The electoral process and direct democracy

• Caucuses are a series of state-based meetings of party activists who come together to indicate their preferences for the candidates.
• They have been deemed ‘low turnout, high intensity’ elections.
• Found in less densely states, such as Nevada
• Iowa caucus traditionally held first- considered most important because of the momentum it gives the winning candidate. Hillary Clinton 2016 won 49.9% of the caucus compared to Bernie Sanders’ 49.6%. Ted Cruz won 27.6% of the vote compared to Trumps 24.3%
• Considered less democratic due to their tendency to attract extremists

•  Intra-party state elections to select the party’s nominee for the presidential election
• The winner of the popular vote in the primary receives delegates by a winner-takes-all process or by some form of proportional representation, depending on state and party rules
•  First primary held in New Hampshire- until 1992 every president had won this primary- Trump won with 35%, Bernie Sanders won with 60%
• Larger states have more delegates and are therefore more important to win- California 55 delegates
• Open primary- any voter can vote in either party’s primary (but not both)
• Closed primary- only registered party voters may participate
• Invisible primary- after candidate declares themselves but before actual primaries. Chance to build public standing and build funding to boost chance during elections
• Front-loading- states bring forward their primaries to attempt to have an influence on the outcome
• Super Tuesday- a large number of states hold their primary on the same day. 1^st March 2016- 11 states, both Trump and Clinton won 7

• Pros:

o   Provide democratic choice

o   Show who’s popular where

o   Weed out weaker candidates

• Cons:

o   Go on for too long

o   Campaigning is costly

o   Divide party candidates against each other

• Conclusion of the nominating process, each party’s winning candidate is announced
• They have lost their formal function of deciding the party’s presidential candidate, although still have several informal functions:

o   Ratifies the party’s official nominee and gives an opportunity for the party to unite around the candidate

o   Only time the party meets nationally

o   The party platform is announced

o   The extensive media coverage can give a bounce in support

o   Used to be an opportunity to announce the Vice-President candidate. Hillary announced Kaine 23^rd July, Trump announced Pence 15^th July

o   Democrats 25^th-28^th July 2016, Republicans 18^th-21^st July 2016

• Starts officially on the first Monday in September
• Each candidate will have an array of specialist advisors whose job is to help them campaign and win over specific states/ independent voters
• Swing states- states that often change allegiance between elections and so candidates focus their campaigns on them to boost their support- Florida

• Personalise campaigns, focusing on the candidates image and appearance rather than policy positions
• 24/7 media coverage- electorate are kept up to date with everything candidate says/does, leaving no room for errors
• Increasing emphasis on photo-opportunities on prime-time TV. Often make appearances on channels such as Fox or CNN
• Buying tv Ads is expensive, which is why candidates need to raise a lot of finance
• The media rarely causes people to switch their vote, but it does tend to reinforce the views voters already have
• Increasing use of negative campaigning- attacking the opponent and making the look bad. Priorities USA used $96 million to undermine Trumps image with negative campaigns

• Typically 3 presidential and 1 vice-presidential televised debate lasting around 1 ½ hours- generally only republican and Democrat candidate
• Town-hall style- informal style with questions put forward by an invited audience
• Round table style- discussion in which candidates talk with each other instead of at each other or an audience
• 2016- Clinton believed to have won the first debate with around 60% support from the 84 million viewers, second debate with around 50% support from the 66 million viewers, and third debate with around 40% over 72 million viewers. Pence deemed winner of VP debate with 48% over 36 million viewers.
• Critical to avoid making any gaffes or mistakes- 2000 Gore made factual errors, 2016 Trump slammed for cruel comments made against women and Mexicans

• Important:

o   Help turn passive voters into active voters

o   Can give candidates a boost

o   Show whether candidates are able to handle pressure

• Not important:

o   More likely to confirm voters decisions than change them

o   Only 4/7 elections has the candidate who won the debates won overall

o   Emphasis on style and image rather than policy

o   Can disadvantage incumbents who will have a record to defend

• Campaigns are becoming increasingly expensive- 2016 over $2 billion
• finance is important because:

o   the high cost of television advertising to reach voters

o   the size of the country and consequently the high costs of travel and accommodation across the 50 states

• finance primarily comes from:

o   their own pockets- the wealthier they are the better their chances

o   political action committees (PACS), 527 groups and Super PACs

o   national and congressional party committees

o   fund-raising

o   federal funding if they agree to limit their spending

• two main legislative attempts to limit the costs of political campaigning:

o   the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) 1971- introduced federal funding for presidential elections with matching funds provided for candidates who could raise lots of small contributions in at least 20 states. If the candidate chooses to accept the federal funds, they must agree to limit spending on their campaign. They can choose to reject the funding so that they can raise unlimited amounts of money. All contributions to candidates must be disclosed and supervised by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Hard money- regulated money, contributed directly to a candidates, subject to limits, intended to prevent the ‘buying’ of elections.

o   The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) 2002- banned all soft money- unregulated money, usually given to parties for ‘general political activities’. Now refers to money not subject to FECA restrictions or limits, usually given to groups for ‘issue advocacy’. BCRA increased the upper limit for hard money donations from individuals to $2,500 and $25,000 to a political party. Introduced the ‘stand by your ad’ clause, requiring all politicians to include an explicit statement to allow voters to know the source of the ad. Private bodies such as trade groups aren’t allowed to run ads within the 60 days before the election.

Attempts to limit spending haven’t been very successful- loopholes in both measures found and led to an increase in soft money and PACs after FECA, and the growth of 527 groups after the BCRA. 527 groups- organisations that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money for ‘general political activities’ although not in direct coordination with the party they support, as part of the US tax code which allows them to do so. E.g the Swift Boat Veterans

• FEC vs Citizens United- January 2010 the Supreme Court decided 5/4 to allow corporations, unions and individuals to make unlimited donations to partisan groups, known as super PACs, which then campaign for or against electoral candidates. This blew a huge hole in attempts to regulate campaign spending by law. Although Super PACs can receive and spend unlimited amounts of money, they cannot coordinate their spending with either parties or candidates, but can spend on behalf of them.
• Wealthy candidates do stand a better chance of winning and have an unfair advantage over poorer rivals- however not always the case. Clinton had managed to raise more money than Trump but still lost.
• Without a well-funded campaign, a candidate is at a significant disadvantage, especially if facing a well-funded incumbent.

• Constitutional mechanism designed to ‘filter the peoples will’ and elect the President indirectly.
• Candidates need to win the Electoral College Vote, and not necessarily the popular vote, in order to become the President.
• ECVs are allocated to states according to their congressional representation- the 2 senators and number of congressional districts within the state, which reflects the states populations. California has 55
• The number of ECVs per state is re-apportioned every 10 years following the census to reflect changes in population between states.
• The total number of ECVs is fixed at 538- candidates need 270 to win
• The last deadlock was in 1824, but in the event of one the house chooses the President, and the Senate the Vice-President
• The electoral college follows a winner-takes-all system, the candidate winning the popular vote in the state getting all the ECVs
• The system leads to campaigns focusing on the ‘swing states’, especially those with large ECVs.

• Candidates rarely campaign in every state, especially if they know they wont win or cant lose there, so large parts of the country do tend to be ignored and this can lead to differences in turnout, as voters in these states may feel they lack incentive to vote.
• The winner may not have the popular vote- 2016 Clinton have over 200,000 more votes than Trump. This puts the President’s mandate and legitimacy in question, as it can be seen as denying the peoples will.
• The winner-takes-all system means that the winners margin of victory is distorted
• Small states are considered over-represented
• Third-party candidates can only win ECVs with a concentrated vote in a state- Ross Perot 1992 won 19% of the overall vote yet received no ECVs as this support was widespread.
• There is a possibility for ‘rogue electors’- don’t vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state, often to make a political statement. Since the creation of the electoral college, there have been 157 rogue electors, the most recent in 2004.
• The system has provided political stability in that its elected a president every election but 3 since the 18^th Century
• There is little public pressure for reform, and no consensus on an acceptable alternative