)

Figure 8.1. Political Party Contributions and Figure 8.1. Political Party Contributions and Coordinated Expenditures, 1976-2004Coordinated Expenditures, 1976-2004

Source: Federal Election Commission

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Mil

lio

ns

Democrats Republicans

0

Contribution and Expenditure LimitsContribution and Expenditure Limits

Although political parties are restricted in terms Although political parties are restricted in terms of of how much they may spend to support how much they may spend to support congressional congressional and senatorial candidates, there are and senatorial candidates, there are no overall no overall spending limits for the candidates’ spending limits for the candidates’ organizationsorganizations

There are also no limits on how much of their There are also no limits on how much of their own own money candidates may spendmoney candidates may spend

Because of concern about the growing number of Because of concern about the growing number of successful self-financed candidates, the BCRA successful self-financed candidates, the BCRA

includes a provision which increases the includes a provision which increases the contribution contribution limits if a candidate’s opponent limits if a candidate’s opponent spends a certain spends a certain amounts of his or her own amounts of his or her own money on the campaignmoney on the campaign

Independent Expenditures, Issue Advocacy, Independent Expenditures, Issue Advocacy, and Soft Moneyand Soft Money

Independent expenditures are a campaign Independent expenditures are a campaign activity activity that is mainly the domain of large, well-that is mainly the domain of large, well-funded funded groups such as the NRA, or the AFL-CIOgroups such as the NRA, or the AFL-CIO

Issue advocacy involves public advertising of a Issue advocacy involves public advertising of a specific issue, but not directly promoting, or specific issue, but not directly promoting, or advocating the defeat of a specific candidate, and advocating the defeat of a specific candidate, and is not regulated by the FEC, and thus constitutes a is not regulated by the FEC, and thus constitutes a

loophole around spending limitsloophole around spending limits

The FECA contained major “soft money” The FECA contained major “soft money” loopholes loopholes that enabled individuals, unions, and that enabled individuals, unions, and corporations to corporations to evade contribution limits by evade contribution limits by giving large sums to so giving large sums to so called “party building” called “party building” activitiesactivities

The BCRA: Banning Soft Money and The BCRA: Banning Soft Money and Regulating Issue AdvocacyRegulating Issue Advocacy

In 2002, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign In 2002, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) – the most significant campaign Reform Act (BCRA) – the most significant campaign finance legislation since the FECA in 1974finance legislation since the FECA in 1974

By mandating that the national party committees By mandating that the national party committees could only raise and spend money subject to could only raise and spend money subject to

contribution limits, the BCRA effectively eliminated contribution limits, the BCRA effectively eliminated the use of soft money by the partiesthe use of soft money by the parties

Under the BCRA, labor unions or corporations may Under the BCRA, labor unions or corporations may not contribute to a committee that pays for issue-not contribute to a committee that pays for issue-advocacy advertising identifying a candidate for advocacy advertising identifying a candidate for

federal office within 30 days of a primary or within 60 federal office within 30 days of a primary or within 60 days of a general electiondays of a general election

The BCRA also requires all candidates, interest The BCRA also requires all candidates, interest groups, and parties to include a statement of groups, and parties to include a statement of responsibility for their broadcast advertisementsresponsibility for their broadcast advertisements

Figure 8.2. Party Fund-Raising of Hard and Figure 8.2. Party Fund-Raising of Hard and Soft Money, 1992-2004Soft Money, 1992-2004


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004


Rai

sed

(M

illi

on

s)

Hard Money Soft Money

Political Parties after the BCRAPolitical Parties after the BCRA

Given the recent dependence on soft money Given the recent dependence on soft money contributions and issue-advocacy contributions and issue-advocacy

advertisements, advertisements, changes made by the BCRA changes made by the BCRA threatened to undermine threatened to undermine the health of the health of national party organizationsnational party organizations

Both parties responded to the BCRA by Both parties responded to the BCRA by increasing increasing their emphasis on soliciting their emphasis on soliciting contributions subject to contributions subject to limits, which led to limits, which led to significant increases in significant increases in contributions (Figure contributions (Figure 8.3)8.3)

Figure 8.3. Party Fund-Raising from Small Figure 8.3. Party Fund-Raising from Small and Large Donors, 2000 and 2004and Large Donors, 2000 and 2004


$59.49

$165.77

$91.05

$157.09

$11.04

$43.35

$12.66

$60.85

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2000 2004 2000 2004

DNC RNC

Am

ou

nt

Rai

sed

(M

illi

on

s)

Contributions Less Than $200 Maximum Contributions

Political Parties after the BCRAPolitical Parties after the BCRA Given the recent dependence on soft money Given the recent dependence on soft money contributions and issue-advocacy advertisements, contributions and issue-advocacy advertisements, changes made by the BCRA threatened to undermine changes made by the BCRA threatened to undermine

the health of national party organizationsthe health of national party organizations

Both parties responded to the BCRA by increasing Both parties responded to the BCRA by increasing their emphasis on soliciting contributions subject to their emphasis on soliciting contributions subject to limits, which led to significant increases in limits, which led to significant increases in

contributions (Figure 8.3)contributions (Figure 8.3)

The BCRA provided the parties with the ability to The BCRA provided the parties with the ability to spend unlimitedly on behalf of their candidatesspend unlimitedly on behalf of their candidates

The BCRA also eliminated the transfer of large The BCRA also eliminated the transfer of large amounts of soft money from national to state partiesamounts of soft money from national to state parties

PACs and 527sPACs and 527s

Political action committees (PACs) are a type Political action committees (PACs) are a type of of “political committee” with the right to solicit “political committee” with the right to solicit and and accumulate funds for distribution to accumulate funds for distribution to candidatescandidates

Prior to the 1960s PACs were largely a labor Prior to the 1960s PACs were largely a labor union union phenomenon, but statutory changes in phenomenon, but statutory changes in the 1970s the 1970s spurred an explosion in the spurred an explosion in the number of PACs number of PACs

Figure 8.4. The Growth of Political Action Figure 8.4. The Growth of Political Action CommitteesCommittees



Political action committees (PACs) are a type of Political action committees (PACs) are a type of “political committee” with the right to solicit and “political committee” with the right to solicit and accumulate funds for distribution to candidatesaccumulate funds for distribution to candidates

Prior to the 1960s PACs were largely a labor union Prior to the 1960s PACs were largely a labor union phenomenon, but statutory changes in the 1970s phenomenon, but statutory changes in the 1970s spurred an explosion in the number of PACs spurred an explosion in the number of PACs

Not only the number of PACs has increased, but Not only the number of PACs has increased, but also also their share of the escalating cost of campaignstheir share of the escalating cost of campaigns

One of the most striking characteristics of PAC One of the most striking characteristics of PAC contribution patterns to House and Senate contribution patterns to House and Senate campaigns is their preference for incumbentscampaigns is their preference for incumbents

Figure 8.5. Amount of PAC Contributions to Figure 8.5. Amount of PAC Contributions to Incumbents, Challengers, and Open Seat Incumbents, Challengers, and Open Seat

Candidates in House and Senate Elections, 1990-Candidates in House and Senate Elections, 1990-20042004


$0.00

$50.00

$100.00

$150.00

$200.00

$250.00

$300.00

$350.00

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Am

ou

nt

Co

ntr

ibu

ted

(M

illi

on

s)

Incumbents

Open Seats

Challengers

Figure 8.6. PAC Contributions Going to Republican Figure 8.6. PAC Contributions Going to Republican and Democratic Candidates for the House and and Democratic Candidates for the House and

Senate, 1990-2004Senate, 1990-2004

$0.00

$20.00

$40.00

$60.00

$80.00

$100.00

$120.00

$140.00

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Am

ount

Co

ntri

bute

d (M

illio

ns)



527 committees are groups existing under 527 committees are groups existing under section section 527 of the tax code, which are tax-527 of the tax code, which are tax-exempt and may exempt and may engage in political activities, engage in political activities, but cannot expressly but cannot expressly advocate for or against advocate for or against candidates for federal officecandidates for federal office

Before the 2004 campaign, most 527s were tied Before the 2004 campaign, most 527s were tied to to interest groups that also maintained PACs, but interest groups that also maintained PACs, but in in 2004, new 527s emerged that were not 2004, new 527s emerged that were not necessarily necessarily tied to existing interest groupstied to existing interest groups

The new 527 committees received significant The new 527 committees received significant funding funding in the form of large contributions from in the form of large contributions from wealthy wealthy individuals, many of which had previously individuals, many of which had previously been been contributors of soft money to the national contributors of soft money to the national partiesparties

Public Financing of ElectionsPublic Financing of Elections

The FECA authorizes public funding of general The FECA authorizes public funding of general election campaigns for those presidential candidates election campaigns for those presidential candidates

who qualify and wish to accept the federal subsidywho qualify and wish to accept the federal subsidy

A candidate who accepts public funding must agree A candidate who accepts public funding must agree to restrict expenditures to the amount of the to restrict expenditures to the amount of the

federal federal grant and forego all private fund-raisinggrant and forego all private fund-raising

Since the public-funding features of the FECA took Since the public-funding features of the FECA took effect in 1976, every major-party candidate has effect in 1976, every major-party candidate has

chosen to accept public funding of his campaignchosen to accept public funding of his campaign

Clearly, the use of public funding in presidential Clearly, the use of public funding in presidential elections has tended to equalize the resources elections has tended to equalize the resources available to the Republican and Democratic partiesavailable to the Republican and Democratic parties

The Electoral CollegeThe Electoral College

The election of an American president is not a The election of an American president is not a direct direct popular vote, but rather an indirect election popular vote, but rather an indirect election process process in which the voters select electors who in in which the voters select electors who in turn make turn make the actual choice of a presidentthe actual choice of a president

In designing this system, the Founders envisioned In designing this system, the Founders envisioned the presidential electors as a council of wise men the presidential electors as a council of wise men who would render an independent judgment on the who would render an independent judgment on the best person to hold the nation’s highest officebest person to hold the nation’s highest office

The founders also envisioned a nonpartisan The founders also envisioned a nonpartisan selection selection process, but the contests for president process, but the contests for president early became early became highly partisan, where competing highly partisan, where competing parties run slates parties run slates of candidates for the positions of of candidates for the positions of presidential electorspresidential electors

Allocation of Electoral Votes among the Allocation of Electoral Votes among the StatesStates

Each state’s allocation of electoral votes is Each state’s allocation of electoral votes is determined by its total number of senators and determined by its total number of senators and

representatives in Congress (DC is entitled 3 representatives in Congress (DC is entitled 3 votes)votes) In every state, the candidate who receives a In every state, the candidate who receives a pluralityplurality of the state popular vote for president of the state popular vote for president receives receives allall of of that state’s electoral votes (Maine that state’s electoral votes (Maine and Nebraska use and Nebraska use a different system)a different system) To be elected president, a candidate must To be elected president, a candidate must receive an receive an absolute majority of the votes in absolute majority of the votes in the Electoral College the Electoral College (i.e. 270 of the total 538 (i.e. 270 of the total 538 electoral votes) electoral votes) If no candidate receives a majority, the winner If no candidate receives a majority, the winner is is chosen among the three candidates who chosen among the three candidates who received received the largest number of electoral votes by the largest number of electoral votes by the newly the newly elected House of Representatives elected House of Representatives

Electoral College Tendency to Exaggerate Electoral College Tendency to Exaggerate the Popular-Vote Margin of the Winning the Popular-Vote Margin of the Winning

CandidateCandidate In four instances, the presidential candidate who In four instances, the presidential candidate who was was the winner of the popular vote failed to gain a the winner of the popular vote failed to gain a

majority in the Electoral Collegemajority in the Electoral College

Most public discussion of the Electoral College Most public discussion of the Electoral College has has focused upon this possibility, but because it focused upon this possibility, but because it has has occurred so rarely, Electoral College reform occurred so rarely, Electoral College reform has not has not been of great concern, but the issue was been of great concern, but the issue was sparked sparked after the most recent instance – the after the most recent instance – the 2000 election2000 election

The most striking example of the extent to which The most striking example of the extent to which the the margin of victory may vary was in 1980, when margin of victory may vary was in 1980, when

Reagan won 50.7% of the popular vote and Reagan won 50.7% of the popular vote and 90.0% 90.0% of the electoral vote (Figure 8.7)of the electoral vote (Figure 8.7)

Figure 8.7. Winning Candidate’s Percent of Figure 8.7. Winning Candidate’s Percent of Popular and Electoral Vote, 1976-2004Popular and Electoral Vote, 1976-2004

Source: Office of the Federal Register.

50.1 50.7

58.953.4

43

49.2 47.950.7

55.2

90.9

97.5

79.2

68.7 70.4

50.0453.2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1976 Carter

(Dem.)1980 Reagan

(Rep.)1984 Reagan

(Rep.)1988 Bush

(Rep.)1992 Clinton

(Dem.)1996 Clinton

(Dem.)2000 Bush

(Rep.)2004 Bush

(Rep.)

Per

cen

t

Percent of Popular Vote Percent of Electoral Vote

Encouraging Two-Party PoliticsEncouraging Two-Party Politics

The Electoral College system works to the The Electoral College system works to the advantage advantage of the two major parties and to of the two major parties and to the detriment of the detriment of minor partiesminor parties

The combination of a winner-take-all system to The combination of a winner-take-all system to determine the allocation of electoral votes and determine the allocation of electoral votes and

the the requirement of a majority in the Electoral requirement of a majority in the Electoral College College makes it almost impossible for third makes it almost impossible for third parties to win a parties to win a presidential electionpresidential election

Although unable to win, third parties may Although unable to win, third parties may garner garner votes that may otherwise have gone votes that may otherwise have gone to one of the to one of the major-party candidates, and may major-party candidates, and may thus have a thus have a significant influence on the significant influence on the outcomes of electionsoutcomes of elections

Big State versus Small State AdvantagesBig State versus Small State Advantages

Small states are mathematically overrepresented Small states are mathematically overrepresented in in the Electoral College because of their the Electoral College because of their over-over-

representation in the House and the Senaterepresentation in the House and the Senate

Because of the winner-take-all system, however, it Because of the winner-take-all system, however, it is is the large, populous states that mainly benefit the large, populous states that mainly benefit from from the Electoral Collegethe Electoral College

This means that narrow victories in large states This means that narrow victories in large states yield yield a much higher return in terms of electoral a much higher return in terms of electoral votes than votes than do large pluralities in small states do large pluralities in small states (Table 8.3)(Table 8.3)

Without carrying at least some of these states it is Without carrying at least some of these states it is almost impossible for a candidate to be electedalmost impossible for a candidate to be elected

Table 8.3. The Impact of State Size on the Table 8.3. The Impact of State Size on the Electoral College (based on 2000 census Electoral College (based on 2000 census

figures)figures)State

Electoral Votes

Percent of Total Electoral College State

Electoral Votes

Percent of Total Electoral College

Smallest States (13) Largest States (10)

Vermont 3 0.56 California 55 10.22

Delaware 3 0.56 Texas 34 6.32

Montana 3 0.56 New York 31 5.76

South Dakota 3 0.56 Florida 27 5.02

North Dakota 3 0.56 Pennsylvania 21 3.9

Wyoming 3 0.56 Illinois 21 3.9

Alaska 3 0.56 Ohio 20 3.72

Maine 4 0.74 Michigan 17 3.16

New Hampshire 4 0.74 New Jersey 15 2.79

Rhode Island 4 0.74 North Carolina 14 2.6

Nevada 4 0.74 Total 255 47.4

Idaho 4 0.74

Hawaii 4 0.74

Total 45 8.36

Partisan Implications: The GOP “Lock” on the Partisan Implications: The GOP “Lock” on the Electoral College Is Picked in 1992 and 1996Electoral College Is Picked in 1992 and 1996

In the presidential elections of 1968, 1972, and in In the presidential elections of 1968, 1972, and in the the 1980s, Republican strength in the South and in 1980s, Republican strength in the South and in the the Mountain states led to a widespread belief that Mountain states led to a widespread belief that the the GOP had a “lock” on the Electoral College, GOP had a “lock” on the Electoral College, enabling enabling them to focus their campaigns on them to focus their campaigns on competitive statescompetitive states

In 1988 Bush carried fourteen states with only 55 In 1988 Bush carried fourteen states with only 55 percent or less of the popular vote, and in 1992, a percent or less of the popular vote, and in 1992, a sufficient swing of the national sentiment away from sufficient swing of the national sentiment away from the GOP enabled the Democrats to pick the “lock”the GOP enabled the Democrats to pick the “lock”

Although the 1992 and 1996 election shattered to Although the 1992 and 1996 election shattered to notion of the GOP’s domination of the Electoral notion of the GOP’s domination of the Electoral

College, the South and West continued to constitute College, the South and West continued to constitute the party’s critical base of support (Figure 8.8)the party’s critical base of support (Figure 8.8)

Figure 8.8. Democratic Electoral Victories, Figure 8.8. Democratic Electoral Victories, 1992 and 1996 1992 and 1996

Number of Times Clinton Won State

Twice (29)Once (5)Zero (16)

Tight Electoral College Competition in Tight Electoral College Competition in 2000 and 20042000 and 2004

With the Republicans winning 271 electoral votes With the Republicans winning 271 electoral votes and and the Democrats 266 in 2000, the nation the Democrats 266 in 2000, the nation witnessed the witnessed the closest Electoral College contest in closest Electoral College contest in over a century, over a century, and the 2004 election was and the 2004 election was close as wellclose as well

This narrow division between the two major This narrow division between the two major parties parties made clear that in the current era neither made clear that in the current era neither party has a party has a “lock” on the Electoral College“lock” on the Electoral College

Recent elections demonstrate that the Republican Recent elections demonstrate that the Republican Electoral College base is the Mountain, Plains, and Electoral College base is the Mountain, Plains, and southern states, while the Democratic base is in southern states, while the Democratic base is in

the the Northeast, West Coast, and industrial states of Northeast, West Coast, and industrial states of the the Midwest, providing the potential for highly Midwest, providing the potential for highly competitive contests for Electoral College majorities competitive contests for Electoral College majorities

(Figure 8.9)(Figure 8.9)

Figure 8.9. Republican Electoral College Figure 8.9. Republican Electoral College Victories, 2000 and 2004 Victories, 2000 and 2004

Number of Times Gore/Kerry Won State

Twice (18)Once (3)Zero (29)

Reform: Direct Popular Vote versus Reform: Direct Popular Vote versus the Electoral Collegethe Electoral College

Most of the criticism of the Electoral College has been Most of the criticism of the Electoral College has been concentrated upon the possibility that the winner of concentrated upon the possibility that the winner of

the the popular vote might not win the electoral vote and popular vote might not win the electoral vote and on the on the “undemocratic” character of the winner-“undemocratic” character of the winner-take-all system of take-all system of allocating electoral votesallocating electoral votes

Therefore, the great appeal of proposals for direct Therefore, the great appeal of proposals for direct popular popular vote is that such a system would assure vote is that such a system would assure victory to the winnervictory to the winner of the poplar voteof the poplar vote

One effect of switching to a direct popular vote system One effect of switching to a direct popular vote system of of election would be to reduce the current special election would be to reduce the current special importance of importance of the large states, making votes equally the large states, making votes equally important across statesimportant across states

Reform: Direct Popular Vote versus Reform: Direct Popular Vote versus the Electoral College (continued)the Electoral College (continued)

One concern is that if a simple plurality of the One concern is that if a simple plurality of the popular vote is required for election, third-party popular vote is required for election, third-party candidates would still have little chance of winningcandidates would still have little chance of winning

Another concern is the possibility that in a plurality Another concern is the possibility that in a plurality system, a candidate can be elected with less than system, a candidate can be elected with less than

40 40 percent of the vote – a solution would be to percent of the vote – a solution would be to require a require a runoff election between the top two runoff election between the top two candidatescandidates

Such a system would greatly increase the potential Such a system would greatly increase the potential influence of third partiesinfluence of third parties

Another suggested reform would be a proportional Another suggested reform would be a proportional allocation of a state’s electoral votes in accordance allocation of a state’s electoral votes in accordance with each party’s share of the popular votewith each party’s share of the popular vote

The General Election CampaignThe General Election Campaign

Every campaign is different, depending on Every campaign is different, depending on several several factors:factors:

-- who the contending candidates are (e.g. incumbents who the contending candidates are (e.g. incumbents or or not)not)

-- the nature of the office being sought (executive, the nature of the office being sought (executive, legislative, legislative, or judicial)or judicial)

-- the level of government (national, state, or local)the level of government (national, state, or local)

-- the applicable campaign finance and election statutesthe applicable campaign finance and election statutes

-- the campaign resources of the candidatesthe campaign resources of the candidates

-- the type of nominating campaigns that were the type of nominating campaigns that were conductedconducted

-- the nature of the constituencythe nature of the constituency

-- the tenor of times (e.g. which issues are salient to the tenor of times (e.g. which issues are salient to voters)voters)

WhenWhen the Voter Decides the Voter Decides

Most voters in presidential elections make up Most voters in presidential elections make up their their minds about the candidate for whom minds about the candidate for whom they will vote they will vote before or during the nominating before or during the nominating conventionsconventions

A substantial portion of the electorate does not A substantial portion of the electorate does not make make its decision until after the conventions, its decision until after the conventions, and therefore and therefore the impact of the campaign can the impact of the campaign can be significant be significant (Figure 8.10)(Figure 8.10)

The one common condition that works against The one common condition that works against making campaigns decisive is the presence of making campaigns decisive is the presence of

a a popular incumbent presidentpopular incumbent president

Figure 8.10. Percent of Voters Who Said They Figure 8.10. Percent of Voters Who Said They Decided on the Presidential Candidate They Decided on the Presidential Candidate They Voted for after the Conventions, 1976-2004Voted for after the Conventions, 1976-2004

Source: National Election Studies.

41

31

39

47 46 46

30

46

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004

Per

cen

t

IncumbencyIncumbency

The resources and privileges of public office The resources and privileges of public office tend to tend to enable incumbents to publicize enable incumbents to publicize themselvesthemselves

The self-advertisement efforts of incumbent The self-advertisement efforts of incumbent members of the House in their constituencies members of the House in their constituencies

have have made them well known, and they are made them well known, and they are normally normally thought of in positive termsthought of in positive terms

Incumbent executives are also in a position to Incumbent executives are also in a position to claim claim credit for all the positive things that credit for all the positive things that have occurred, have occurred, but may also be blamed for but may also be blamed for negative thingsnegative things

A further advantage of incumbency is the easy A further advantage of incumbency is the easy incumbents have in raising moneyincumbents have in raising money

Incumbency (continued)Incumbency (continued)

Normally, over 90 percent of the House Normally, over 90 percent of the House incumbents incumbents gain reelection, while the reelection gain reelection, while the reelection rate for senators rate for senators is substantially lower (Figure is substantially lower (Figure 8.11)8.11)

House incumbents benefit from the relatively House incumbents benefit from the relatively homogeneous nature of their districts when homogeneous nature of their districts when compared to the larger and more socially diverse compared to the larger and more socially diverse statewide constituencies of Senatorsstatewide constituencies of Senators

The relatively high level of Senator defeat reflects The relatively high level of Senator defeat reflects several factors:several factors:-- higher levels of interparty competitionhigher levels of interparty competition

-- higher levels of campaign resources put into these higher levels of campaign resources put into these racesraces

-- higher visibility of Senate contestshigher visibility of Senate contests

Figure 8.11. Percent of House and Senate Figure 8.11. Percent of House and Senate Incumbents Reelected, 1952-2004 Incumbents Reelected, 1952-2004

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

10019

52

1954

1956

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

Per

cen

t o

f In

cu

mb

ents

Ree

lect

ed

Senate House

Majority versus Minority Party StatusMajority versus Minority Party Status

Majority party candidates normally place more Majority party candidates normally place more emphasis on partisan themes than minority emphasis on partisan themes than minority

party party candidatescandidates

As the dominant party in terms of the As the dominant party in terms of the electorate’s electorate’s party identification since the party identification since the 1930s, the Democratic 1930s, the Democratic Party nationally has Party nationally has more frequently emphasized more frequently emphasized partisan themes partisan themes than the Republicansthan the Republicans

As partisan appeals have become less As partisan appeals have become less effective in effective in presidential elections, the presidential elections, the significance in significance in majority/minority status in majority/minority status in determining campaign determining campaign strategy has been strategy has been reducedreduced

DebatesDebates

Debates have now become a standard part of Debates have now become a standard part of presidential campaignspresidential campaigns

Presidential debates have generally worked to Presidential debates have generally worked to the the advantage of the challenger candidateadvantage of the challenger candidate

Because the media tends to hype the presidential Because the media tends to hype the presidential debates and give them prime time coverage, the debates and give them prime time coverage, the candidates tend to see them as very importantcandidates tend to see them as very important

As a general rule, the candidate who is perceived As a general rule, the candidate who is perceived to to have “won” the debate tends to improve in the have “won” the debate tends to improve in the pollspolls

The history of televised debates shows that the The history of televised debates shows that the image of the candidates is increasingly importantimage of the candidates is increasingly important

IssuesIssues

From the1930s until the 1980 election, From the1930s until the 1980 election, Democratic Democratic candidates generally had a clear candidates generally had a clear advantage over the advantage over the Republicans when dealing with Republicans when dealing with domestic issuesdomestic issues Following the bad economic conditions of the last Following the bad economic conditions of the last

years of the Carter administration, voters began years of the Carter administration, voters began to to view the GOP candidate as the best for the view the GOP candidate as the best for the economyeconomy The Republicans’ traditional disadvantage on The Republicans’ traditional disadvantage on domestic issues was partially offset by an domestic issues was partially offset by an advantage advantage they carried regarding foreign policythey carried regarding foreign policy This advantage was reversed in the 1976-1984 This advantage was reversed in the 1976-1984 elections, when voters perceived the Democratic elections, when voters perceived the Democratic party to be better for peaceparty to be better for peace The public’s trust in the parties on certain issues The public’s trust in the parties on certain issues is is displayed in Figure 8.12displayed in Figure 8.12

Figure 8.12. Which Party the Public Trusts Figure 8.12. Which Party the Public Trusts to Handle Issues, May 2006 to Handle Issues, May 2006

Source: The Washington Post/ABC News Poll, May 16, 2006.

61

5654 54

52 5250

4846

28

33 34

23

3834

3634

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Health

care

Educa

tion

Feder

al bu

dget

Gas P

rices

Taxes

Econo

my

Situat

ion in

Iraq

Imm

igrat

ion

Terro

rism

Per

cen

t


Figure 8.13. Differences between Liberal Figure 8.13. Differences between Liberal and Conservative Democrats on Social and Conservative Democrats on Social

Issues, 2005 Issues, 2005

Source: The Pew Research Center, “Beyond Red vs. Blue: Republicans Divided About Role of Government - Democrats by Social and Personal Values,” May 10, 2005 .

92

15

8

34

74

54

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Homosexuality should beaccepted by society

To be moral it is necessary tobelieve in God

The government should domore to protect morality.

Per

cen

t A

gre

ein

g

Liberal Democrats Conservative Democrats

Candidate ImageCandidate Image

Personal characteristics that voters believe are Personal characteristics that voters believe are important tend to vary depending on the important tend to vary depending on the

condition in condition in which the country finds itselfwhich the country finds itself

There is frequent commentary about how There is frequent commentary about how candidates candidates manipulate their images through manipulate their images through skillful use of the skillful use of the mass media, but candidate mass media, but candidate images are not easily images are not easily created and altered created and altered

During hard times, effective leadership is a During hard times, effective leadership is a valued valued characteristic, and other important characteristic, and other important characteristics characteristics include trustworthiness and include trustworthiness and intelligence (Figure 8.14)intelligence (Figure 8.14)

Figure 8.14. Vote Choice of Exit Poll Figure 8.14. Vote Choice of Exit Poll Respondents Based on Most Important Respondents Based on Most Important

Personal Quality, 2004Personal Quality, 2004

Source: National Election Poll exit survey.

87

79

70

24

912

20

29

75

91

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Strong Leader Takes Clear Standon Issues

Honest/Trustworthy Cares About People Intelligent

Per

cen

t V

oti

ng

fo

r C

and

ida

te

Bush Kerry

The Role of Parties in Modern CampaignsThe Role of Parties in Modern Campaigns

In the modern campaign, the candidate tends In the modern campaign, the candidate tends to be to be the focus, not the party, and the focus, not the party, and candidates build a candidates build a personal campaign personal campaign organizationorganization

Parties do, however, matter, in that they can Parties do, however, matter, in that they can provide provide essential and timely financial support essential and timely financial support and in-kind and in-kind contributions of services to contributions of services to candidates (Figure 8.15)candidates (Figure 8.15)

Figure 8.15. Candidate and National Figure 8.15. Candidate and National Committee Spending on 2004 Presidential Committee Spending on 2004 Presidential

Campaign Campaign

Source: Thomas B. Edsall and James V. Grimaldi “On Nov. 2, GOP Got More Bang For Its Billion, Analysis Shows,” The Washington Post, December 30, 2004; Page A01.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

DNC Kerry Campaign RNC Bush Campaign


Ex

pen

dit

ure

s (M

illi

on

s)

Grassroots

Media

Administrative

Fundraising

Other

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Exp

end

itu

res

(Mil

lio

ns)

DNC RNC Bush CampaignKerry Campaign


Grassroots

Media

Administrative

Fundraising

Other

The Role of Parties in Modern CampaignsThe Role of Parties in Modern Campaigns

In the modern campaign, the candidate tends to In the modern campaign, the candidate tends to be be the focus, not the party, and candidates build the focus, not the party, and candidates build a a personal campaign organizationpersonal campaign organization

Parties do, however, matter, in that they can Parties do, however, matter, in that they can provide provide essential and timely financial support essential and timely financial support and in-kind and in-kind contributions of services to contributions of services to candidates (Figure 8.15)candidates (Figure 8.15)

A large share of candidates’ and parties’ A large share of candidates’ and parties’ budgets in budgets in national and statewide races is national and statewide races is devoted to TV ads, devoted to TV ads, often featuring harsh criticism often featuring harsh criticism of the opponent, and it of the opponent, and it is usually parties and is usually parties and interest groups who run the interest groups who run the most negative ads most negative ads (Figure 8.16)(Figure 8.16)

Figure 8.16. Percent of Advertising That Figure 8.16. Percent of Advertising That Was Positive in Tone by Sponsor, 2000 and Was Positive in Tone by Sponsor, 2000 and

2004 2004

Source: Michael M. Franz, Joel Rivlin, and Kenneth Goldstein, “Much More of the Same: Television Advertising Pre- and Post-

BCRA,” in The Election After Reform: Money, Politics, and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act , , edited by Michael Malbin.

64.8

43.6

37.2

8.6

0

7.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2000 2004

Per

cen

t P

osi

tive

Candidate Ads Party Ads Interest Group Ads

The Role of Parties in Modern Campaigns The Role of Parties in Modern Campaigns (continued)(continued)

Parties are often instrumental in funding targeted Parties are often instrumental in funding targeted appeals, such as direct mail, during campaignsappeals, such as direct mail, during campaigns

Direct mail can also be used as part of larger Direct mail can also be used as part of larger mobilization efforts (get-out-the-vote efforts), and mobilization efforts (get-out-the-vote efforts), and parties tend to focus particular attention to these as parties tend to focus particular attention to these as

they tend to aid all of the party’s candidatesthey tend to aid all of the party’s candidates

In attempting to mobilize voters, the parties use a In attempting to mobilize voters, the parties use a two-step process: finding those who needed to be two-step process: finding those who needed to be mobilized, and then contacting potential supporters mobilized, and then contacting potential supporters to encourage them to voteto encourage them to vote

These efforts have increased markedly (Figure 8.17)These efforts have increased markedly (Figure 8.17)

Figure 8.17. Percent of Citizens Reporting Figure 8.17. Percent of Citizens Reporting That They Were Contacted by the Parties, That They Were Contacted by the Parties,

1972-2004 1972-2004

Source: National Election Studies.

23

2830

24

31

2425

24

1920

2526

27

35

4143

29

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Per

cen

t C

on

tact

ed b

y P

arty

Election OutcomesElection Outcomes

Elections are a culmination of candidates’ Elections are a culmination of candidates’ campaigns campaigns and voters’ decisions, and they and voters’ decisions, and they are played out as are played out as contests for specific offices, contests for specific offices, in different in different constituencies, at various times, constituencies, at various times, and therefore and therefore combine to produce diverse combine to produce diverse election outcomeselection outcomes

Despite the fact that Democrats have enjoyed Despite the fact that Democrats have enjoyed a a substantial advantage in party identification substantial advantage in party identification for most for most of the period from 1956 to 2004, the of the period from 1956 to 2004, the Republicans Republicans have been most successful in have been most successful in winning the presidency winning the presidency (Figure 8.18)(Figure 8.18)

Figure 8.18. Republican and Democratic Figure 8.18. Republican and Democratic Percentage of Popular Vote for President, Percentage of Popular Vote for President,

1956-20041956-2004

Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2006.

43

38

48

41

48

50

39

61

51

59

53

4851

49

43

61

42

47

41 4137

57

51

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004

Per

cen

tag

e o

f V

ote

Democrat Republican

Election Outcomes (continued)Election Outcomes (continued)

Whatever advantages the Republicans may Whatever advantages the Republicans may have had have had in presidential contests had been in presidential contests had been substantially offset substantially offset by Democratic domination by Democratic domination of the Congressof the Congress

The most significant change in regional voting The most significant change in regional voting patterns during the second half of the 20patterns during the second half of the 20thth

century century was southern realignment (Figure was southern realignment (Figure 8.19)8.19)

Figure 8.19. Democratic and Republican Party Figure 8.19. Democratic and Republican Party Share of Southern Congressional Delegation, Share of Southern Congressional Delegation,

1966-20001966-2000

Source: Results of House elections, by party, 1928–2000. (2001). In J. L. Moore, J. P. Preimesberger, & D. R. Tarr (Eds.), Guide to U.S. elections (Vol. 2). Washington: CQ Press.

75 75

69

74 7571

64

71

6366 66 66

62

43 43 43

25 25

31

26 2529

36

29

3734 34 34

38

51

57 57 57

78

49

22

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Per

cen

t o

f S

eat

s



Whatever advantages the Republicans may have Whatever advantages the Republicans may have had had in presidential contests had been substantially in presidential contests had been substantially offset offset by Democratic domination of the by Democratic domination of the CongressCongress

The most significant change in regional voting The most significant change in regional voting patterns during the second half of the 20patterns during the second half of the 20thth century century was southern realignment (Figure 8.19)was southern realignment (Figure 8.19)

Another phenomenon that has had an impact on Another phenomenon that has had an impact on Congressional election outcomes is the process of Congressional election outcomes is the process of redistricting, since redistricting plans in most cases redistricting, since redistricting plans in most cases

address the goals of protecting incumbents and address the goals of protecting incumbents and gaining a partisan advantagegaining a partisan advantage


Despite setbacks in presidential politics, the Despite setbacks in presidential politics, the Democratic Party dominated gubernatorial and Democratic Party dominated gubernatorial and

state state legislative elections during most of the legislative elections during most of the Post-World Post-World War II era (Figure 8.20)War II era (Figure 8.20)

Figure 8.20. Percentage of State Legislatures Figure 8.20. Percentage of State Legislatures under Democratic, Republican, and Split under Democratic, Republican, and Split

Control, 1956-2004Control, 1956-2004

Source: National Conference of State Legislatures.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1956

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

Per

cen

t

Democratic Republican Split


Despite setbacks in presidential politics, the Despite setbacks in presidential politics, the Democratic Party dominated gubernatorial and Democratic Party dominated gubernatorial and

state state legislative elections during most of the legislative elections during most of the Post-World Post-World War II era (Figure 8.20)War II era (Figure 8.20)

As part of the 1970s movement to reform state As part of the 1970s movement to reform state legislatures, salaries were increased, along legislatures, salaries were increased, along

with a with a greater professionalization of the greater professionalization of the legislatureslegislatures

The greater professionalization lead to both a The greater professionalization lead to both a greater greater competition for office, and to an competition for office, and to an increased increased incumbency advantageincumbency advantage

The 2006 Midterm ElectionsThe 2006 Midterm Elections

While congressional elections typically revolve While congressional elections typically revolve around local issues unique to each district and around local issues unique to each district and

state, state, occasionally these elections take on a occasionally these elections take on a more more nationalized characternationalized character

The 2006 midterm elections were, similar to The 2006 midterm elections were, similar to the 1994 the 1994 midterm elections, a referendum on midterm elections, a referendum on the party the party controlling the presidency and both controlling the presidency and both chambers of chambers of CongressCongress

As a result of factors such as the popular As a result of factors such as the popular disapproval disapproval of the Iraq War, Bush’s low of the Iraq War, Bush’s low approval ratings, and aapproval ratings, and a scandal involving scandal involving Republican Majority Leader Tom Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay, DeLay, Democratic candidates fared particularly well Democratic candidates fared particularly well among independents in 2006among independents in 2006

Documents

C HAPTER 8