| A | B |
|---|
| Democratic Electoral Systems | Allow opposing forces to compete against and even replace current officeholder (like in US and Europe)= Also serve as institutions of legitimation and as safety valves for social discontent= Other than that, democratic elections facilitate popular influence, promote leadership accountability, and offer groups in society a measure of protection from the abuse of governmental power |
| How do citizens exercise influence? | Through elections by determining who should control the government |
| The chance to decide who governs is... | An indirect opportunity for ordinary citizens to make choices about the policies, programs, and directions of governmental action |
| Democratic Election | The collective selection of leaders and representatives= Elections are occasions where multiple principals (the citizens) choose political agents to act on their behalf= Allow people to participate in political life on a routine and peaceful basis= Are not spontaneous affairs (but are formal governmental institutions) |
| What are the 2 problems that face all citizen principals in elections? | (Electoral rules and arrangements may be characterized and ultimately assessed as mechanisms for coming to grips with these) Adverse selection problem and moral hazard |
| Adverse Selection Problem | Is a consequence of hidden information= When selecting 1 alternative over another, we are often incompletely informed about just what we are choosing (aspects of our choices only become visible after decision is made)= Candidates themselves in large measure affect what we know about them and is in their interest to hide or shroud in ambiguity items about themselves that might harm their electoral prospects |
| What is the solution for the Adverse Selection Problem? | Openness and transparency= A wide open and freewheeling electoral process, a competitive political opposition, and an activist press= During course of campaigns, information comes to light (from investigative reporting, opposition research, or even leaks) that damages a candidate's competitive position |
| Moral Hazard Problem | Is produced by hidden action (meaning that it is the problem of agents who, once selected, cannot easily be monitored)= Political leaders do many public things (e.g. speeches, etc.) but secretly meet and have hidden interests)= Secret meetings used to occur in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms of Washington but now take place in the private dining rooms of Capitol Hill (where deals are made between legislators and special interests) or in the wink-and-nod conversations between presidents and large donors [who may get to spend the night in the Lincoln Bedroom of the White House or hitch a ride on Air Force One])= Political agents can use their political power/bully pulpits that public office provides to advance special interests without a more general public awareness= Moral hazards make the public vulnerable to abuses of the power delegated to elected agents |
| What is the solution for the Moral Hazard Problem? | Solution is found in the way elections are conducted= If agents have strong incentives to renew their contracts (to be reelected/advance to higher office) they will try not to abuse their delegate power (or at least not take risks that could damage their political reputation if discovered)= Giving incumbents incentive of possible reelection (indeed tolerating small advantages that incumbency gives in electoral contests) will encourage them to moderate the inclination to strike private deals= Incentive that elections provide for agents are enhanced by factors mitigating moral hazard (especially transparency and publicity) |
| What are some possible solutions for the Moral Hazard Problem? Result? | Moving places where decisions are made to more visible venues, opening venues to public scrutiny, empowering publicizers (press, political opposition)= Would dampen the motive and dimish the opportunities for hidden actions that are contrary to more public purposes |
| Earmarking | (Is a contemporary example of hidden action) An activity taken by legislators on behalf of special interests= A legislator engages in earmarking by burying in a complex several-hundred-page appropriations bill an item giving a monetary benefit to a special interest (who, in turn, may have contributed generously to the legislator's campaign) |
| Elections promote what and why? | Political accountability because the threat of defeat at the polls exerts pressure on those in power to conduct themselves in a responsible manner nd to take account of popular interests and wishes when they make their decisions |
| What are the 2 basic approaches to the principal-agent relationship? | The consent approach and the agency approach |
| Consent Approach | Emphasizes the historical reality that the right of the citizen to participate in his or her own governance (mainly through the act of voting or other forms of consent) arises from an existing governmental order aimed at making it easier for the governors to govern by legitimating their rule= By giving their consent, citizens provide this legitimation |
| Agency Approach | Treats the typical citizen as someone who would much rather devote scarce time and effort to his or her own private affairs than spend that time and effort on governance= As the rationality principle implies, he or she therefore chooses to delegate governance to agents (politicians) who are controlled through elections= In this approach, the control of agents is emphasized |
| American voters have the opportunity to do what? | To select and even depose some of their most important leaders= Americans therefore have a chance to intervene in and influence the government's programs and policies |
| Although elections allow citizens a chance to participate in politics, they also... | Allow the government a chance to exert a good deal of control over when, where, how, and which of its citizens will participate |
| Electoral Processes | Are governed by many rules and procedures that provide those in power with a significant opportunity to regulate the character and also the consequences of mass political participation |
| Elections provide governments with an opportunity to... | Regulate and control popular involvement |
| What are the 3 forms of regulation that have played especially important roles in the electoral history of the Western democracies? | Governments attempt to regulate the composition of the electorate to diminish the electoral weight of groups they deem undesirable= Governments seek to manipulate the translation of voters' choices into electoral outcomes= All governments try to insulate policy-making processes from electoral intervention through regulation of the relationship between electoral decisions and the composition/organization of the government |
| Manipulation of the electorate's compositon | is the oldest and most obvious device used to regulate voting and its consequences (EX: property qualifications for voting, no women voting, unequal electoral weights assigned to different classes of voters) |
| US Electoral Composition | Despite America's universal and equal suffrage in 20th century, composition of electorate still subject to manipulation= Some states manipulated the vote by the discriminatory use of poll taxes and literacy tests or by such practices as placing polls and scheduling voting hours such as to depress participation by one or another group= Today, many states disenfranchise felons and ex-felons (thus reducing participation of some groups in population)= Regulation of American electorate's composition is also done through our unique registration requirements |
| Turnout Rate | Ratio comparing the number of people who voted to some baseline population= Numerator of ratio is relatively uncontroversial (is the number of individuals who present themselves at a polling station or submit an absentee ballot |
| Fall-Off Rate | Ambiguity towards the numerator of the turnout rate because some people do not vote for every office on the ballot so the actual voting rate for president is higher than that for country record or town sheriff= Is a small ambiguity |
| Problem with Quantitative Presentations | Lies in defining the baseline population |
| Baseline Population | Denominator of the turnout ratio |
| What is the voting-age population used for? What is a problem with it? | Voting-age population is used as a baseline population= It is those 118 years or older living in the US (voting age was set by 26th amendment)= May be misleading because it incorrectly INCLUDES noncitizens and ineligible felons as well as eligible citizens who have failed to register= It also incorrectly EXCLUDES overseas eligible voters |
| What is the population of eligible voters used for? What is a problem with it? | Population of eligible voters used as a baseline population= Is the more relevant denominator of the turnout ratio= Problem is that cross-national comparisons may be misleading because eligibility requirements differ among countries= Comparisons may also be misleading because eligibility criteria within the same country change over time |
| What types of turnout rates are bad and why? Why are they bad? | Turnout rates that are reported as an average over many years (such as those calculated for a series of elections in a country) |
| Why are turnout rates that are reported as an average over many years bad? | These averages pool different kinds of elections (in US, such measures include elections during presidential years as well as those in off-years [just congressional elections])= Because off year turnout is low, this practice pulls down the US average compared with that of countries where only national elections are counted= Even with many corrections, the denominator of the turnout rate may still be "too large" for the US and thus make US look less participatory than other countries |
| What do most turnout rates (taken over many years) not sufficiently do? | Take into account the number of felons and ex-felons stricken from the voting rolls |
| When did voter turnout dramatically decline across US? Why? | Between 1890 and 1910= These years coincide with adoption of national laws requiring eligible citizens to appear personally at a registrar's office to register to vote some time before the actual date of an election |
| Personal Registration | Was one of many "Progressive" reforms of political practices initiated at beginning of 20th century= Purpose was to discourage fraud/corruption |
| What was "corruption" for many Progressive reformers? | Code word referring to the type of politics practiced in the large cities where political parties organized immigrant/ethnic populations= Reformers objected to this corruption (which was a facet of party politics) and opposed growing political power of urban populations and their leaders |
| What was the problem with Personal Registration? | (System adopted after 1890) Imposed new burden on potential voters and altered format of American elections= Became duty of individual voters to secure their own eligibility |
| Although inconvenience of registration varied from state to state, what were the universal problems? | To register, had to show proof of ID/residence/citizenship= Could only register during business hours on weekdays (and thus could not afford to miss work)= Voters required to register well before next election= Often, voters had to re-register to maintain their eligibility (in order to keep the periodic purge of election rolls up to date [which was mandated by the registration laws]) |
| Registration Laws: Pro and Con | Although helped diminish widespread electoral corruption that accompanied open voting process, also made it harder for citizens to participate in electoral process (rational citizens with busy lives might be expected to forgo political participation as complication/cost increases) |
| Who do registration requirements specifically harm? | Those with little education and low income because registration requires greater degree of political involvement and interest than does the act of voting itself= To vote, a person need only be concerned with particular election campaign at hand yet requiring individuals to register before a coming election forces them to make a decision to participate on the basis of an abstract interest in the electoral process rather than a simple concern with a specific campaign= Such an abstract interest in electoral politics is product of education |
| Those with little education may become interested in political events... | Once the stimuli of specific campaign become salient but by that time may be too late to register |
| Registration requirements and electorate | Decreases electorates size and creates electorate that, in the aggregate, is less representative of the voting-age population= Electorate is better educated, has higher income/social status, includes fewer African Americans and other minorities than the citizenry as a whole |
| How do you register in US? In Europe? | Casting a vote automatically registers voter for next election in US= In Europe, is typically no registration burden on individual voter (voter registration is handeld automatically by government [is why voter turnout rates in Europe are higher than those in US]) |
| What is another reason for low voter turnout rates? | Weakness of American party system |
| US Political Party System: Voter Turnout | Party machines declined in strength and now have disappeared (unlike past which resulted in high turnout rates)= Without party workers to encourage voters to go to polls and even take them there, many eligible voters will not participate |
| In the absence of strong parties... | Participation rates drop the most among poorer and less-educated citizens= Because of absence of strong political parties, American electorate is smaller and skewed more toward middle class than toward the population of all those potentially eligible to vote |
| Composition of the Electorate | With exception of America's personal registration requirements, contemporary governments do not try to limit composition= Instead, like to allow all to vote and then manipulate the outcome of election= Is possible because more than one way to decide relationship between individual votes and electoral outcome (many rules for determining way that individual votes will be translated and are highly consequential for the results) |
| 2 Types of Regulations in Translating Voters' Choices into Electoral Outcomes | Rules that set the criteria for victory and the rules that define electoral districts |
| Majority System | (Used in the primary elections of most southern states until recently) Requires a candidate to get a majority (50% plus 1) of all votes cast in the relevant distract to win a seat in the parliament or other representative body= Have a provision for a second/runoff contest between the 2 top candidates if the initial contest draws so many contestants that none get absolute majority vote |
| Plurality System | (Used in most general elections in US) Doesn't require a candidate get absolute majority of votes= Victory is awarded to candidate who gets greatest number of votes in a given election regardless of actual percentage of votes this represents= Thus a candidate who received 40% of the votes cast may win the contest so long as no rival receives more votes= Are many types of plurality systems |
| What type of plurality system does US use in congressional/presidential elections? | Characterized by single-member districts where each district elects a single representative and the candidate who gets the most votes wins (known as first-past-the-post system) |
| First Past The Post System | Where only the candidate who gets most votes is elected |
| Proportional Representation | (Is an electoral system) Where multiple representatives are selected from each district/region/etc. |
| Under proportional rules... | Competing political parties are awarded legislative seats roughly in proportion to the % of popular vote they receive |
| Proportional Representation in the US | Used by many states in presidential primary elections= In primaries, candidates for Democratic and Republican nominations are awarded convention delegates in rough proportion to the % of the popular vote that they received in the primary |
| Majority/Plurality System and Proportional Representation: Who do they help | Proportional representation work to the electoral advantage of smaller political parties while majority and plurality systems help larger and more powerful forces= Is because in legislative elections, proportional representation reduces whereas majority and plurality rules increase the number of votes that political parties must receive to win legislative seats |
| What are most electoral contests in US decided on? | (Despite occasional use of proportional representation and majority voting systems) Basis on plurality rules |
| Politicians manipulate electoral outcome by... | Manipulating organization of electoral districts (instead of manipulating voting criteria) |
| Congressional-District Boundaries | Redrawn by governors and state legislatures every 10 years after the decennial census determines the number of House seats to which each state is entitled |
| Gerrymandering | Manipulation of electoral districts to increase likelihood of one or another outcome |
| Principles of Gerrymandering | Different distributions of voters among districts produce different electoral outcomes= Those in position to control arrangements of districts are also in position to manipulate results |
| Cracking | (Opposite of Highway 85 strategy) Gerrymandering used to dilute the voting strength of racial minorities= Common strategy involved redrawing congressional boundary lines in way to divide/disperse black population that would otherwise have constituted a majority within original district |
| Benign Gerrymandering | Federal law that is meant to increase minority representation in Congress |
| Shaw vs. Reno | (Supreme Court Decision) Opened way for challenges by white voters to drawing of racially fair districts (5-4 majority)= Ruled taht if district boundaries were so "bizarre" as to be inexplicable on any grounds other than an effort to ensure the election of minority group members to office, white voters would have reason to assert that they had been victims of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering |
| Miller vs. Johnson | (Supreme Court Decision) Questioned entire concept of benign racial gerrymandering by saying that the use of race as a major factor in the drawing of district lines was unconstitutional= Still, court held open possibility that race could be one of the factors taken into account in legislative redistricting |
| Bush vs. Vera | (Supreme Court Decision) Ruled that 3 Texas congressional districts with black or Hispanic majorities were unconstitutional because state officials put too much emphasis on race in drawing boundaries= Said that voters are more than mere racial statistics |
| Shaw vs. Hunt | (Supreme Court Decision) Struck down North Carolina black-majority voting district for similar reasons as in "Bush vs. Vera"= |
| Abrams vs. Johnson | (Supreme Court Decision) Upheld new Georgia congressional district map that eliminated 2 of the state's 3 black majority districts |
| Georgia vs. Ashcroft | (Supreme Court Decision) Rejected Georgia state senate districting plane because it diluted minority votes making it harder for minorities to elect candidates they preferred |
| Redrawing District Boundaries | Traditionally redrawn only once a decade following national census= Recently, Republicans adopted aggressive plan (sometimes not waiting for new census) |
| What do almost all governments try to at least partially do? | Insulate decision making processes from electoral intervention |
| Ways of insulating decision making processes | Confinement of popular elections to only some governmental positions, various modes of indirect election, and lengthy tenure in office |
| Who did the framers of the Constitution intend to be subject to direct and indirect popular selection? | Direct popular selection only for House of Representatives= President and Senate were to be indirectly elected for rather long terms to allow them (as the Federalist Papers said) to avoid an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion, or to every transient impulse which the people may receive |
| Indirect Elections | Where voters chooses members of intermediate body (electoral college)= These members would in turn select public officials= Assumption underlying this process was that ordinary citizens were not qualified to choose their leaders and could not be trusted to do so directly |
| Electoral College | (Part of Indirect Election) Group of electors who formally select the president and vice president of the US |
| What are voters doing when they vote? | They are not voting directly for presidential candidates= Instead, voters within each state are choosing among states of electors who have been nominated by political parties some months earlier= The electors who are chosen in the presidential race are pledged to support their own party's presidential candidate= In each state (except Maine and Nebraska) the state that wins casts all the state's electoral votes for its party's candidate= Each state gets a # of electoral votes equal to the # of the state's senators and representatives combined for a total of 538 electoral votes for the 50 states and the District of Columbia |
| In each state, the electors whose state has won... | (Part of Indirect Election) Proceed to state's capital on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December and formally cast their ballots= Results sent to Washington and tallied by Congress in January |
| When no candidate gets a majority of all electoral votes... | The names of the top 3 candidates are to be submitted to the House where each state may case 1 vote= Whether a state's vote would be decided by a majority/plurality/other fraction of state's delegates would be determined under rules established by House |
| 12th Amendment | (1804) Provides for separate electoral college votes for president and vice president |
| Since 1824, the electoral vote... | has ratified the nationwide popular vote |
| Because electoral votes are won on a state by state basis, it is mathematically possible for... | A candidate who gets a nationwide popular plurality to fairl to carry states whose electoral votes who add up to a majority |
| What would campaigns be like without the electoral college? | Campaigns would focus on votes wherever they may be found= Resources (i.e. television ads, etc.) would be invested wherever the vote yielded was expected to be fruitful= Would be a wide-open national campaign with votes sought out everywhere |
| In a world with an electoral college, votes in a state matter... | Only if they can move that state into the candidate's column= A contest with an electoral college concentrates campaign activity in contestable states |
| In what way does the electoral arrangements insulate? | Permit the direct and even frequent popular election of public officials but tend to fragment the impact of elections on the government's composition |
| What was the point of the constitutional provision for staggered terms of service in the Senate? | Meant to diminish effect of shifts in electoral sentiment on the Senate as an institution= Because only 1/3 of its members are selected every 2 years, composition of the institution is partially protected from changes in electoral preferences= This arrangement prevents what the Federalist Papers called mutability in the public councils arising from a rapid succession of new members |
| Insulation of the House of Representatives | Done through the division of the nation into small geographically based constituencies for the purpose of selecting members of the House of Reps= Reps were to be chosen frequently= Although not prescribed by the Constitution, fact that each was to be selected by a discrete constituency was thought by James Madison to diminish government's vulnerability to mass popular movements |
| Why was the House of Representatives compartmentalized? | By dividing national electorate into small districts, importance of local issues would decrease= Salience of local issues would mean that representative's electoral fortunes would be more closely tied to factors peculiar to his/her own district than to national responses to issues= National groups would be somewhat fragmented while the formation of local forces that might/might not share common underlying attitudes would be encouraged |
| No matter how well represented individual constituencies might me.. | Influence of voters on national policy questions would be fragmented (Influence of fraction would thus become less likely to pervade the whole body than some particular portion of it) |
| Australian Ballot | (Example of an American electoral arrangement that tends to fragment the impact of mass elections on the government's composition)= Was prepared and administered by the state rather than the parties= Each ballot was identical and included the names of all candidates for office (this reform also increased secrecy of voting and reduced possibility of voter intimidation and bribery)= Because all ballots were identical in appearance, the voter could vote how he/she wanted to= Because all candidates for same office appeared on same ballot, voters were no longer forced to choose a straight party ticket= Gave rise to "Split-Ticket" Voting |
| How did people vote before the Australian Ballot? | Before it was instituted in 1890s, voters cast ballots according to political parties= Each party printed its own ballots, listed its own candidates for each office, and employed party workers to distribute its ballots at the polls |
| What were the results of the Australian Ballot? | Party ballot precluded secrecy in voting (because each party's ballot was distinctive in size/color, it wasn't difficult for party workers to determine how individuals intended to vote= This facilitated intimidation and bribery of voters)= The format of the ballot prevented split-ticket voting (because only 1 party's candidates appeared on any ballot, it was difficult for a voter to cast anything other than a straight party vote) |
| Split Ticket Voting | (Created by Australian Ballot) Prevalent in states that use the "office-block" ballot format which does not group candidates b their partisan affiliations= Led to increasingly divided partisan control of government |
| Party Column Format | (Opposite of Split Ticket Format) Places all the candidates affiliated with a given party in the same row or column |
| What consequence of the Australian ballot reform fragments the impact of American elections on teh government's composition? | Ticket splitting voting (versus party column format) |
| Before the Australian ballot, it was not uncommon for.. | An entire incumbent administration to be swept from office and replaced by an entirely new set of officials |
| In the absence of a possibility of split ticket voting... | Any desire on the part of the electorate for change could be expressed only as a vote against all candidates of the party in power= Because of this, there always existed the possibility (particularly at state/local level) that an insurgent slate committed to policy change could be swept into party |
| What did the party ballot increase? | The potential effect of elections on the government's composition= Although this potential may not always have been realized, the party ballot at least increased the chance that electoral decisions could lead to policy changes |
| The Australian ballot lessened the likelihood of what and why? | Because it permitted choice on the basis of candidates' individual appeals, it decreased likelihood that the electorate would sweep an entirely new administration into power |
| Present day ballot system of US | Mix of forms= Choice of ballot format is a country decision and within any state various countries may use different formats (depending on local resources and preferences)= America's overall balloting process is awkward, confusing, open to errors and bias (in the case of close races), incapable of producing a result that will stand up to scrutiny= Results can take several days to process (and every recount produces different result)= Counting/Recounting process is direced by a state and country officials |
| Votomatic Punch Card Machine | (Used in Florida countries) Are unreliable but are popular with many country governments because they are inexpensive= Still, voters find it difficult to insert punch cards properly, frequently punch the wrong hole, or do not sufficiently punch out one or more CHADS to allow the punch cards to be read by the counting machine= Generally produce a higher rate of spoiled votes than other voting methods (punch-card voting machines has the highest incidence of spoiled ballots)= Most of the card readers are elderly volunteers and may not understand rules and thus cant help voters with questions |
| How do electoral officials feel about changing voting methods? Why? | Reluctant to change voting methods because changes can affect the outcome of the next election in ways that might counter the officials' preferences |
| Referendum Voting | (Is provided by 24 states in addition to voting for candidates) Allows citizens to vote directly on proposed laws or other governmental actions= Many have recently voted to limit tax rates, block state/local spending proposals, and prohibit social services for illegal immigrants= Although it involves voting, referendum is NOT an election= Referendum is an institution of direct democracy (allows voters to govern directly without intervention by government officials)= Allows people to affirm or reject a policy produced by legislative action |
| Validity of Referendum Results | Are subject to judicial action (can be overturned by a court) |
| Hot-Button Issues | Are the issues that emerge in referendum decisions= Referendum issues are often adversely selected |
| Initiative | (Is provided by 24 states) Provides citizens with a way forward in the face of legislative inaction= Is done by placing a policy proposal (legislation or a state constitutional amendment) on the ballot to be approved or disapproved by the electorate= Is vulnerable to adverse selection= May force action |
| How does a petition get onto the ballot? | Must have a minimum number of voters' signatures (a requirement that varies from state to state) that have been certified by the state's secretary of state |
| Ballot propositions involve policies... | That the state legislature cannot/does not want to resolve= Issues are highly emotional and thus not always well suited to resolution in the electoral arena |
| Recall | (Exists in 18 states) Is an electoral device that was introduced by Populists to allow voters to remove governors and other state officials from office before the expiration of their term= Federal officials (i.e. president and members of Congress) are not subject to recall= A recall effort begins with a petition campaign |
| The referendum, initiative, and recall all entail... | Shifts in agenda setting power= Referendum gives an impassioned electoral majority opportunity to reverse legislation that displeases them (thus affecting initial strategic calculations of institutional agenda setters [who want to get as much of what they want without its being reversed])= Initiative has smaller effect on institutional agenda setters but inclines them toward action rather than inaction |
| What factors influence voter's decisions at the polls? | Partisan Loyalty, Issues, Candidates' Characteristics |
| Partisan Loyalty | Most Americans identify with either the Democratic or Republican party= Sense of identification is handed down by parents to children and reinforced by social/cultural ties= Predisposes voters in favor of their party's candidates and against those of the opposing party= Partisanships asserts itself in the less-visible races (where issues/candidates are not very well known)= Once formed, partisan loyalties are resistant to change (but strong events/experiences may change them)= Is a psychological attachment and an informational shortcut |
| Voters tend to keep their party affiliations unless... | Some crisis causes them to reexamine the bases of their loyalties and conclude that they ahve not goven their support to the appropriate party |
| How is Partisan Loyalty an information shortcut? | Is a way for voters to economize on information collection and processing= May be enough to know candidates party label while extra information (issue positions or personal attributes) may not influence the voter's choice once the partisan contest has been taken on board |
| Partisan Loyalty in the 20th and 21st Century | In 20th century, party labels lost strength as being only piece of info important= Result is many people calling themselves independents= 21st century, parties became informational shortcuts again (more southerners becoming Republicans and moderates and liberals moving toward the Democrats) |
| Issues and Policy | (Factor influencing voter's choice) Voters may cast vote for person with similar economic position as their own= May vote for person with best foreign policy record= Issues vary in importance from election to election |
| If candidates actually "take issue" with one another... | (Meaning, if they articulate/publicize their positions) Voters are more likely to be able to identify and act on whatever policy preferences they may have= If they don't take a stance, ability of voters to make choices on basis of issue/policy preferences diminishes= Candidates often beat around the bush (talk about non offensive topics) |
| What positions do candidates often talk about? | Opposition to corruption, crime, inflation |
| Using discriminating information during campaign | Can induce wrong decision by knowledge-challenged voters |
| What do voters' choice of issues involve? | Mix of their judgments about the past behavior of competing parties and candidates and their hopes and fears about candidates' future behavior |
| Prospective Voting | Choices that focus on future behavior |
| Retrospective Voting | Choices that focus on past performance |
| Incumbents running during period of prosperity | Will seek to take credit for economy's good time and define the election as revolving around their record of success= This strategy encourages voters to make retrospective judgments |
| Insurgent running during period of economic uncertainty | Will tell voters it is time for change and ask them to make prospective judgments |
| Median-Voter Theorem | When voters engage in issue voting, competition between 2 candidates has effect of pushing candidates' issue positions toward middle of the distribution of voters' preferences= Says that the candidate whose policy position is closest to the ideal policy of the median voter will defeat the other candidate in a majority contets |
| Liberal | Those whose ideal policy lies between 0 and 25 |
| Conservative | Those whose ideal policy lies between 75 and 100 |
| Ideal Policy | Represents a voter and declines as policy moves away from this ideal (right/left) |
| Moderate | Those whose ideal policy lies between 25 and 75 |
| What does an issue voter care about? | Cares only about issue positions (not partisan loyalty or candidates' characteristics) and would vote for the candidate whose announced policy is closest to his/her own most preferred policy |
| Electorate of 125 voters evenly distributed among 5 groups | Middle group contains median of voter because half or more of this electorate has an ideal policy at or to the left of X3 (groups 1, 2, 3)= Half or more has an ideal policy at or to the right of X3 (groups 3, 4, 5)= Group 3 is in the driver's seat (for if candidate announces X3 as policy, he gets the whole cake) |
| If candidate chooses policy X3 and opponent chooses any point to right/left... | Then the median voter and all those with ideal policies to the left of the median voter's will support the first candidate= They constitute a majority (by definition of the median) so this candidate will win |
| What does issue voting encourage? | Candidate convergence (where both candidates move to take up the position of the median voter)= Even when voters are not exclusively issue voters, 2 candidate competition still encourages a tendency toward convergence |
