9.2: Why People Vote

9.2.1: Socioeconomic Factors

Learning Objective

Describe the relationship between socioeconomic status and voting behavior

Key Points

• Wealthier people are more likely to vote, as they generally possess the resources and time to be active in politics.
• Of all the socioeconomic factors impacting voter turnout, education has the greatest impact. The more educated a person is, the more likely they are to vote, as they have a better understanding of how the system works, how to influence the system, and why participation is important.
• A person is more or less likely to vote depending on their occupation. Managerial or professional workers are more likely to vote, and the unemployed are the least likely group to vote.

Key Terms

voter turnout

Voter turnout is the percentage of eligible voters who cast a ballot in an election. Exactly who is eligible varies by country, and should not be confused with the total adult population.

socioeconomic status

Socioeconomic status (SES) is a combined economic and sociological measurement of a person’s work experience and of an individual’s or family’s economic and social position in relation to others, based on income, education, and occupation.

vote

To cast a vote; to assert a formalised choice in an election.

Introduction

Socioeconomic status (SES) is determined by an individual’s level of education, income, and occupation. Socioeconomic factors significantly affect whether or not individuals develop the habit of voting. Voters and political activists generally are more educated and better off financially than the general population. Because of this, these people have the best chance of having their views represented in government. Meanwhile, those who rely the most on government programs and policies, such as recipients of public assistance, often have fewer opportunities to participate and are less engaged with the process of electing representatives.

Income and Voting

Independently, income has some effect on whether or not people vote. Wealthier people are more likely to vote, regardless of their educational background . Wealthier and better educated people tend to vote more often, participate more in political activities, and donate more money to causes than poorer or less educated people. They also have greater access to the resources that facilitate political activity, including contact with people in powerful positions.

Voter Turnout by Income (2008)

This is a figure illustrating the different rates of voting in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election by income. The higher income, the more likely a person is to vote.

Education and Voting

The most important socioeconomic factor affecting voter turnout is education . The more educated a person is, the more likely he or she is to vote. Studies show that this is true, even controlling for other factors that are closely associated with education level, such as income and class. Education has the strongest impact on participation, as it provides people with background knowledge as to how the political system works and how the action of voting is connected with the realities of their lives. Educated people develop the skills that allow them to follow and understand national and international events through the mass media. They are likely to form opinions about political issues and engage in discussions. The most popular political blogs, such as Daily Kos and Huffington Post, are produced and read by well-educated people. Education also prepares people to deal with the bureaucratic aspects of participation, such as registering to vote or organizing petition drives. Eighty-three percent of people with a graduate school education voted in the 2008 presidential election. In comparison, only 39% of those without a high school diploma voted that year. The 2010 midterm elections were decided primarily by people with at least some college experience. Less than 5% of voters had no high school education, 16% were high school graduates, 29% had some college education, and 50% were college graduates.

Voter Turnout by Educational Attainment –2008 Presidential Election

Educational attainment, an indicator of social class, can predict one’s level of political participation. Those with high educational attainment are more likely to vote in elections than those with little education.

Occupation and Voting

People’s occupations also are related to their participation and their likelihood to vote. People in managerial and professional positions are the most politically active, followed by craftspersons, service workers, and laborers. Many managers and professionals follow politics as part of their jobs. The unemployed are the least inclined to participate in politics through voting, however, because they may rely on governmental services to survive, they are frequently among those most immediately affected by the outcome of elections.

9.2.2: Additional Factors: Gender, Age, Religion, Race, and Ethnicity

Learning Objective

Describe the voting patterns of various demographic subsets of the American electorate

Key Points

• Traditionally people ages 30 to 65 are most likely to vote, but recently young people have been coming out to the polls more frequently, in part due to mobilization via social media.
• Since the 1980s, women have voted as much or more than men, removing the idea that there is a gender gap in certain types of political participation like voting.
• Different ethnic groups also have unique voting trends. African-American voters vote as much as other voters of the same socioeconomic status, and Asian voters have lower voter turnout rates. Latinos tend to vote less than other groups, but their vote has been rising in importance.
• People may vote due to religious convictions or socially conservative viewpoints, such as those voters who identify with the Christian right. Voters identifying with the Christian right have high turnout rates and vote frequently.

Key Terms

Youth vote

The youth vote is a political term used primarily in the United States to describe 18 to 29-year-olds and their voting habits.

Christian right

Christian right is a term used in the United States to describe right-wing Christian political groups that are characterized by their strong support of socially conservative policies.

gender gap

A measurable difference between the behaviors of men and women.

Age and Political Participation

Political participation differs notably by age . People between the ages of 35 and 65 are the most politically active. At this stage in life, people are more likely than younger people to have established homes, hold steady jobs, and be settled into communities. Those with stable community roots often have strong incentives and greater resources for becoming involved in politics. Senior citizens, people age 65 and older, also have high turnout rates of around 70 percent.

Historically, young people have been less likely to vote as they often lack the money and time to participate. However, the youth vote has been on the rise: turnout among 18 to 24-year-olds was at 36 percent in 2000, but this rose to 47 percent in 2004 and 51 percent in 2008. This rise in youth vote is partly a result of voter registration and mobilization efforts by groups like Rock the Vote. An important factor in the increase of younger voters in 2008 was the greater appeal of a younger, non-white candidate in Barack Obama. According to the Pew Research Center, 66% of voters under 30 chose Obama in 2008. New technology, especially the internet, is also making it easier for candidates to reach the youth. Websites such as Facebook and YouTube not only allow students acquire information about the polls, but also allow them to share their excitement over the polls and candidates.

Gender and Political Participation

Political scientists and journalists often talk about the gender gap in participation, which assumes women lag behind men in their rates of political engagement . However, the gender gap is closing for some forms of participation, such as voting. Since 1986, women have exceeded the turnout rate for men in presidential elections; 66 percent of women cast a ballot in 2008 compared with 62 percent of men. This may be due to the political prominence of issues of importance to women, such as abortion, education, and child welfare.

Race, Ethnicity, and Voting: African Americans

Participation and voting differs among members of racial and ethnic groups . Discriminatory practices kept the turnout rate of African-Americans low until after the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Poll taxes, literacy tests, and intimidation kept black voters from the polls. Eventually, civil rights protests and litigation eliminated many barriers to voting. Today, black citizens vote at least as often as white citizens who share the same socioeconomic status. Collectively, African Americans are more involved in the American political process than other minority groups in the United States, indicated by the highest level of voter registration and participation in elections among these groups in 2004. Sixty-five percent of black voters turned out in the 2008 presidential election compared with 66 percent of white voters.

Race, Ethnicity and Voting: Latinos

The Latino population in the United States has grown to over 47 million people from diverse countries of origin. Although this group forms a substantial political bloc, only 49 percent of eligible Latino voters voted in the 2008 presidential election. Language is one barrier to Latino participation. Candidates recognize that Latinos constitute a large and growing voting bloc and have begun campaigning in Spanish. During the 2000 presidential election campaign, candidate George W. Bush ran nearly as many ads in Spanish as in English. The 2008 presidential candidates’ websites, as well as the 2010 congressional candidates, featured extensive Spanish-language content .

Reaching the Latino Vote

Candidates routinely aim campaign ads at the fast-growing Latino and Asian American populations.

Race, Ethnicity, and Voting: Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders

According to the U.S. Census, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders are the fastest growing and most diverse ethnic group, yet their rates of participation are lower than other groups. In 2008, 48 percent of Asian Americans turned out to vote. Some argue that cultural factors, such as a strong tie to their ethnic culture, contribute to the lower levels of Asian American and Pacific Islander voting. However, Asian Americans who have been victims of hate crimes or consider themselves to be part of a deprived group find their way to the polls in greater numbers.

Religious Convictions and Voting

Oftentimes, religious convictions motivate voters. The most prominent example of this in American politics is the Christian right, which consists of right-wing Christian political groups that are characterized by their strong support of socially conservative policies. In the U.S., the Christian right is an informal coalition formed around a core of white evangelical Protestants that draws support from other groups who share their goals. Voters who are part of the Christian right hold socially conservative positions on issues including school prayer, stem cell research, homosexuality, contraception, abortion, and pornography. About 15% of the electorate in the United States supports the Christian right. Much of the Christian right’s power within the American political system is attributed to their extraordinary turnout rate at the polls. The voters that identify with the Christian right are highly motivated and driven to deliver a viewpoint on issues they care about.

9.2.3: Party Identification

Learning Objective

Differentiate between two ways of understanding the stability of party identification

Key Points

• Since the 1960s, more people have chosen to be independents rather than identify with either Republicans or Democrats, which means that less and less people vote based on their identification with a specific party.
• Some argue that a person’s party identity is a relatively fixed social identity, formed by personal experiences, family beliefs, or social environment. Others claim that party identity is flexible, and that people change their party identity according to their experiences and rational choice.
• Party identification is not just an individual identity; it can also be important for groups. Social, economic, racial, and other similar groups can become aligned to certain parties, and then vote according to that party identification.
• When people identify very strongly with one party, they tend to vote for that party consistently. This can lead to straight-ticket voting.

Key Terms

independent

A candidate or voter not affiliated with any political party, a free thinker, free of a party platform.

straight-ticket voting

The practice of voting for candidates of the same party for multiple positions. The finished voting ballot would consist of all Democrats or all Republicans, for example.

party identification

Party identification refers to the political party with which an individual identifies. Party identification is typically determined by the political party that an individual most commonly supports (by voting or other means).

Party Self-Identification

Oftentimes, people vote according to what party they identify with. A person’s partisan identification is defined as a long-term attachment to a particular party. Americans are not required to formally join party organizations as is the case with other democracies. Instead, people self-identify as Republicans, Democrats, or members of minor parties. They also can declare themselves independent and not aligned with any political party. People who identify with a political party either declare their allegiance by joining the party or show their support through regular party-line voting at the polls.

Party Identity: A Fixed Social Identity?

Some researchers view party identification as “a form of social identity,” in the same way that a person identifies with a religious or ethnic group. In this view, party identification develops as a consequence of personal, family, social, and environmental factors. Childhood influence is one of main driving factors behind formation of party identification. During childhood, the main political influence comes from parents, other close family members, and close surroundings such as the immediate community. Children remember events that happened during their childhood and associate them with the political party, whether or not they were connected with those events. For example, a child growing up in the 1970s would associate the Republican party with the Watergate scandal of the Nixon administration or a child growing up in the 1990s would associate the Democratic party with the sex scandal of the Clinton administration. Although these parties might or might not embrace the issues that happened during that administration, a child could forever associate the party with those memorable events.

During adulthood, people can begin to adjust their party loyalties according to their personal experiences. The longer an individual holds a party identification, the stronger that attachment to the party becomes. Because of this pattern, older adults are more likely to hold strong party attachments, and less likely to change them than young adults.

Party Identity: A Changing Choice?

Other researchers consider party identification to be more flexible and more of a conscious choice. They see it as a position and a choice based on the continued assessment of the political, economic, and social environment. People can easily switch their party affiliation or distance themselves from parties entirely.

Increase in Independents

Since the 1960s, there has been a gradual decline in identification with political parties and a rise in the number of independents, which means less and less people are motivated to vote along party lines alone. In 2000, more people identified as independents (40 percent of the voting population) than affiliated with either the Democratic (34 percent) or Republican (24 percent) parties for the first time in history. The proportion of people registering as independents increased 57 percent between 1990 and 1998, while those registering as Democrats declined by 14 percent and as Republicans by 5 percent. In 2011, 31 percent of the population identified as Democrats, 29 percent as Republican, and 38 percent as independents .

Party Identification, 2004

This chart indicates the number of citizens registered as Republicans, Democrats, or Independents. The number of people identifying as independents is rising, indicating that less people are voting solely along traditional party lines.

As voter identification with political parties has declined, so has dedication to the two-party system. According to a national survey, citizens have more trust in product brands, such as Nike, Levis, Honda, and Clorox, than in the Democrats and Republicans. Since the 1980s, Americans have become skeptical about the two major parties’ ability to represent the public interest and to handle major issues facing the country, such as crime, the environment, and saving Social Security. At the same time, support for third parties, like Libertarians, has increased over the last decade. A social movement grouped under the umbrella of the “Tea Party” emerged in 2010 but its adherents never created an officially recognized political party. Still, the two-party system continues to dominate the political process as a viable multiparty alternative has not emerged .

Voting Along Party Lines

This chart indicates the results of the 2008 presidential election. Dark red districts supported Republican for President and Congress; red districts supported a Republican for President, and Democrat for Congress. Dark blue indicates districts that supported Democrat for President and Congress; blue indicates districts that supported Democrat for President and a Republican for Congress.

Groups and Party Identification

Party coalitions consist of groups that have long-term allegiances to a particular political party. Regions of the country establish loyalties to a specific party as a result of the party’s handling of a war, a major social problem, or an economic crisis. Social, economic, ethnic, and racial groups also become aligned with particular parties, and then vote according to that party identification. For example, Catholics and labor union members in the Northeast form a part of the Democratic coalition. White fundamentalist Protestants are a component of the Republican coalition. Parties count on coalition members to vote for them consistently in elections.

Strong Party Identification and Voting Patterns

Those people who identify with a party tend to vote for their party’s candidate for various offices in high percentages. Those who consider themselves to be strong partisans, strong Democrats and strong Republicans respectively, tend to be the most faithful in voting for their party’s nominee for office, and are typically the voters who practice straight-ticket voting.

9.2.4: Political Ideology

Learning Objective

Describe the ideological spectrum of the American electorate

Key Points

• Voters typically agree with one of the main political ideologies (liberalism, conservatism or moderates) and they vote according to the beliefs of that particular ideology.
• Libertarians are less organized and well-known than conservatives, liberals or moderates, but are a significant minority ideology. They believe in social liberties, but conservative economic policies.
• Moderates fall somewhere in between liberalism and conservatism on the spectrum of political ideologies. Approximately 35% of Americans identified as moderates in 2010, and these voters tend to vote either Republican, Democrat, or neither.
• Liberals believe in progressive social policies and more government provision of positive rights, such as healthcare or education. Liberals tend to vote Democrat, and in 2010, roughly 25% of Americans identified as liberals.
• Conservatives prefer to maintain the status quo and believe in socially conservative policies, as well as limited government intervention in the economy. This is a prominent ideology in US politics, as roughly 40% of Americans self-identify as conservatives.

Key Terms

conservative

A political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions; often exemplified by the Republican Party in US politics.

liberal

One with liberal views, supporting individual liberty (see Wikipedia on Liberalism for a description of the various and diverging trends of liberalism).

political ideology

A political ideology is a certain ethical set of ideals that explains how society should work, and offers some political and cultural blueprint for a certain social order. It focuses on type of government and economy.

Voting Based on Ideology

Sometimes, people vote based on their political ideology. The ideological position a person or party takes may be described in terms of what kinds of social and economic policies they would like to see implemented. Political ideologies in the United States vary considerably. Persons in the U.S. generally classify themselves either as adhering to positions along the political spectrum as liberal-progressive, moderate, or conservative, but there are several subgroups of all of these three. Among those who do identify as either liberal or conservative, few identify as “far left” or “far right. ” Most Americans either identify as “moderate” or as “somewhat” liberal or conservative.

Conservatives and Liberals

Modern American liberalism aims at the preservation and extension of human, social and civil rights as well as the government guaranteed provision of positive rights. American conservatism commonly refers to a combination of economic liberalism and social conservatism and to an extent, libertarianism. It aims at protecting traditional values (especially on social issues) while promoting the concept of small government.

In the U.S., the Democratic Party generally represents liberal ideals, while the Republican Party commonly represents conservative ideals. The size of ideological groups varies slightly depending on the poll. Gallup/USA Today polling in June 2010 revealed that 42% of those surveyed identify as conservative, 35% as moderate, while 20% identify as liberal . In another polling in June 2010, 40% of American voters identify themselves as conservatives, 36% as moderates and 22% as liberals, with a strong majority of both liberals and conservatives describing themselves as closer to the center than to the extremes .

Percentage of LIberals in the US

Percent of self-identified liberals in the United States, broken down by state, according to Gallup, August 2010. The darkest colors to lightest colors, respectively, indicate the greatest percentages of people identifying as liberals. (The darkest color represents 28% and above, while the lightest color is under 14%).

Political Ideology Trends

This chart, using Gallup Poll data, depicts trends in US political ideologies from 1992-2012.

Liberalism and conservatism are the most common ideologies in the U.S., apart from those who identify as moderate. Individuals embrace each ideology to widely varying extents. Liberals and progressives commonly advocate strong civil liberties, social progressivism, cultural pluralism, government ensuring of positive rights (education, health care, etc.) and a mixed economy. Conservatives commonly defend the notional status quo of some point in the past, believing that the US has deviated significantly from it, and advocate more traditional stands on social issues, protection of gun rights and much less government intervention.

Moderates

Moderates, who may be left or right leaning, incorporate different aspects from liberalism and conservatism into their personal perspective. According to recent polls, moderates are commonly identified as the second largest group, closely trailing conservatives, constituting between 36% and 39% of the population. Moderates are commonly defined through limiting the extent to which they adopt liberal and conservative ideas. CNN exit polls have found moderates to be rather evenly divided between the country’s two main parties. Even though liberals as a whole tend to be the most educated ideological demographic (as indicated by Pew research), moderates tend to become increasingly conservative with increased economic prosperity, causing the professional class to be split between Republicans and Democrats.

Libertarians

While often not mentioned in major polls and less organized than liberal or conservatives, libertarians are a significant minority, constituting roughly 13% of the electorate. Libertarians commonly hold liberal views on social issues but conservative views on economic issues. Since the 1980s, a majority of libertarians have favored the Republican Party, although in recent years, the margin favoring the Republicans has begun to shrink because of the libertarians’ opposition to many recent Republican supported social issues.

Typological Groups

In a 2005 study, the Pew Research Center identified nine typological groups. Three groups were identified as part of “the left,” “the middle,” and “the right. ” In this categorization system, “the right” roughly represents the Republican base, those on “the left” the Democratic base and those in “the middle” independents. Within the left are the largely secular and anti-war “Liberals”, the socially conservative but economically left “Conservative Democrats”, and the economically “Disadvantaged Democrats” who favor extended government assistance to the needy. In “the middle” are the optimistic and upwardly mobile “Upbeats”, the discouraged and mistrusting “Disaffecteds,” and the disenfranchised “Bystanders. ” The right compromises the highly pro-business “Enterprisers,” the highly religious “Social Conservatives” (also known as the Christian right), and the “Pro-Government Conservatives” who are largely conservative on social issues but support government intervention to better their economic disposition.

9.2.5: The Candidates

Learning Objective

Discuss partisan dealignment and the factors that make it more prevalent

Key Points

• While party loyalty, political ideologies, and specific policy issues are important to voters, candidates’ personal popularity may also be a crucial factor for voters.
• In recent years, more and more voters are identifying as independents. This partisan dealignment means that more and more people do not base their votes on party identification, and may be more likely to vote based on short-term criteria like the likeability of a specific candidate.
• Campaigns attempt to create an image for their candidate. By presenting a candidate in the right way, campaigns hope to make their candidate look like a more attractive and desirable choice than the opponent.

Key Terms

partisan dealignment

Dealignment, in political science, is a trend or process whereby a large portion of the electorate abandons its previous partisan affiliation, without developing a new one to replace it.

mass media

The mass media are all those media technologies that are intended to reach a large audience by mass communication, which includes broadcast media and print media.

candidate

A person who is running in an election or who is applying to a position for a job.

While identifying with and believing strongly in a particular party or political ideology can be important in explaining why and how people vote, these factors seldom decide elections alone. A candidate’s image and her position on issues are also very important, particularly when independents and undecided voters hold the balance.

Partisan Dealignment

Party identities become less important when voters base their decisions on short-term, election-specific factors, such as the leadership qualities of a candidate. This is often called a partisan dealignment. A partisan dealignment may be occurring today, as more people are identifying as independents and more voters choose based on personal traits of candidates, such as honesty. Mass media can contribute to partisan dealignment by focusing attention on candidates’ personalities and scandals, which are short-term factors that can influence vote choice.

Candidates’ Images and Voting

Voters often vote based on candidates’ images or likeability . Candidate images consists of the background, experiences, and personal qualities of people running for elected office. Campaigns strive to present an image of their candidate that fits the public’s expectations of the office sought, especially in comparison with the opponent, who is often portrayed as less qualified. Voters expect the president to have leadership skills and to be principled, decisive, and honest. Other qualities, such as military service and compassion, may be deemed by the public and the media to be important as well. Candidate images are not entirely malleable. Age, gender, race, and military service cannot be changed easily, but they can be manipulated by selective accounting and shrewd presentation of the facts. Images are easiest to create early in a campaign when many people may not know much about a candidate. The public acceptance of a candidate’s possible images tends to depend on the media’s depictions. Oftentimes, voters will make decisions about who to vote for based on their perception of a specific candidate’s personality, leadership traits, or family values.

Candidate Image

The media’s depictions of presidential candidates Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore during the 2000 presidential election influenced public perceptions. Bush was depicted as being unintelligent by news organizations that compiled lists of his gaffes and malapropisms. Gore was construed as being dishonest for allegedly claiming that he invented the Internet. When people decide to vote based on candidates rather than party identification or political ideology, candidate image can be very important.

9.2.6: Policy Preferences

Learning Objective

Differentiate between issue voting and party voting and the reason(s) a voter would opt for one or the other

Key Points

• Issue voting can be complex for voters because candidate’s views may not match their own, or voters may have multiple issues or policies that concern them equally.
• Issue based voting is often contrasted with voting based solely on party identification. Low-information elections often have more votes cast simply along party lines, while votes in higher-information elections (like presidential elections) may be based more in specific policy preferences.
• Voters who vote based on policy preferences must be able to identify different opinions on a particular issue, form their own opinion, and then be able to identify which party or candidate best matches their opinion.

Key Terms

party voting

The type of voting that describes when voters cast their vote based on their self-identification with a particular political party.

issue voting

The type of voting that occurs when voters cast their vote based on political issues.

candidate

A person who is running in an election or who is applying to a position for a job.

Issue Voting

Rather than voting based on political ideologies, political parties, or candidates, sometimes voters cast votes based on specific policy preferences. In “issue voting,” voters cast their vote based primarily on specific political issues . In the context of an election, issues include “any questions of public policy which have been or are a matter of controversy and are sources of disagreement between political parties.” According to the theory of issue voting, voters vote based on policy preferences; they compare the candidates’ respective principles against their own in order to decide who to vote for.

Issue Voting: Education

Some voters cast their ballots according to specific policy issues, for example, education reform.

A voter does not need to have an in-depth understanding of every issue or know how a candidate stands on every issue, rather a voter should have a sense of which candidate he or she agrees with the most. Voters use many different tactics to rationalize their view on a particular issue. Some people look at what has happened in the past and predict how they think a particular issue will affect them in the future.

Issue voting is often contrasted with party voting. A 2010 University of California, Davis study found that voters switch between issue voting and party voting depending on how much information is available to them about a given candidate. Low-information elections, such as those for congressional candidates, would thus be determined by party voting, whereas presidential elections, which tend to give voters much more information about each candidate, have the potential to be issue-driven.

A voter’s understanding of parties’ principles is strengthened and developed over time as a person gains experience with more political events. In order for an issue to create the foundation for party choice, a voter must first be concerned about a particular issue and have some knowledge about that issue.

In order for a person to be an issue voter, they must be able to recognize that there is more than one opinion about a particular issue, have formed a solid opinion about it, and be able to connect their opinion to a specific political party. According to some studies, only 40 to 60 percent of the informed population even perceives party differences, and can thus partake in party voting. This would suggest that it is quite common for individuals to develop opinions of issues without the aid of a political party.

Complications with Issue Voting

Many factors can complicate issue voting. Firstly, issues are not always dichotomous; there are often many stances one could take. Voters must often settle for the candidate whose stances are closest to their own. This can prove difficult when two or more candidates have similar opinions, or when candidates have positions that are equally far from a voter’s beliefs. For example, education spending is a topic that is difficult to issue vote on. A voter may have a drastically different opinion from the available candidates on how much money should be spent on schools. This differing of opinion could lead the individual to vote based on party affiliation instead. More importantly, the nation does not have to have a high level of consensus for some campaign issues to be more salient than others.

A second complexity is that, oftentimes, problems do not line up on linear bases. That is, some issues may make it hard to even determine the candidate with the closest position. For example, in the 1980 United States presidential election, the growing threat of Communism in the Eastern Hemisphere was a salient issue for voters. There were many proposed solutions to this problem. For instance, Ronald Reagan endorsed military intimidation through increased spending and innovation (the Reagan doctrine), Jimmy Carter proposed diplomatic efforts to keep peace, and the independent John Anderson advocated a return to the containment strategy. None of these answers are mutually-exclusive, and they cannot be linearly plotted. The voter instead had to choose the candidate whose opinion represented the closest mix of possible solutions to his or her own.

A third problem complication of issue voting is if there are multiple issues that are equally salient to the voter. A candidate may have a similar position to a given voter on one issue, but may take a considerably different stance on another. During 2008 United States presidential election, the two issues the dominated attention were the economy and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq . Many viewed these issues as equally salient, and had a hard time picking one issue to vote on.

Issue Voting: War in Afghanistan

Some voters vote for a candidate based on that candidate’s stance on a particular issue, such as the war in Afghanistan or healthcare.

9.3: Voter Turnout

9.3.1: Voter Turnout

The significance of voter turnout, the percentage of eligible voters who cast a ballot in an election, has been debated by scholars.

Learning Objective

Describe competing understandings of voter-turnout measurements

Key Points

• After increasing for many decades, there has been a trend of decreasing voter turnout in most established democracies since the 1960s.
• In any large election, the chance of any one vote determining the outcome is low, especially some say, in the United States’ Electoral College.
• The Electoral College is an example of an indirect election, consisting of 538 electors who officially elect the President and Vice President of the United States.
• High voter turnout is often considered to be desirable, though among political scientists and economists specializing in public choice, the issue is still debated.
• Assuming that low turnout is a reflection of disenchantment, a poll with very low turnout may not be an accurate reflection of the will of the people. Conversely, if low turnout is a reflection of contentment of voters about likely winners, then low turnout is as legitimate as high turnout.

Key Terms

electoral college

A body of electors empowered to elect someone to a particular office

voter turnout

Voter turnout is the percentage of eligible voters who cast a ballot in an election. Exactly who is eligible varies by country, and should not be confused with the total adult population.

Example

• A high turnout is generally seen as evidence of the legitimacy of the current system. Dictators have often fabricated high turnouts in showcase elections for this purpose. For instance, Saddam Hussein’s 2002 referendum was claimed to have had 100% participation.

Voter Turnout

Voter turnout is the percentage of eligible voters who cast a ballot in an election. After increasing for many decades, there has been a trend of decreasing voter turnout in most established democracies since the 1960s. Certain factors are leading to the decrease in the number of voters such as disenchantment, indifference, or contentment. Another contributor to lower overall turnout, is the larger percentage of the population who are simply not eligible to vote; non-citizens, incarcerated and non-self-registered individuals. Despite significant study of the issue, scholars are divided on reasons for the decline. Its cause has been attributed to a wide array of economic, demographic, cultural, technological, and institutional factors. There have been many efforts to increase turnout and encourage voting.

Reasons for Voting

In any large election the chance of any one vote determining the outcome is low. Some studies show that a single vote in a voting scheme such as the Electoral College in the United States has an even lower chance of determining the outcome. The Electoral College is an example of an indirect election, consisting of 538 electors who officially elect the President and Vice President of the United States. The number of electors is equal to the total voting membership of the United States Congress, 435 Representatives and 100 Senators, plus three electors from the District of Columbia. Other studies claim that the Electoral College actually increases voting power. 

Electoral College

The Electoral College map shows the results of the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) won the popular vote in 28 states and the District of Columbia (denoted in blue) to capture 365 electoral votes. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) won the popular vote in 22 states (denoted in red) to capture 173 electoral votes. Nebraska split its electoral vote when Senator Obama won the electoral vote from Nebraska’s 2nd congressional district; the state’s other four electoral votes went to Senator McCain.

Voter Turnout in the United States

Graph of Voter turnout in the United States presidential elections from 1824 to 2008.

The Significance of Voter Turnout

High voter turnout is desirable, though the issue is still debated among political scientists and economists specializing in public choice. A high turnout is generally seen as evidence of the legitimacy of the current system. Dictators have often fabricated high turnouts in showcase elections for this purpose. For instance, Saddam Hussein’s 2002 referendum was claimed to have had 100% participation. Opposition parties sometimes boycott votes they feel are unfair or illegitimate, or if the election is for a government that is considered illegitimate. For example, the Holy See instructed Italian Catholics to boycott national elections for several decades after the creation of the State of Italy. In some countries, there are threats of violence against those who vote, such as during the 2005 Iraq elections. However, some political scientists question the view that high turnout is an implicit endorsement of the system. Mark N. Franklin contends that in European Union elections opponents of the federation, and of its legitimacy, are just as likely to vote as proponents.

Assuming that low turnout is a reflection of disenchantment or indifference, a poll with very low turnout may not be an accurate reflection of the will of the people. On the other hand, if low turnout is a reflection of contentment of voters about likely winners or parties, then low turnout is as legitimate as high turnout, as long as the right to vote exists. Still, low turnouts can lead to unequal representation among various parts of the population.

The decline in voting has also accompanied a general decline in civic participation, such as church attendance, membership in professional, fraternal, and student societies, youth groups, and parent-teacher associations. At the same time, some forms of participation have increased. People have become far more likely to participate in boycotts, demonstrations, and to donate to political campaigns.

Federal law restricts how much individuals and organizations may contribute to political campaigns, political parties, and other FEC-regulated organizations. Corporations and unions are barred from donating money directly to candidates or national party committees. Lobbyists often assist congresspersons with campaign finance by arranging fundraisers, assembling PACs, and seeking donations from other clients. Many lobbyists become campaign treasurers and fundraisers for congresspersons.

9.3.2: Factors Affecting Voter Turnout

Many causes have been proposed for the decline in voting, including demographics, voter fatigue and voter suppression, among other things.

Learning Objective

Describe several possible reasons for declines in voter participation rates

Key Points

• Wealth and literacy have some effect on turnout, but are not reliable measures.
• Demographics also have an effect. Older people tend to vote more than youths, so societies where the average age is somewhat higher, such as Europe; have higher turnouts than somewhat younger countries such as the United States.
• Making voting compulsory has a direct and dramatic effect on turnout. Simply making it easier for candidates to stand through easier nomination rules is believed to increase voting.
• In politics, voter fatigue is the apathy that the electorate can experience under certain circumstances, one of which could be (in exceptional circumstances) that they are required to vote too often.
• Voter suppression is a strategy to influence the outcome of an election by discouraging or preventing people from exercising their right to vote.

Key Terms

voter fatigue

voter fatigue is the apathy that the electorate can experience under certain circumstances, one of which could be that they are required to vote too often.

voter suppression

Voter suppression is a strategy to influence the outcome of an election by discouraging or preventing people from exercising their right to vote.

Example

• Voter suppression instead attempts to reduce the number of voters who might vote against the candidate or proposition advocated by the suppressors. For example, in the southern United States before and during the civil rights movement, white southerners used many methods to prevent minorities from voting. These included literacy tests, a poll tax, and if all else failed, intimidation by threats of violence.

Introduction

High voter turnout is often considered to be desirable, though among political scientists and economists specialising in public choice, the issue is still debated. A high turnout is generally seen as evidence of the legitimacy of the current system. Assuming that low turnout is a reflection of disenchantment or indifference, a poll with very low turnout may not be an accurate reflection of the will of the people. On the other hand, if low turnout is a reflection of contentment of voters about likely winners or parties, then low turnout is as legitimate as high turnout, as long as the right to vote exists. Still, low turnouts can lead to unequal representation among various parts of the population. In developed countries, non-voters tend to be concentrated in particular demographic and socioeconomic groups, especially the young and the poor.

Reasons for Decline

Many causes have been proposed for this decline; a combination of factors is most likely. When asked why they do not vote, many people report that they have too little free time. However, over the last several decades, studies have consistently shown that the amount of leisure time has not decreased. Wealth and literacy have some effect on turnout, but are not reliable measures. For example, the United Nations Human Development Index shows some correlation between higher standards of living and higher turnout. The age of a democracy is also an important factor. Elections require considerable involvement by the population, and it takes some time to develop the cultural habit of voting, and the associated understanding of and confidence in the electoral process. Demographics also have an effect. Older people tend to vote more than youths, so societies where the average age is somewhat higher, such as Europe; have higher turnouts than somewhat younger countries such as the United States.

Institutional factors have a significant impact on voter turnout. Rules and laws are also generally easier to change than attitudes, so much of the work done on how to improve voter turnout looks at these factors. Making voting compulsory has a direct and dramatic effect on turnout. Simply making it easier for candidates to stand through easier nomination rules is believed to increase voting. Ease of voting is a factor in rates of turnout. In the United States and most Latin American nations, voters must go through separate voter registration procedures before they are allowed to vote. This two-step process quite clearly decreases turnout. U.S. states with no, or easier, registration requirements have larger turnouts.

In politics, voter fatigue is the apathy that the electorate can experience under certain circumstances, one of which could be (in exceptional circumstances) that they are required to vote too often. Voter fatigue and voter apathy should be distinguished from what arises when voters are not allowed or unable to vote, or when disenfranchisement occurs. Similarly, voter suppression is a strategy to influence the outcome of an election by discouraging or preventing people from exercising their right to vote . It is distinguished from political campaigning in that campaigning attempts to change likely voting behavior by changing the opinions of potential voters through persuasion and organization.

Voter Supression

Voters at voting booths in the United States in 1945

Voter suppression instead attempts to reduce the number of voters who might vote against the candidate or proposition advocated by the suppressors. This suppression can be in the form of unfair tests or requirements to vote. For example, in the southern United States before and during the civil rights movement, white southerners used many methods to prevent minorities from voting. These included literacy tests, a poll tax, and if all else failed intimidation by threats of violence. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 put a stop to literacy tests and any other methods of preventing people from voting. Excluding convicted from voting and re-including them only on case-by-case decisions by State Governors, as is the case in numerous U.S. states, can lead to voter suppression and can induce biased voting, as there can be a class bias in the state’s decision.

9.3.3: Low Voter Turnout

Low voter turnout is often considered to be undesirable; there is much debate over the factors that affect turnout and how to increase it.

Learning Objective

Summarize the difficulties involved in measuring voter turnout

Key Points

• There are difficulties in measuring both the numerator, the number of voters who cast votes, and the denominator, the number of voters eligible to vote.
• For the numerator, it is often assumed that the number of voters who went to the polls should equal the number of ballots cast, which in turn should equal the number of votes counted.
• Voting age population (VAP) refers to the set of individuals that have reached the minimum voting age for a particular geography or political unit.
• Over the last 40 years, voter turnout has been steadily declining in the established democracies. This trend has been significant in the United States, Western Europe, Japan and Latin America.
• Before the late 20th century, suffrage — the right to vote — was so limited in most nations that turnout figures have little relevance to today. One exception was the United States, which had near universal white male suffrage by 1840.

Key Terms

numerator

In voter turnout, the numerator refers to the number of voters who cast votes.

denominator

The denominator refers to the number of voters eligible to vote.

suffrage

The right or chance to vote, express an opinion, or participate in a decision.

Example

• Voter turnout varies considerably between countries. It tends to be lower in the United States, Asia and Latin America than most of Europe, Canada and Oceania. Western Europe averages a 77% turnout, and South and Central America around 54% since 1945.

Introduction

Voter turnout is the percentage of eligible voters who cast a ballot in an election. After increasing for many decades, there has been a trend of decreasing voter turnout in most established democracies since the 1960s. In general, low turnout may be due to disenchantment, indifference, or contentment. Low turnout is often considered to be undesirable, and there is much debate over the factors that affect turnout and how to increase it. In spite of significant study into the issue, scholars are divided on reasons for the decline. Its cause has been attributed to a wide array of economic, demographic, cultural, technological, and institutional factors.

Measuring Turnout

Differing methods of measuring voter turnout can contribute to reported differences between nations. There are difficulties in measuring both the numerator, the number of voters who cast votes, and the denominator, the number of voters eligible to vote.

For the numerator, it is often assumed that the number of voters who went to the polls should equal the number of ballots cast, which in turn should equal the number of votes counted, but this is not the case. Not all voters who arrive at the polls necessarily cast ballots. Some may be turned away because they are ineligible, some may be turned away improperly, and some who sign the voting register may not actually cast ballots. Furthermore, voters who do cast ballots may abstain, deliberately voting for nobody, or they may spoil their votes, either accidentally or as an act of protest.

In the United States, it has been common to report turnout as the sum of votes for the top race on the ballot, because not all jurisdictions report the actual number of people who went to the polls nor the number of undervotes or overvotes . Overvote rates of around 0.3 percent are typical of well-run elections, but in Gadsden County Florida, the overvote rate was 11 percent in November 2000.

Voter Turnout in the United States

Graph of Voter turnout in the United States presidential elections from 1824 to 2008.

The voting age population (VAP) refers to the set of individuals that have reached the minimum voting age for a particular geography or political unit. The presumption is that they are therefore generally eligible to vote, although other additional factors may cause them to be ineligible, such as lack of citizenship or a prior felony conviction. In estimating voter turnout the voting age population for a political unit is often used as the denominator for the number of individuals eligible to vote in a given election; this method has been shown to lose inaccuracy when a larger percentage of the VAP is ineligible to vote. In the United States individuals become eligible to vote in political elections at age 18.

Trends of Decreasing Turnout

Over the last 40 years, voter turnout has been steadily declining in the established democracies. This trend has been significant in the United States, Western Europe, Japan and Latin America. It has been a matter of concern and controversy among political scientists for several decades. The decline in voting has also accompanied a general decline in civic participation, such as church attendance, membership in professional, fraternal, and student societies, youth groups, and parent-teacher associations. At the same time, some forms of participation have increased. People have become far more likely to participate in boycotts, demonstrations, and to donate to political campaigns.

Before the late 20^th century, suffrage — the right to vote — was so limited in most nations that turnout figures have little relevance to today. One exception was the United States, which had near universal white male suffrage by 1840. The U.S. saw a steady rise in voter turnout during the century, reaching its peak in the years after the Civil War. Turnout declined from the 1890s until the 1930s, then increased again until 1960 before beginning its current long decline. Globally, voter turnout has decreased by about five percentage points over the last four decades.

International Differences.

Voter turnout varies considerably between countries. It tends to be lower in the United States, Asia and Latin America than most of Europe, Canada and Oceania. Western Europe averages a 77% turnout, and South and Central America around 54% since 1945 . The differences between nations tend to be greater than those between classes, ethnic groups, or regions within nations. Confusingly, some of the factors that cause internal differences do not seem to apply on a global level. For instance, nations with better-educated populaces do not have higher turnouts. There are two main causes of these international differences—culture and institutions—although there is much debate over the relative impact of the various factors.

9.3.4: Attempts to Improve Voter Turnout

Generally, rules and laws are easier to change than attitudes, and thus the task of improving voter turnout must consider these factors.

Learning Objective

Identify different measures that increase voter turnout

Key Points

• The salience of an election, the effect that a vote will have on policy, and its proportionality, how closely the result reflects the will of the people, are two structural factors that also are likely to have important effects on turnout.
• Compulsory voting is a system in which electors are obliged to vote in elections or attend a polling place on voting day.
• Mark N. Franklin argues that salience, the perceived effect that an individual vote will have on how the country is run, has a significant effect on turnout.
• Ease of voting is a factor in rates of turnout. In the United States and most Latin American nations, voters must go through separate voter registration procedures before they are allowed to vote. This two-step process quite clearly decreases turnout.
• Other methods of improving turnout include making voting easier through more available absentee polling, such as increasing the number of possible voting locations, lowering the average time voters have to spend waiting in lines, or requiring companies to give workers some time off on voting day.
• Some countries have considered Internet voting as a possible solution. In other countries, such as France, voting is held on the weekend, when most voters are away from work. Therefore, the need for time off from work as a factor in voter turnout is greatly reduced.

Key Terms

salience

Salience is the perceived effect that an individual vote will have on how the country is run and has a significant effect on turnout.

compulsory voting

Compulsory voting is a system in which electors are obliged to vote in elections or attend a polling place on voting day. If an eligible voter does not attend a polling place, he or she may be subject to punitive measures, such as fines, community service, or perhaps imprisonment if fines are unpaid or community service not performed.

Example

• Voting may be seen as a civic right rather than a civic duty. While citizens may exercise their civil rights, they are not compelled to. Furthermore, compulsory voting may infringe on other rights. For example, most Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that they should not participate in political events. Forcing them to vote ostensibly denies them their freedom of religious practice. In some countries with compulsory voting, Jehovah’s Witnesses and others may be excused on these grounds. If however they are forced to go to the polling place, they can still use a blank or invalid vote.

Introduction

Institutional factors have a significant impact on voter turnout. Rules and laws are also generally easier to change than attitudes, so much of the work done on how to improve voter turnout looks at these factors. Making voting compulsory has a direct and dramatic effect on turnout. Simply making easier nomination rules for candidates is believed to increase voting. Conversely, adding barriers, such as a separate registration process, can suppress turnout. The salience of an election, the effect that a vote will have on policy, and its proportionality, how closely the result reflects the will of the people, are two structural factors that also are likely to have important effects on turnout.

Compulsory Voting

Compulsory voting is a system by which electors are obliged to vote in elections or attend a polling place on voting day. If an eligible voter does not attend a polling place, he or she may be subject to punitive measures, such as fines, community service, or perhaps imprisonment if fines are unpaid or community service is not performed . Compulsory voting ensures a large voter turnout. This means a victorious candidate or party clearly represents a majority of the population, not just the politically motivated individuals who would vote without this requirement. This helps ensure that governments do not neglect people in sections of society who are less active politically. Victorious political leaders of compulsory systems may claim a higher degree of political legitimacy than those of non-compulsory systems with lower voter turnout. Political scientist Arend Lijphart writes that compulsory voting has been found to increase voting by 7-16% in national elections and by even more in local and provincial elections and elections to the European Parliament.

Map of Compulsory Voting Countries

Red: Compulsory voting, enforced. Pink: Compulsory voting, not enforced. Orange: Compulsory voting, enforced (only men). Light Orange: Compulsory voting, not enforced (only men). Yellow: the country had compulsory voting in the past.

Any compulsion affects the freedom of an individual, and the fining of recalcitrant non-voters is an additional impact on a potential recalcitrant voter. Voting may be seen as a civic right rather than a civic duty. While citizens may exercise their civil rights, they are not compelled to. Furthermore, compulsory voting may infringe on other rights. For example, most Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that they should not participate in political events. Forcing them to vote ostensibly denies them their freedom of religious practice. In some countries with compulsory voting, Jehovah’s Witnesses and others may be excused on these grounds. If however they are forced to go to the polling place, they still can use a blank or invalid vote.

Salience

Mark N. Franklin argues thatsalience, the perceived effect that an individual vote will have on how the country is run, has a significant effect on turnout. He presents Switzerland as an example of a nation with low salience. The nation’s administration is highly decentralized, so that the federal government has limited powers. The government invariably consists of a coalition of parties, and the power wielded by a party is far more closely linked to its position relative to the coalition than to the number of votes it received. Important decisions are placed before the population in a referendum. Individual votes for the federal legislature are thus unlikely to have a significant effect on the nation, which probably explains the low average turnouts in that country.

Ease of Voting

Ease of voting is a factor in rates of turnout. In the United States and most Latin American nations, voters must go through separate voter registration procedures before they are allowed to vote. This two-step process quite clearly decreases turnout. U.S. states with no or easier registration requirements have larger turnouts. Other methods of improving turnout include making voting easier through improved access to polls—for example, through:

• increasing the number of possible voting locations
• lowering the average time voters have to spend waiting in lines
• extending voting hours
• requiring companies to give workers some time off on voting day

Other options include:

• more available absentee polling
• mail-in voting
• Internet voting

In other countries, like France, voting is held on the weekend, when most voters are away from work. Therefore, the need for time off from work as a factor in voter turnout is greatly reduced.

9.3.5: The Effect of Low Voter Turnout

Assuming that low turnout is a reflection of disenchantment, a poll with very low turnout may be an inaccurate reflection of the electorate.

Learning Objective

Analyze two different ways of understanding levels of voter turnout

Key Points

• If low turnout is a reflection of contentment of voters about likely winners or parties, then low turnout is as legitimate as high turnout, as long as the right to vote exists.
• Voter turnout varies considerably between countries. It tends to be lower in the United States, Asia, and Latin America than most of Europe, Canada, and Oceania.
• For instance, nations with better-educated populaces do not have higher turnouts. There are two main causes of these international differences—culture and institutions—although there is much debate over the relative impact of the various factors.

Key Term

voter turnout

Voter turnout is the percentage of eligible voters who cast a ballot in an election. Exactly who is eligible varies by country, and should not be confused with the total adult population.

Example

• Western Europe averages a 77% turnout, and South and Central America averages around 54% since 1945.

Implications of High and Low Voter Turnout

High voter turnout is often considered to be desirable, though among political scientists and economists specialising in public choice, the issue is still debated. A high turnout is generally seen as evidence of the legitimacy of the current system. Dictators have often fabricated high turnouts in showcase elections for this purpose. Assuming that low turnout is a reflection of disenchantment or indifference, a poll with very low turnout may not be an accurate reflection of the will of the people . On the other hand, if low turnout is a reflection of contentment of voters about likely winners or parties, then low turnout is as legitimate as high turnout, as long as the right to vote exists. Still, low turnouts can lead to unequal representation among various parts of the population. In developed countries, non-voters tend to be concentrated in particular demographic and socioeconomic groups, especially the young and the poor.

Voter Turnout

Voters lining up outside a Baghdad polling station during the 2005 Iraqi election. Voter turnout was considered high despite widespread concerns of violence.

Voter Turnout across the World

Voter turnout varies considerably between countries. It tends to be lower in the United States, Asia, and Latin America than most of Europe, Canada, and Oceania. Western Europe averages a 77% turnout, and South and Central America averages around 54% since 1945. The differences between nations tend to be greater than those between classes, ethnic groups, or regions within nations. Confusingly, some of the factors that cause internal differences do not seem to apply on a global level. For instance, nations with better-educated populaces do not have higher turnouts. There are two main causes of these international differences—culture and institutions—although there is much debate over the relative impact of the various factors.

9.4: Trends in Voting

9.4.1: African Americans

For a large part of the history of the US, black voters were blocked from voting either directly or indirectly.

Learning Objective

Explain the institutional barriers that prevented African Americans from participating in American politics

Key Points

• For a large part of the history of the US, Black voters were blocked from voting, either directly or through political practices that targeted Black voters indirectly.
• At the end of the Civil War, amendments to the US Constitution banned slavery in the US as well as affirmed the citizenship of Black residents. Finally, the fifteenth amendment, ratified in 1870, banned any state from denying the right to vote to any adult male citizen based on his race.
• While the fifteenth amendment provided legal protection for voting rights based on race, there were other means that could be used to block Black citizens from voting. During the Jim Crow era, politicians created new institutions to suppress the vote of Black residents.
• In the 1950s and 1960s, the civil rights movement came into its own as a widespread social movement. Groups fought for improved opportunities for African American people, and tried to defend existing rights that were being denied, such as voting rights.
• After the Civil Rights movement average voter turnout for African Americans remained below national averages. A disproportionate amount of African Americans remain in low-income communities where rates of voting are lower.

Key Terms

Fifteenth Amendment

an addition to the U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1870, which prohibits the federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen’s “race, color, or previous condition of servitude”

disenfranchise

to deprive someone of a franchise, generally their right to vote

Jim Crow

Southern United States racist and segregationist policies in the late 1800’s and early to mid 1900’s, taken collectively.

African Americans

For a large part of US history Black voters were blocked from voting, either directly or through political practices that targeted Black voters indirectly.

Today, the average participation of African American voters is still somewhat lower than white voters, but there is great variety within these voting patterns.

There are different explanations for voting patterns. Institutional approaches look at the ways in which legal documents and organizations impact the ability to vote. Others examine the question of rationality in voting: does voting serve the self-interest of any given individual, and what are the interests or issues that might change someones voting patterns? A behavioral approach focuses on the actions of individuals and groups, taking voting as one part of a larger bundle of political activities. In examining African American voting patterns it is helpful to consider all of these factors.

Civil War and Institutional Barriers

During the period before the Civil War, enslaved Black people, and many free Blacks and free people of color were barred from voting. At the end of the war, the fifteenth amendment, ratified in 1870, banned any state from denying the right to vote to any adult male citizen based on his race.

During the early Reconstruction period, Black residents voted in large numbers . In many states the enslaved population had been larger than the free population. Coupled with a strong set of shared interests, there was a great deal of incentive for Black citizens to vote.

The First Vote

This contemporary print depicts the first Black voters in the US exercising their new rights.

Jim Crow Era and Disenfranchisement

While the fifteenth amendment provided legal protection for voting rights based on race, during the Jim Crow era, politicians created new institutions to suppress the vote of Black residents.

Early on, violence and intimidation was used to keep Black voters away from the polls. States then began to pass official voter suppression legislation. These included poll taxes requiring payment before voting, and literacy and understanding tests, strict residency requirements and new voter registration rules.

While these rules did not specifically restrict Black citizens from voting, Black people who were freed slaves and their descendants were disproportionately poor, less educated or illiterate, and so more likely to have their voting rights limited by these provisions. Although it is important to note that poor white residents were also disenfranchised by many of these provisions. In some cases, states added character or grandfather clauses to permit poor or illiterate white residents to continue voting.

Civil Rights

During the early parts of the 1900s, the NAACP brought forward several successful cases to challenge state voter suppression laws. In the 1950s and 1960s, the civil rights movement became a widespread social movement. Groups fought for improved opportunities for African American people, and tried to defend existing rights that were being denied. Civil rights leaders organized communities through churches and other community groups, and attracted the support of many white activists from northern states.

The African-American Civil Rights Movement encompasses social movements in the United States whose goal was to end racial segregation and discrimination against black Americans and enforce constitutional voting rights to them. This article covers the phase of the movement between 1955 and 1968, particularly in the South.

The movement was characterized by major campaigns of civil resistance. Between 1955 and 1968, acts of nonviolent protest and civil disobedience produced crisis situations between activists and government authorities. Federal, state, and local governments, businesses, and communities often had to respond immediately to these situations that highlighted the inequities faced by African Americans.

In 1962, the twenty-fourth amendment to the Constitution prohibited congress or states from restricting voting through poll taxes. In 1964, the Civil Rights Act was passed. In 1965, the Voting Rights Act established federal oversight of election regulations, and banned voter qualifications or prerequisites that limited the right to vote on account of race or color. This act removed a large institutional barrier to voting and helped to further protect voting rights.

2008 and Beyond

The 2008 presidential election was historic, with Barack Obama as the Democratic candidate, and the first non-white presidential candidate for a major party. Obama had a Kenyan-born Black father, a white mother from the Midwest, and strong connections in the African American community in Chicago. Aside from the fact that Obama won an overwhelming percent of the African American vote, there was also high levels of African American voter turnout during this election. This was in part because of self-interest and a desire for representation, but was also the result of strong community organizing. Once again, grassroots groups and social movement leaders worked to register voters and get them to the polls.

9.4.2: Latinos

On average, Latino citizens continue to vote at significantly lower rates than non-Latino white voters.

Learning Objective

Summarize the voting trends among Latino voters in U.S. politics

Key Points

• While Latino voters should not be thought of as a homogenous group, there are still some general trends for the group. On average, Latino citizens continue to vote at significantly lower rates that non-Latino white voters.
• There are low rates of naturalization in the US, along with weak political institutions that might facilitate the incorporation of Latino citizens as voters.
• However, in recent years, a larger number of organizations that serve immigrant and Latino communities have become involved in political participation.
• The Language Minority Provision of the Voting Rights Act, first introduced in 1975, aims to lower the cost of participation for Latino voters by requiring election material be provided in Spanish where appropriate.

Key Term

naturalization

Naturalization is the acquisition of citizenship and nationality by somebody who was not a citizen of that country at the time of birth.

Latinos

Latino communities make up one of the fastest growing groups in the US. Latino voters are a diverse group which include long-established Tejano and Californio, Puerto Rican and Chicano voters, as well as the Cuban-American community which makes up a large bloc of voters in Miami. However, recently naturalized citizens from South and Central America, and their children, make up the largest group of Latino voters in the US.

Latino Voting Trends

While Latino voters should not be thought of as a homogenous group, there are still some general trends for the group. On average Latino citizens continue to vote at significantly lower rates that non-Latino white voters.

There are many potential approaches that can be taken to explain variations in voting rates. Institutional approaches look at the ways in which legal documents and organizations shape the ability to vote. Others examine the question of the rationality of voting: does voting serve the self-interest of any given individual, and what are the interests or issues that might change someone’s voting patterns? A behavioral approach focuses more on the actions of individuals and groups, taking voting as one part of a larger bundle of political activities.

The US has comparatively low rates of naturalization for immigrant residents. As such, people may live for many years in the US without being able to vote. Additionally, the weaker electoral institutions in the US, including more decentralized election processes and a weaker party system, mean that there are few institutions working to actively incorporate newly naturalized citizens or second generation citizens into the voting process.

Additionally, many Latino political activists, who are more visible in their political participation, have often been quite different from the average Latino. For example, these activists are generally less in need of government supports, and less likely to advocate for such programs. They are, therefore, not good candidates for the type of community organizing that could rally new voters around their own interests.

However, in recent years, a larger number of organizations that serve immigrant and Latino communities have become involved in political participation . These groups are advocating for resources, supports and rights. They are also encouraging the political participation of Latino residents through voter registration drives, and partnerships with other organizations, such as unions, that have traditionally been involved in voter mobilization.

Immigrant Rights and Civil Rights

Organizations serving immigrant communities are starting to encourage more political participation, including voting.

Language Minority Voting Rights

One important institutional change aimed at lowering the cost for Latino voter participation is the Language Minority Provision of the Voting Rights Act, first introduced in 1975, and then amended in 1992 and 2006. This provision is aimed at upholding the principals of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the US constitution, by attempting to eliminate language-based barriers to voting.

This provision has been shown to have a significant impact on improving rates of voting by Latino citizens.

9.4.3: Asian Americans

The diversity and polarization of the Asian American community makes it difficult to generalize their voting patterns.

Learning Objective

Explain the levels of political participation by Asian Americans in the United States

Key Points

• This diversity and polarization makes it difficult to generalize the voting patterns for the Asian American community. In some areas voting rates are significantly higher than the US average, or the rate for non-Latino white voters. In others it is significantly lower.
• Differences are related to indicators such as income and education. Like most other groups in the US, Asian Americans with more education and higher income tend to vote more.
• Other indicators for voting participation among Asian Americans are the political climate for both their home country and their local community.
• The Language Minority Provision of the Voting Rights Act is an important institutional change aimed at increasing the rates of voting in Asian American communities. Introduced in 1975 it requires election material be provided in several languages from Asia, where appropriate.

Key Term

disenfranchisement

Explicit or implicit revocation of, or failure to grant the right to vote, to a person or group of people.

Asian Americans

It might come as a surprise to find that California was one of the last states to ratify the fifteenth amendment to the US constitution, which prohibited any state from limiting a male citizen’s right to vote based on race. However, in the late 1800s many politicians in California were adamant that migrants from China and their descendants should be prohibited from voting. Like African American communities in southern states, Asian American communities have faced a long history of voter discrimination and disenfranchisement in the US .

Political Participation

Asian American communities have a long history of both disenfranchisement and political participation in the US.

Today the Asian American community in the US is quite diverse, with longstanding Chinese and Japanese communities particularly on the west coast, along with large Pacific Islander populations both on the west coast and in Hawaii. The Asian American community is also one of the fastest growing groups in the country in large part because of new immigration. The three largest groups are made of people who have emigrated from China, India and the Philippines. These newly naturalized citizens and their children make up the largest group of Asian American voters.

In addition to being a diverse group, the Asian American community is also highly polarized in terms of its socioeconomic profile. Some Asian Americans have very high income, while others have very low income. This diversity and polarization makes it difficult to generalize the voting patterns for the Asian American community. In some areas voting rates are significantly higher than the US average, or the rate for non-Latino white voters. In others it is significantly lower.

Differences are related to indicators such as income and education. Like most other groups in the US, Asian Americans with more education and higher income tend to vote more. Other indicators for voting participation among Asian Americans are the political climate for both their home country and their local community.

Language Minority Voting Rights

One important institutional change aimed at increasing the rates of voting in Asian American communities is the Language Minority Provision of the Voting Rights Act. It was first introduced in 1975, and later amended in 1992 and 2006. This provision is aimed at upholding the principles of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the US constitution by attempting to eliminate language-based barriers to voting. This provision holds that election documents, such as voting notices and ballots, must be provided in the minority language alongside English, where appropriate.

9.4.4: Women vs. Men

In 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution gave women the right to vote and, today, women vote at similar rates to men.

Learning Objective

Explain the historical causes for women’s greater participation in American politics

Key Points

• For a large part of the history of the US, women were denied their right to vote. Women were not able to vote in elections until the Nineteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. Ratified in 1920, this amendment prohibited any citizen from being denied the right to vote based on their sex.
• In spite of this long-term institutional barrier to voting, women today vote at similar rates to men. Women also do not generally vote as a bloc, and instead tend to be as diverse in their voting patterns as men.
• The high rates of women’s involvement in elections, in spite of being excluded from voting for so long, can be partially explained by women’s high rates of involvement in other forms of political participation.
• Women share many of the same interests as men in comparable positions, and so, similarly to men, women with more education and higher income will tend to vote at higher rates than other women.

Key Terms

suffrage

The right or chance to vote, express an opinion, or participate in a decision.

bloc

a group of voters or politicians who share common goals

Women Versus Men

There are a variety of theories that help to explain who votes. Institutional approaches look at the ways in which legal documents and organizations impact and shape the ability to vote. Other approaches examine the question of the rationality of voting: does voting serve the self-interest of any given individual, and what are the interests or issues that might change someone’s voting patterns? A behavioral approach focuses more on the actions of individuals and groups, taking voting as one part of a larger bundle of political activities. It is useful to combine these ideas when thinking about women’s and men’s voting patterns.

For a large part of the history of the United States, women were denied their right to vote. Women were not allowed to vote in all elections until the Nineteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. Ratified in 1920, this amendment prohibited any citizen from being denied the right to vote based on their sex.

In spite of this long-term institutional barrier to voting, women today vote at similar rates to men. Women also do not generally vote as a bloc, and instead tend to be as diverse in their voting patterns as men. Characteristics such as race, ethnicity, age and socioeconomic status tend to predict voting patterns better than gender. Even when considering so-called “women’s issues”, such as reproductive choices and rights or equal pay legislation, women do not vote as a bloc. Instead, while they may identify these issues as more important than men, women tend to be split over the correct solutions to a problem. However, there are exceptions, such as around any questions of war and/or the use of violence.

The high rates of women’s involvement in voting (in spite of being excluded from voting for so long) can be partially explained by women’s high involvement in other forms of political participation. This includes the suffrage movement that saw women organizing and campaigning to win women the right to vote. Additionally, women share many of the same interests as men in comparable positions, and so, similarly to men, women with more education and higher income will vote at higher rates than women in different positions.

Suffragettes

Women across the US organized for decades to gain the right to vote for women.

While women vote at a similar rate to men, they are underrepresented in other forms of political participation, such as joining organizations like political parties and running for public office.

9.4.5: Religious Identity and Politics

Within the United States, religious identity plays a significant role in political participation and voting.

Learning Objective

Identify the role that religion plays in political participation and voting in the United States

Key Points

• Since the election of a Catholic President in 1960, John F. Kennedy, Catholics have split about 50-50 between the two major parties in national elections.
• For most of the 20th century, the vast majority of Jews in the United States have been aligned with the Democratic Party, though towards the end of the 20th century and into the 21st century, Republicans have launched initiatives to woo American Jews.
• One-fifth of the U.S. public–and a third of adults under 30–are religiously unaffiliated today, according to national polls.

Key Term

Evangelical

Pertaining to a movement in Protestant Christianity that stresses personal conversion and the authority of the Bible (evangelicalism).

Within the United States, religious identity plays a significant role in political participation and voting .

Religious identity

Religious identity plays a significant role in political participation

In 1776, Catholics comprised less than 1% of the population of the new nation, but their presence grew rapidly after 1840 with immigration from Germany, Ireland, Italy, Poland, and elsewhere in Catholic Europe from 1840 to 1914, and also from Latin America in the 20^th century. Catholics now comprise 25% to 27% of the national vote, with over 68 million members today. From the mid-19^th century until 1964 Catholics were solidly Democratic, with about 80%-90% of them voting democrat. But since the election of a Catholic president in 1960, John F. Kennedy, Catholics have split about 50-50 between the two major parties in national elections.

The Jewish community constitutes about 1.4 – 2.1% of the U.S. population. While earlier Jewish immigrants from Germany tended to be politically conservative, the wave of Eastern European Jews who arrived in the U.S. starting in the 1880s were generally more liberal and soon became the political majority. For most of the 20^th century since 1936, the vast majority of Jews in the United States have been aligned with the Democratic Party. Towards the end of the 20^th century and into the 21^st century, Republicans have launched initiatives to woo American Jews away from the Democratic Party.

Today one-fifth of the U.S. public–and a third of adults under 30–are religiously unaffiliated according to national polls. Exit polls suggest that white Americans without religion vote Democratic at roughly the same rates as they vote Republican. According to exit polls in the 2008 Presidential Election, 71% of non-religious whites voted for Democratic candidate Barack Obama, while 74% of white Evangelical Christians voted for Republican candidate John McCain. This can be compared with the 43–55% share of white votes overall.

A comprehensive study by Harvard University professor Robert Putnam found that religious Americans are three to four times more likely than their nonreligious counterparts to “work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes–including secular ones. “

9.4.6: Age and Participation

Political participation differs notably by age; in general, older citizens are more likely to turn out in elections than younger ones.

Learning Objective

Explain the reasons for people’s level of participation in politics

Key Points

• People between the ages of thirty-five and sixty-five are the most politically active.
• People under the age of thirty are among the least involved in mainstream forms of participation, as younger people often lack the money and time to participate.
• While younger people turn out in elections less often than older people, youth voting has been on the rise in presidential elections since 2004.

Key Terms

social media

Interactive forms of media that allow users to interact with and publish to each other, generally by means of the Internet.

turnout

attendance; crowd

Political participation differs notably by age. People between the ages of thirty-five and sixty-five are the most politically active. People at this stage of life are more likely than younger people to have established homes, hold steady jobs, and be settled into communities. Those with stable community roots often have strong incentives and greater resources for becoming involved in politics.

People under the age of thirty are among the least involved in mainstream forms of participation, as younger people often lack the money and time to participate. Voter turnout among eighteen- to twenty-four-year-olds dropped from 50 percent in 1972, the first presidential election year after the voting age was lowered to eighteen, to 36 percent in 2000. Turnout among senior citizens, people sixty-five and older, increased to nearly 70 percent in that same time period.

While younger people turn out in elections less often than older people, youth voting has been on the rise in presidential elections since 2004. Young voter turnout rose to 47 percent in 2004 and 51 percent in 2008, partly as a result of voter registration and mobilization efforts by groups like Rock the Vote. The youth vote contributed to the success of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, as young volunteers provided countless hours of campaign support. The growth of Internet technologies, particularly social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, has also made it easier for candidates to reach younger voters who may not read traditional newspapers or watch television news and increase their turnout .

President Barack Obama

Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns were successful partly as a result of youth participation.

8.2: The Modern Political Campaign

8.2.1: Assembling a Campaign Staff

Learning Objective

Describe the organizational structure of a major modern political campaign

Key Points

• Successful campaigns usually require a campaign manager to coordinate the campaign’s operations.
• Activists are the ‘foot soldiers’ who are loyal to the cause. They are the true believers who will carry the run by volunteer activists.
• Political consultants advise campaigns on virtually all of their activities from research to field strategy.
• There are different departments created while assembling the staff in order to structure all of the campaign roles.

Key Terms

pollster

A professional whose primary job is conducting pre-election polls.

consultant

A person whose occupation is to be consulted for their expertise, advice, or help in an area or specialty. Alternatively, a party whose business is to be similarly consulted.

quadrennial

Happening every four years.

activist

A person who is politically active in the role of a citizen; especially, one who campaigns for change

Example

• In the United States larger campaigns hire consultants to serve as strategists. The campaign manager focuses mostly on coordinating the campaign staff. Campaign managers will often have deputies who oversee various aspects of the campaign at a closer level.

Organization

In a modern political campaign, the campaign organization will have a coherent structure and staff like any other large business. Political campaign staff is the people who formulate and implement the strategy needed to win an election. Many people have made careers out of working full-time for campaigns and groups that support them. However, in other campaigns much of the staff might be unpaid volunteers.

Campaign Manager

Successful campaigns usually require a campaign manager to coordinate the campaign’s operations. Apart from a candidate, the campaign manger is often a campaign’s most visible leader. Modern campaign managers may be concerned with executing strategy rather than setting it, particularly if the senior strategists are typically outside political consultants such as primarily pollsters and media consultants.

Activists

Activists are the ‘foot soldiers’ loyal to the cause. They are the true believers who will carry the run by volunteer activists. These volunteers and interns may take part in activities such as canvassing door-to-door and making phone calls on behalf of the campaign.

Caricature of Woman Suffrage 1869

This is a satirical caricature of the possible consequences of giving women the vote. The two candidates “Susan Sharp-tongue the Celebrated Man-Tamer” (dressed in circus-performer costume) and “Miss Hangman for Sheriff” canvass for women’s votes (in 1869 women could not vote anywhere in the United States, except as a newly-established experimental innovation in the remote territory of Wyoming). At the right, a sharp-featured woman brandishes a fist threateningly at her husband, who holds the baby. In the 1860’s chignons were a fashionable hairstyle worn by most women and often supplemented with a roll of artificial hair. The artist has caricatured this hairstyle.

Political Consultants

Political campaigns in the United States are not merely a civic ritual and an occasion for political debate. Campaigns are a multi-billion dollar industry, dominated by professional political consultants using sophisticated campaign management tools. Though the quadrennial presidential election attracts the most attention, the United States has a huge number of elected offices. There are wide variations between different states, counties, and municipalities on which offices are elected and under what procedures. Moreover, unlike democratic politics in much of the rest of the world, the U.S. has relatively weak parties. While parties play a significant role in fundraising and occasionally in drafting people to run, the individual candidates themselves ultimately control campaigns

Campaign Departments and Their Respective Purposes

The field department focuses on the “on-the-ground” organizing that is required in order to personally contact voters through canvassing, phone calls, and building local events. Voter contact helps construct and clean the campaign’s voter file in order to help better target voter persuasion and identify which voters a campaign most wants to bring out on Election Day. The field department is generally also tasked with running local “storefront” campaign offices as well as organizing phone banks and staging locations for canvasses and other campaign events.

The communications department oversees both the press relations and advertising involved in promoting the campaign in the media. They are responsible for the campaign’s message and image among the electorate. This department must approve press releases, advertisements, phone scripts, and other forms of communication before they can be released to the public.

The finance department coordinates the campaign’s fundraising operation and ensures that the campaign always has the money it needs to operate effectively. The techniques employed by this department vary based on the campaign’s needs and size. Small campaigns often involve casual fundraising events and phone calls from the candidate to donors asking for money. Larger campaigns will include everything from high-priced sit-down dinners to e-mail messages to donors asking for money.

The legal department makes sure that the campaign is in compliance with the law and files the appropriate forms with government authorities. In Britain and other Commonwealth countries, such as Canada and India, each campaign must have an official agent who is legally responsible for the campaign. The official agent is obligated to make sure the campaign follows all rules and regulations. This department will also be responsible for all financial tracking including bank reconciliations, loans, and backup for in-kind donations.

The technology department designs and maintains campaign technology such as voter file, websites, and social media. While local (county, city, town, or village) campaigns might have volunteers who know how to use computers, state and national campaigns will have information technology professionals across the state or country handling everything from websites to blogs to databases.

The scheduling and advance department makes sure that the candidate and campaign surrogates are effectively scheduled in order to maximize their impact on the voters. This department also oversees the people who arrive at events before the candidate to make sure everything is in order. Often, this department will be a part of the field department.

On small campaigns the scheduling coordinator may be responsible for developing and executing events. The scheduling coordinator typically: a) manages the candidate’s personal and campaign schedule, b) manages the field and advance team schedules, and c) gathers important information about all events the campaign and candidate will attend.

Candidates and other members of the campaign must bear in mind that only one person should oversee the details of scheduling. Fluid scheduling is one of the main components to making a profound impact on voters.

8.2.2: The Modern Political Campaign

Learning Objective

Identify key moments in the history of mass campaigns in the United States

Key Points

• A political campaign is an organized effort which seeks to influence the decision making process within a specific group.
• Major campaigns in the United States are often much longer than those in other democracies. Campaigns start anywhere from several months to several years before election day.
• Campaigns often dispatch volunteers into local communities to meet with voters and persuade people to support the candidate. The volunteers are also responsible for identifying supporters, recruiting them as volunteers or registering them to vote if they are not already registered.
• Campaign finance in the United States is the financing of electoral campaigns at the federal, state, and local levels. At the federal level, campaign finance law is enacted by Congress and enforced by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), an independent federal agency.
• The internet is now a core element of modern political campaigns. Communication technologies such as e-mail, web sites, and podcasts for various forms of activism to enable faster communications by citizen movements and deliver a message to a large audience.

Key Terms

lobby groups

The act of attempting to persuade a group of people that influence decisions made by officials in the government, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies.

referendum

A direct popular vote on a proposed law or constitutional amendment.

political campaign

It is an organized effort which seeks to influence the decision making process within a specific group.

political action committee

A political action committee (PAC) is any organization in the United States that campaigns for or against political candidates, ballot initiatives, or legislation.

Example

• Signifying the importance of internet political campaigning, Barack Obama’s presidential campaign relied heavily on social media, and new media channels to engage voters, recruit campaign volunteers, and raise campaign funds. The campaign brought the spotlight on the importance of using internet in new-age political campaigning by utilizing various forms of social media and new media (including Facebook, YouTube and a custom generated social engine) to reach new target populations. The campaign’s social website, my.BarackObama.com, utilized a low cost and efficient method of mobilizing voters and increasing participation among various voter populations. This new media was incredibly successful at reaching the younger population while helping all populations organize and promote action.

Introduction

A political campaign is an organized effort which seeks to influence the decision making process within a specific group. In democracies, political campaigns often refer to electoral campaigns, where representatives are chosen or referendums are decided . In modern politics, the most high profile political campaigns are focused on candidates for head of state or head of government, often a President or Prime Minister.

Candidate for Congress

Walter Faulkner, candidate for U.S. Congress, campaigning with a Tennessee farmer. Crossville, Tennessee.

Background History

Political campaigns have existed as long as there have been informed citizens. The phenomenon of political campaigns are tightly tied to lobby groups and political parties. The first modern campaign is thought to be William Ewart Gladstone’s Midlothian campaign in the 1880’s, although there may have been earlier modern examples from the 19^th century. American election campaigns in the 19^th century created the first mass-base political parties and invented many of the techniques of mass campaigning.

Process of Campaigning

Major campaigns in the United States are often much longer than those in other democracies. Campaigns start anywhere from several months to several years before election day. Once a person decides to run, they will make a public announcement. This announcement could consist of anything from a simple press release to concerned media outlets to a major media event followed by a speaking tour. It is often well-known to many people that a candidate will run prior to an announcement being made .

John Edwards Pittsburgh 2007

2008 United States Presidential candidate John Edwards campaigning in Pittsburgh on Labor day in 2007, accepting the endorsement of the United Steelworkers and the United Mine Workers of America.

Campaigns often dispatch volunteers into local communities to meet with voters and persuade people to support the candidate. The volunteers are also responsible for identifying supporters, recruiting them as volunteers or registering them to vote if they are not already registered. The identification of supporters will be useful later as campaigns remind voters to cast their votes . Late in the campaign, campaigns will launch expensive television, radio, and direct mail campaigns aimed at persuading voters to support the candidate. Campaigns will also intensify their grassroots campaigns, coordinating their volunteers in a full court effort to win votes.

Nixon Meets Crowds at Robins Air Force Base in Georgia

President Nixon “works the crowd” at Robins Air Force Base, Georgia in the initial stages of his campaign.

Campaign Finance in the United States

Campaign finance in the United States is the financing of electoral campaigns at the federal, state, and local levels. At the federal level, campaign finance law is enacted by Congress and enforced by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), an independent federal agency. Although most campaign spending is privately financed, public financing is available for qualifying candidates for President of the United States during both the primaries and the general election. Eligibility requirements must be fulfilled to qualify for a government subsidy, and those that do accept government funding are usually subject to spending limits.

In 2008—the last presidential election year—candidates for office, political parties, and independent groups spent a total of $5.3 billion on federal elections. The amount spent on the presidential race alone was $2.4 billion, and over $1 billion of that was spent by the campaigns of the two major candidates: Barack Obama spent $730 million in his election campaign, and John McCain spent $333 million. The total spent on federal elections in 2012 was approximately $7 billion. The figures for the 2016 election will not be available until 2017.

Techniques

A campaign team must consider how to communicate the message of the campaign, recruit volunteers, and raise money. Campaign advertising draws on techniques from commercial advertising and propaganda. The avenues available to political campaigns when distributing their messages is limited by the law, available resources, and the imagination of the campaigns’ participants. These techniques are often combined into a formal strategy known as the campaign plan. The plan takes account of a campaign’s goal, message, target audience, and resources available. The campaign will typically seek to identify supporters at the same time as getting its message across.

Modern Technology and the Internet

The internet is now a core element of modern political campaigns. Communication technologies such as e-mail, web sites, and podcasts for various forms of activism to enable faster communications by citizen movements and deliver a message to a large audience. These Internet technologies are used for cause-related fundraising, lobbying, volunteering, community building, and organizing. Individual political candidates are also using the internet to promote their election campaign.

Signifying the importance of internet political campaigning, Barack Obama’s presidential campaign relied heavily on social media, and new media channels to engage voters, recruit campaign volunteers, and raise campaign funds. The campaign brought the spotlight on the importance of using internet in new-age political campaigning by utilizing various forms of social media and new media (including Facebook, YouTube and a custom generated social engine) to reach new target populations. The campaign’s social website, my.BarackObama.com, utilized a low cost and efficient method of mobilizing voters and increasing participation among various voter populations. This new media was incredibly successful at reaching the younger population while helping all populations organize and promote action.

8.2.3: The Nomination Campaign

Learning Objective

Describe the procedure by which the Electoral College indirectly elects the President

Key Points

• The modern Presidential campaign begins before the primary elections.
• Nominees campaign across the country to explain their views, convince voters and solicit contributions.
• Much of the modern electoral process is concerned with winning swing states through frequent visits and mass media advertising drives.

Key Terms

Twentieth Amendment

This amendment establishes the beginning and ending of the terms of the elected federal offices.

vice president

A deputy to a president, often empowered to assume the position of president on his death or absence

electoral college

A body of electors empowered to elect someone to a particular office

Example

• A United States presidential nominating convention is a political convention held every four years in the United States by most of the political parties who will be fielding nominees in the upcoming U.S. presidential election.

Modern Presidential Campaign and Nomination

The modern presidential campaign begins before the primary elections. The two major political parties try to clear the field of candidates before their national nominating conventions, where the most successful candidate is made the party’s nominee for president. Typically, the party’s presidential candidate chooses a vice presidential nominee, and this choice is then rubber-stamped by the convention.

Nominees participate in nationally televised debates. While the debates are usually restricted to the Democratic and Republican nominees, third party candidates may be invited, such as Ross Perot in the 1992 debates. Nominees also campaign across the country to explain their views, convince voters and solicit contributions. Much of the modern electoral process is concerned with winning “swing states” through frequent visits and mass media advertising drives.

Election and oath

Presidents are elected indirectly in the United States. A number of electors, collectively known as the Electoral College, officially select the president. On Election Day, voters in each of the states and the District of Columbia cast ballots for these electors. Each state is allocated a number of electors, equal to the size of its delegation in both Houses of Congress combined. Generally, the ticket that wins the most votes in a state wins all of that state’s electoral votes, and thus has its slate of electors chosen to vote in the Electoral College.

The winning slate of electors meet at its state’s capital on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, about six weeks after the election, to vote. They then send a record of that vote to Congress. The vote of the electors is opened by the sitting vice president, acting in his capacity as President of the Senate, and is read aloud to a joint session of the incoming Congress, which is elected at the same time as the President.

Electoral College

Electoral college map for the 2012, 2016 and 2020 United States presidential elections, using apportionment data released by the US Census Bureau.

Pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment, the President’s term of office begins at noon on January 20 of the year following the election. This date, known as Inauguration Day, marks the beginning of the four-year term of both the President and the vice president. Before executing the powers of the office, a President is constitutionally required to take the presidential oath.

8.2.4: The General Election Campaign

Learning Objective

Identify the features that distinguish American elections from those in other democracies

Key Points

• In U.S. politics, general elections occur every four years and include the presidential election.
• One of the most important aspects of the major American political campaign is the ability to raise large sums of money, especially early on in the race.
• Campaigns often dispatch volunteers into local communities to meet with voters and persuade people to support the candidate.

Key Terms

general elections

In the United States, these regulation elections of candidates occur every four years and include the presidential election.

campaign

An organized effort to influence the decision making process within a specific group when seeking election to political office.

partisan

An adherent to a party or faction.

Example

• In general elections citizens can actively participate in campaigning for their preferred political party. Citizens can act as volunteers who are also responsible for identifying supporters, recruiting them as volunteers, or registering them to vote if they are not already registered. The identification of supporters is useful later on during campaigns when voters are reminded to cast their votes.

General Elections in the United States

In presidential systems, a general election refers to a regularly scheduled election, where both the president, and either “a class” of or all members of the national legislature are elected at the same time. A general election day may also include elections for local officials.

In U.S. politics, general elections occur every four years and include the presidential election. Some parallels can be drawn between the general election in parliamentary systems and the biennial elections determining all House seats. There is no analogue to “calling early elections” in the U.S., however, and the members of the elected U.S. Senate face elections of only one-third at a time at two year intervals including during a general election.

Types of Elections

The United States is unusual in that dozens of different offices are filled by election, from drain commissioner to the President of the United States. Elections happen every year, on many different dates, and in many different areas of the country.

All federal elections including elections for the President and the Vice President, as well as elections to the House of Representatives and Senate, are partisan. Elections to most but not all statewide offices are partisan-oriented, and all state legislatures except for Nebraska are partisan-oriented.

Some state and local offices are non-partisan, these often include judicial elections, special district elections (the most common of which are elections to the school board, and elections to municipal (town council, city commission, mayor) and county (county commission, district attorney, sheriff) office. In some cases, candidates of the same political party challenge each other. Additionally, in many cases there are no campaign references to political parties, but sometimes even non-partisan races take on partisan overtones.

Process of Campaigning

Major campaigns in the United States are often much longer than those in other democracies. The first part of any campaign is for a candidate to decide to run in elections. Prospective candidates will often speak with family, friends, professional associates, elected officials, community leaders, and the leaders of political parties before deciding to run. Candidates are often recruited by political parties and lobby groups interested in electing like-minded politicians. During this period, people considering running for office will consider their ability to put together the money, organization, and public image needed to get elected. Many campaigns for major office do not progress past this point, as people often do not feel confident in their ability to win. However, some candidates lacking the resources needed for a competitive campaign proceed with an inexpensive paper campaign or informational campaign designed to raise public awareness and support for their positions.

Nixon Meets Crowds at Robins Air Force Base in Georgia

President Nixon “works the crowd” at Robins Air Force Base, Georgia in the initial stages of his campaign.

Once a person decides to run, they make a public announcement. This announcement consists of anything from a simple press release, to concerned media outlets, or a major media event followed by a speaking tour.

Funding for Campaigns

One of the most important aspects of the major American political campaign is the ability to raise large sums of money, especially early on in the race. Political insiders and donors often judge candidates based on their ability to raise money. Not raising enough money early on can lead to problems later as donors are not willing to give funds to candidates they perceive to be losing, a perception based on their poor fundraising performance.

Also during this period, candidates travel around the area they are running in and meet with voters; speaking to them in large crowds, small groups, or even one-on-one. This allows voters to get a better sense of who a candidate is, rather than just relying on what they read about in the paper or see on television.

Campaigns often dispatch volunteers into local communities to meet with voters and persuade people to support the candidate. The volunteers are also responsible for identifying supporters, recruiting them as volunteers or registering them to vote if they are not already registered. The identification of supporters is useful later, as campaigns remind voters to cast their votes.

Late in the campaign, campaigns will launch expensive television, radio, and direct mail campaigns aimed at persuading voters to support their candidate. Campaigns will also intensify their grassroots campaigns, coordinating their volunteers in a full court effort to win votes.

8.3: Political Candidates

8.3.1: Eligibility

Eligibility requirements restrict who can run for a given public office.

Learning Objective

Give examples of eligibility requirements for various offices

Key Points

• Virtually all electoral systems have some eligibility requirements, such as a minimum age to run for office.
• Even within a single jurisdiction, eligibility requirements may vary by office; there are more stringent restrictions on who can run for president than on who can run for Senate in the U.S.
• The natural born citizen clause places a Constitutional limitation on who can run for president in the U.S., limiting the office to natural born citizens.

Key Terms

eligibility requirement

Statutory restrictions on who is entitled to hold a given public office.

natural born citizen

Any person who is entitled to American citizenship by birth.

Example

• The controversial “birther” movement that has questioned the validity of President Obama’s American birth certificate is an example of debate involving the natural born citizenship clause. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was born in Mexico to American parents, illustrating that natural born citizenship does not depend on place of birth, but rather whether one is entitled to citizenship at birth.

Different voting jurisdictions set different eligibility requirements for candidates to run for office. In partisan election systems, such as those in place for U.S. Presidential and Congressional elections, the only people eligible to run in a general election are those nominated by a political party or who have successfully petitioned to be on the ballot. In non-partisan elections, there may be fewer restrictions on those who can be listed on a ballot, with no requirements for party or popular support.

Virtually all electoral systems, whether partisan or non-partisan, have some minimum eligibility requirements to run for office. For example, candidates are generally required to be a certain age. In some jurisdictions, individuals may be eligible to campaign when they reach the age of legal majority, which is often 18. Elsewhere, candidates may need to be older; for example, in U.S. Presidential campaigns, candidates must be at least 35 years old.

Eligibility requirements may also vary by political office within a given jurisdiction. The President of the U.S. must be a natural-born citizen, due to the natural-born citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution . There has been some legal debate over what constitutes natural born citizenship, particularly regarding cases where an individual is born outside the U.S. to American citizens or in cases of adoption. Generally, however, natural born citizenship is understood to include anyone who is entitled to U.S. citizenship at birth, even if they are born outside of the U.S. Over the years, multiple presidential candidates have been born in foreign countries or U.S. territories, but have met the natural born citizenship eligibility requirement because they were born to American citizens.

Natural Born Citizen Clause

The U.S. Constitution limits eligibility for the office of president to individuals who are natural born citizens of the U.S.

In offices other than that of the President, eligibility requirements tend to be less stringent. For example, according to the Constitution, members of the U.S. House of Representatives must be over the age of 25 and an American citizen for at least seven years. The Senate’s minimum age requirement is 30 and nine years an American citizen. Both chambers of Congress require members to be residents of the state they seek to represent. House members are not required to live in their districts. For local offices, the requirements are often even less strict — in certain jurisdictions, local officials simply need to be current citizens over the age of 18 who have established local residency.

8.3.2: Nominating Candidates

Nomination is the process through which political candidates are chose to campaign for election to office.

Learning Objective

Describe the steps by which a candidate appears on the ballot in a general election

Key Points

• In representative democracies, candidates are nominated to run for office and then are placed on a ballot to seek election.
• In the United States, political parties are largely responsible for nominating candidates.
• In contested elections, candidates participate in primary elections to become their party’s nominee in the general election.

Key Terms

political party

A political organization that subscribes to a certain ideology and seeks to attain political power through representation in government.

primary election

A preliminary election to select a political candidate of a political party.

nominating convention

A meeting of the major figures in a political party to outline a party platform, set party rules, select a nominee for president as well as rally supporters.

Example

• In the 2012 U.S. presidential election, Mitt Romney was the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee before the party’s national convention; he was not officially nominated by the party, but because he had won the party’s primary election, the official nomination at the convention was a mere formality.

Nomination is part of the process of selecting a candidate for election to office. In a representative democracy, such as the United States, citizens vote to elect individuals to public offices. Examples of elected officials include at the federal level, the president; at the state level, a state representative; and at the local level, a city council member. In order to have their names listed on election ballots, individuals seeking these offices must first be nominated.

In the United States, nominees are often chosen by political parties. Political parties are organizations that subscribe to a certain ideology, articulated in the party’s platform, and that seek to attain political power through representation in government. The two largest political parties in the United States are the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, but there also are smaller parties, such as the Libertarian Party and the Green Party. To nominate candidates, political parties hold primary elections. Primary elections are used to narrow the field of candidates for the general election. In a primary, several members of the same political party campaign to become their party’s nominee in the general election. In the general election, nominees from each party compete against each other to be elected to office.

In order to formally select candidates for a presidential election, American political parties hold nominating conventions . The official purpose of these conventions is to select the party’s nominee for president, as well as to adopt a statement of party principles and goals, known as the platform. In modern presidential campaigns, however, nominating conventions are largely ceremonial. Due to changes in election laws, the primary and caucus calendar, and the manner in which political campaigns are run, parties enter their conventions with presumptive nominees. During primary campaigns, state delegates are assigned to a primary candidate based on the outcome of a statewide vote. Whichever primary candidate emerges from the primary election with the most delegates becomes the party’s presumptive nominee. The presumptive nominee is not formally nominated until the national convention, but he or she is all but assured of a place on the ballot in the general election by the conclusion of the primary season.

2008 Democratic National Convention

Modern nominating conventions are largely ceremonial affairs, intended to strengthen party support of its presumptive nominee.

When candidates for national, state, or local office are not affiliated with a political party, they may be nominated as candidates if they receive a sufficient number of signatures from eligible voters (though the specific requirements vary by voting jurisdiction). In a case where an independent, or unaffiliated, candidate receives sufficient signatures, his or her name will appear on the ballot in the general election. These candidates do not need to participate in primary elections, since they are not seeking the nomination of a political party.

8.3.3: Electing Candidates

An election is a decision-making process used in a democracy to choose public office holders based on a vote.

Learning Objective

Define the electorate

Key Points

• Modern representative democracies use elections to determine a range of national, state, and local officials.
• Voting jurisdictions use different electoral systems to determine the outcome of elections, which may result in political parties receiving either a proportion of open seats or total control of a governmental body.
• The electorate is the group of eligible voters in an election, and may be limited by restrictions such as citizenship or residency requirements, age requirements, or property-owning requirements.

Key Terms

electorate

The collective people of a country, state, or electoral district who are entitled to vote.

election

A process of choosing a leader, members of parliament, councillors or other representatives by popular vote.

electoral system

The detailed constitutional arrangements and voting laws that convert the vote into a political decision.

An election is a formal decision-making process by which a population chooses an individual to hold public office. Generally, elections consist of voters casting ballots at polling places on a scheduled election day . Elections have been the usual mechanism by which representative democracies have operated since the 17^th century. Elections may fill offices in the legislature, the executive and judiciary, and regional and local government.

Casting a Ballot

Many electoral systems require voters to cast ballots at official, regulated polling places.

Electoral systems are the detailed constitutional arrangements and voting laws that convert the vote into a political decision. The first step in determining the results of an election is to tally the votes, for which various vote counting systems and ballot types are used. Electoral systems then determine the result of the election on the basis of the tally. Most electoral systems can be categorized as either proportional or majoritarian. In a proportional electoral system, a political party receives a percentage of seats in a governmental body in proportion to the number of votes it receives. In a majoritarian system, one party receives all of the seats in question if it receives the majority of votes. Strictly majoritarian systems are rare in modern democracies due to their tendency for suppressing minority views. For example, in the United States presidential elections are dependent upon the allocation of delegates from the electoral college. The number of delegates that each state has is proportional to the state’s population, but all of a state’s delegates are assigned to the presidential candidate who wins the majority of votes in the state. This electoral system is neither strictly majoritarian nor proportional; state delegates are not allocated to candidates in proportion to the votes they receive, but neither is winning the popular vote sufficient to ensure a candidate’s election. This system is intended to provide smaller states and less densely populated regions with influence in national elections.

The question of who may vote is a central issue in elections. The electorate, or the group of people who are eligible to vote, does not generally include the entire population. For example, many countries prohibit those judged mentally incompetent from voting, and all jurisdictions require a minimum age for voting. Historically, jurisdictions have excluded groups such as women, blacks, immigrants, and non-property owners from the electorate. Most national elections require that voters are citizens, and many local elections require proof of local residency to vote.

8.3.4: Likeability of Political Candidates

Candidates run for office by orchestrating expensive campaigns designed to increase their appeal to the electorate.

Learning Objective

Identify the reasons the electorate might be drawn to a particular candidate

Key Points

• The primary trait by which voters evaluate candidates is political ideology, referring to how liberal or conservative the candidate’s views are.
• Political ideology tends to be inferred from political party membership, with the Republican and Democratic parties being seen as conservative and liberal respectively in the U.S.
• Apart from ideology, traits such as likeability and access to funds may determine a campaign’s success or lack thereof.

Key Terms

campaign

An organized effort to influence the decision making process within a specific group when seeking election to political office.

campaign message

The ideas that the candidate wants to share with the voters, often consisting of several talking points about policy issues.

likeability

The property that makes a person likeable, that allows them to be liked.

Candidates running for election to public office need to appeal to the electorate in order to acquire votes. Accordingly, candidates run campaigns aimed at establishing a popular campaign message and convincing voters of the candidate’s likeability.

In many elections, candidates are primarily differentiated by being either liberal or conservative. A candidate’s liberal or conservative ideology is usually expressed by affiliation with a political party — in the U.S. the Republican Party is understood to be conservative and the Democratic Party is understood to be liberal. A candidate’s stated political ideology may be treated as a proxy for their position on a range of policy issues. One’s stance on economic regulation, immigration, and abortion, for example, may be inferred from political party membership. In large part, this association is supported by political parties’ platforms in the U.S. At the same national convention where parties nominate candidates for president, they formalize a platform enumerating party beliefs and objectives. When a candidate for state or national office affiliates with a party, they are therefore associated with that party’s written platform.

Apart from ideology, less explicit factors such as likeability and access to resources impact candidates’ campaigns. Likeability refers to whether or not the electorate generally likes a candidate, as measured by opinion polls . Likeability is thought to play a significant role in electoral politics but is difficult to access in campaigns. Politicians may consciously attempt to augment their likeability by donating to charities, telling jokes during speeches, or posing for photos with voters. However, likeability can be difficult for politicians and political strategists to control.

Voter Opinion Poll

Polling agencies conduct surveys of potential voters during election seasons to measure how the electorate ranks the traits of candidates.

A major critique of large scale electoral politics in the U.S. and other democracies is that a candidate’s wealth has too much influence in the election’s outcome. Modern campaigns usually include television and radio ads, extensive travel, and large organizations of strategists and organizers. Thus, campaigns have become extremely expensive. Major candidates generally need to have immense personal wealth or successful fundraising networks to compete in national campaigns. Therefore, access to monetary resources is an important trait for candidates to possess.

8.4: Presidential Elections

8.4.1: Primaries and Caucuses

Primary elections and caucuses are used to narrow the field of candidates in each major political party before a general election.

Learning Objective

Summarize the primary system and how a primary differs from a caucus

Key Points

• In American politics, the two major political parties provide networks of voters and advocates and financial resources to candidates, therefore, candidates seek their nomination before entering general elections.
• Primaries and caucuses occur at the state level and allow candidates to campaign on a smaller scale to seek nomination before entering the national campaign.
• The structure of primaries and caucuses varies by state, with some contests requiring official affiliation with a party in order to cast a vote in the nominating election.

Key Terms

general election campaign

an organized effort which seeks to influence who is voted into the office of presidency and other federal and state legislative offices

closed primary

an election in which only party members are allowed to vote, and during which they choose their party’s candidates for an upcoming general election

delegate

A person authorized to act as representative for another; in politics, a party representative allocated to nominate a party candidate.

caucus

A meeting, especially a preliminary meeting, of persons belonging to a party, to nominate candidates for public office, or to select delegates to a nominating convention, or to confer regarding measures of party policy; a political primary meeting.

primary election

A preliminary election to select a political candidate of a political party.

Example

• The Iowa caucuses are the first nominating election to occur in the presidential primary season and, therefore, they often have a significant impact on later primaries. In 2008, a win in the Iowa caucuses gave candidate Barack Obama a major boost; a win in 2000 had the same result for George W. Bush.

In America’s two-party political system, political parties rely on primary elections and caucuses to nominate candidates for general elections. Political parties provide resources to the candidates they nominate, including endorsements, social contacts, and financial support. Consequently, attaining a party nomination by winning a primary election or caucus is a necessary step to becoming a major election candidate. Primaries are held on different dates in different states and give national candidates an opportunity to campaign to smaller audiences than during the general election. The candidate who wins each state vote is granted a certain number of delegates,depending on the state’s size, and the candidate with the most party delegates becomes the party’s general election nominee. Not every election is preceded by a primary season, but most major races, such as presidential and congressional races, use primaries to narrow the field of candidates.

Primary Elections

Primaries began to be widely used in the United States during the Progressive Era in the early 1900s. The impetus behind establishing them was to give more power to voters, rather than allowing behind the scenes political maneuverers to choose major candidates. In modern elections, primaries are seen as beneficial to both voters and parties in many ways – voters are able to choose between a range of candidates who fit within a broader liberal or conservative ideology, and parties are able to withhold support of a candidate until they have demonstrated an ability to gain public support.

Primary rules vary by state, as does the importance of their outcomes. Primaries may be classified as closed, semi-closed, semi-open, or open. In a closed primary, only voters who are registered with the party holding the primary are allowed to vote. In other words, registered Republicans can only vote to choose a candidate from the Republican field, and Democrats can only vote in the Democratic primary. In a semi-closed system, voters need not register with a party before the election, therefore independent voters may choose to vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary. In an open primary system, voters can vote in either primary regardless of affiliation. Open primaries are the most controversial form in American politics. Supporters argue that open primaries give more power to the voter and less to the party, since voters are not tied to voting for a party that does not produce a good candidate. Critics, however, argue that open primaries will lead to vote raiding, a practice in which party members vote in the opposing party’s primary in an attempt to nominate a weak candidate.

Caucuses

Whereas primaries follow the same polling practices as general elections, caucuses are structured quite differently. In nominating caucuses, small groups of voters and state party representatives meet to nominate a candidate. Caucuses vary between the states in which they are held, however, generally they include speeches from party representatives, voter debate, and then voting by either a show of hands or a secret ballot . Like primaries, caucuses result in state delegates being allocated to a particular candidate, to nominate that candidate to the general election. The vast majority of states use primaries to nominate a candidate, but caucuses are notably used in Iowa, which is traditionally the first state to vote in the primary/caucus season. Since Iowa is first, it has a large impact on the primary season, as it gives one candidate from each party an advantage as they move into other state votes. Due to its small population and the small-scale, intimate structure of its caucuses, Iowa is notorious for allowing lesser- known candidates to do unexpectedly well.

Washington State Caucus

Caucuses occur in small settings and often include lively debate by party members.

8.4.2: The National Convention

Political parties hold national conventions to nominate candidates for the presidency and to decide on a platform.

Learning Objective

Compare contemporary political conventions with those in middle 19th-century

Key Points

• National party conventions are designed to officially nominate the party’s candidate and develop a statement of purpose and principles called the party platform. Informally, political parties use the conventions to build support for their candidates.
• From the point of view of the parties, the convention cycle begins with the Call to Convention. Usually issued about 18 months in advance, the Call is an invitation from the national party to the state and territory parties to convene to select a presidential nominee.
• Each party sets its own rules for the participation and format of the convention. Broadly speaking, each U.S. state and territory party is apportioned a select number of voting representatives, individually known as delegates and collectively as the delegation.
• The convention is typically held in a major city selected by the national party organization 18–24 months before the election is to be held.
• Each convention produces a statement of principles known as its platform, containing goals and proposals known as planks. Relatively little of a party platform is even proposed as public policy.
• The evening’s speeches – designed for broadcast to a large national audience—are reserved for major speeches by notable, respected public figures.

Key Terms

party platform

A statement of principles and purpose issued by a political party.

national convention

a political convention held in the United States every four years by political parties fielding candidates in the upcoming presidential election.

planks

Planks refer to the goals and proposals in the platform of a political party.

Example

• The selection of individual delegates and their alternates, too, is governed by the bylaws of each state party, or in some cases by state law. The 2004 Democratic National Convention counted 4,353 delegates and 611 alternates.

Introduction

A national convention is a political convention held in the United States every four years by political parties fielding candidates in the upcoming presidential election. National party conventions are designed to officially nominate the party’s candidate and develop a statement of purpose and principles called the party platform. Informally, political parties use the conventions to build support for their candidates.

Major political parties in the early 1830s were the first to use the political convention. These were often heated affairs, with delegates from each state playing a major role in determining the party’s national nominee . The term “dark horse candidate” was coined at the 1844 Democratic National Convention when little-known Tennessee politician James K. Polk emerged as the candidate after the leading candidates failed to secure the necessary two-thirds majority vote.

Democratic National Convention (1876)

An image from a newspaper article about the 1876 Democratic National Convention in St. Louis, MO.

There is no such suspense at modern conventions. Due to primaries and increased access to national news, each party essentially knows who its candidate will be before the convention. Instead, modern conventions serve to rally support for the candidate . Conventions today are largely ceremonial events with little influence on the presidential campaign beyond how the convention is received in the press.

Democratic Party, 2008

An image of future President Barack Obama and Vice-President Joe Biden after they were officially nominated for the Democratic ticket at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

Logistics

From the point of view of the parties, the convention cycle begins with the Call to Convention. Usually issued about 18 months in advance, the Call is an invitation from the national party to the state and territory parties to convene to select a presidential nominee. It also sets out the number of delegates to be awarded to each, as well as the rules for the nomination process. One reason for the late conventions has to do with campaign finance laws, which allow the candidates to spend an unlimited amount of money before the convention, but forbid fundraising after the convention, in order for the parties to receive federal campaign funds.

Each party sets its own rules for the participation and format of the convention. Broadly speaking, each U.S. state and territory party is apportioned a select number of voting representatives, individually known as delegates and collectively as the delegation. Each party uses its own formula for determining the size of each delegation, factoring in such considerations as population, proportion of that state’s Congressional representatives or state government officials who are members of the party, and the state’s voting patterns in previous presidential elections. The selection of individual delegates and their alternates, too, is governed by the bylaws of each state party, or in some cases by state law. The 2004 Democratic National Convention counted 4,353 delegates and 611 alternates.

The convention is typically held in a major city selected by the national party organization 18–24 months before the election is to be held. As the two major conventions have grown into large, publicized affairs with significant economic impact, cities today compete vigorously to be awarded host responsibilities, citing their meeting venues, lodging facilities, and entertainment as well as offering economic incentives.

Proceedings

Each convention produces a statement of principles known as its platform, containing goals and proposals known as planks. Relatively little of a party platform is even proposed as public policy. Much of the language is generic, while other sections are narrowly written to appeal to factions or interest groups within the party. Unlike electoral manifestos in many European countries, the platform is not binding on either the party or the candidate. Because it is ideological rather than pragmatic, however, the platform is sometimes itself politicized. For example, defenders of abortion lobbied heavily to remove the Human Life Amendment plank from the 1996 Republican National Convention platform, a move fiercely resisted by conservatives despite the fact that no such amendment had ever come up for debate. Given the same routines and repetition of proceedings, presidential nominating conventions have become predictable for observers of the political process.

Minor figures in the party are given the opportunity to address the floor of the convention during the daytime, when only the small audiences of C-SPAN and other cable television outlets are watching. The evening’s speeches – designed for broadcast to a large national audience—are reserved for major speeches by notable, respected public figures; the speakers at the 2004 Democratic convention included Ted Kennedy, a forty-year veteran of the United States Senate, and Jimmy Carter, a former Democratic President, while at the Republican convention speakers included Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Governor George Pataki of New York, two of the largest states in the nation.

8.4.3: The General Election Campaign

The presidential general election occurs after the primary season and is the process through which a national vote chooses the president.

Learning Objective

Describe the steps involved in conducting a presidential campaign

Key Points

• The general election campaign lasts from the end of the primary season in June until the general vote in November and is a contest between the nominated candidate from each major political party.
• General election campaigns tend to focus their efforts on swing states, or states in which there is no clear Democratic or Republican majority, because state Electoral College electors are allocated on a winner-takes-all basis.
• General election campaigns are extremely expensive, so candidates exert substantial effort to convince not only voters but also donors to support their candidacy.

Key Terms

electoral college

A set of electors who are selected to elect a candidate to a particular office, allocated based on statewide votes.

general election

An election, usually held at regular intervals, in which candidates are elected in all or most constituencies or electoral districts of a nation.

primary season

The first stage of a presidential election, in which candidates from each party compete against members from their own party for the party’s nomination.

Example

• The 2012 campaign between Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama is an example of a general election for president.

In the United States, a presidential election is held every four years and includes both a primary season and a general election. During the primary season, the two major political parties narrow the field of candidates through state votes to nominate the party’s candidate for the general election. Because parties provide candidates with voter and staff networks and material resources, they have an incentive to present a unified front and only support one candidate, hence, winning the primary season is a necessary first step to becoming a major candidate in a general election. In the primary season, candidates compete against other members of their party to win a majority of votes from voters within their own party. By contrast, in the general election, candidates from each party compete against each other, and voters are able to vote for either candidate at the polls.

The winner of a presidential general election is not simply the person who receives the majority of votes nationwide. Instead, votes are allocated indirectly through members of the Electoral College. Under this system, statewide elections take place in which voters cast ballots for candidates. Whichever candidate wins the majority of votes in the state receives that state’s Electoral College votes. Electoral College votes are divided proportionally based on state population, meaning that larger states have more influence in the election than smaller ones . Because a candidate only needs to win a majority of votes in the state to receive all of its Electoral College votes, this system has lead to election strategies in which states with a solid Republican or Democratic majority are not contested by candidates. Instead, candidates focus their campaigns on so-called “swing states. ” Swing states are those without a clear majority party, in which all of the state’s Electoral College votes are therefore up for grabs. The most notorious swing states in recent years have been Florida and Ohio, since each is generally unpredictable, and each has a significant number of Electoral College electors.

Electoral College (2008)

In the presidential general election, the winner is determined based on who receives the greatest number of votes in the Electoral College system.

Because candidates in the general election must appeal to vast numbers of voters across a large geographic range, general elections are immensely expensive. Candidates tend to fund their campaigns in part with their personal wealth but also by fundraising extensively. Fundraising may include appealing to wealthy large donors, organizing grassroots campaigns to amass small donations from large numbers of voters, or tapping into political party funds. In recent years, PACs or political action committees, have arisen to amass large funds and produce campaign advertisements on behalf of their favored candidates. A 2010 Supreme Court decision in the case known as Citizens United further paved the way for PACs to exert a large influence in general elections. According to Citizens United, contributions to PACs are not limited so long as the PACs are not directly affiliated with a candidate. Consequently, the 2012 election has witnessed a rise of “super-PACs,” political action committees with unprecedented purchasing power who have produced numerous expensive TV and print ads.

The presidential general election lasts from the end of the primary season, usually in June, until the vote on the first Tuesday of November. Since the president is the most visible elected official in the country, the election season is so long, and so much money is spent on advertising, the presidential general election has greater voter turnout than any other U.S. election. Even so, voter turnout usually hovers at or below 60% of eligible voters. In some cases, voter turnout strongly impacts the outcome of elections. As a general rule, white elderly voters turnout more reliably than any other demographic group, and they vote consistently Republican. Thus, some analysts argue that high turnout favors Democratic candidates, since the turnout increase usually indicates greater number of young and minority voters.

8.4.4: The Electoral College

The Electoral College is the 538 person body that elects the President and the Vice President of the United States.

Learning Objective

Assess the compatibility of the Electoral College system with the nation’s federalist and democratic commitments

Key Points

• The Electoral College is an example of indirect election, or a proces in which voters in an election do not actually choose between candidates for an office but rather elect persons who will then make the choice.
• American presidential elections are not decided by popular vote.
• The members of the Electoral College are divided by represented states and are scaled based on the population from each state.

Key Terms

swing state

A state which may vote Democratic or Republican, in a given election or generally; a purple state.

indirect election

a process in which voters in an election do not actually choose between candidates for an office but rather elect persons who will then make the choice.

Indirect Election

The Electoral College is an example of indirect election, when a democratic government is voted into power by a representative vote, rather than by the entirety of the electorate. The Electoral College consists of 538 electors who officially elect the President and Vice President of the United States. The number of electors equals the total voting membership of the United States Congress, with one elector for each of the current 435 Representatives and 100 Senators. The Electoral College also includes three electors from the District of Columbia, which were approved in the Twenty-third Amendment to the Constitution, in 1961. That results in 538 total electors.

Allocation of Electors

Each state is awarded the same number of electoral votes as the number of its Representatives, plus two votes to match its Senatorial count. Since the most populous states have the most seats in the House of Representatives, they also have the most electors. The six states with the most electors are California (55), Texas (38), New York (29), Florida (29), Illinois (20), and Pennsylvania (20). The seven smallest states by population in the Electoral College (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming) have three electors. Each state’s number of Representatives is determined every 10 years by the US Census, thus determining the number of electoral votes for each state.

Electoral College (2008)

In the presidential general election, the winner is determined based on who receives the greatest number of votes in the Electoral College system.

Thus, though many people do not realize it, Presidential and Vice-Presidential elections are determined not by a popular vote. Although ballots list the names of the presidential candidates, voters within the 50 states and Washington, D.C. actually choose electors for their state when they vote for President and Vice President. These presidential electors in turn cast electoral votes for those two offices. Even though the aggregate national popular vote is calculated by state officials and media organizations, the national popular vote is not the basis for electing a President or Vice President.

A faithless elector is a member of the United States Electoral College who, for whatever reason, does not vote for the presidential or vice presidential candidate for whom he or she had pledged to vote. They may vote for another candidate or not vote at all. Faithless electors are pledged electors and thus different from unpledged electors. Although there have been 157 cases of faithlessness, faithless electors have not changed the outcome of any presidential election to date.

Exceptions

Voters in each state and the District of Columbia cast ballots selecting electors pledged to presidential and vice presidential candidates. In nearly all states, electors are awarded to the candidate who wins the most votes in that state on a winner-take-all basis. This means that if Candidate A wins 51% of the popular vote in a given state and Candidate B wins 49%, Candidate A would take all of the Electoral College votes for this state. Only Maine and Nebraska award Electoral College votes on a proportional basis. Although electors are not required by federal law to honor a pledge, in the overwhelming majority of cases they vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged.

Evaluations of the Electoral System

Critics argue that the Electoral College is inherently undemocratic and gives swing states disproportionate influence in electing the President and Vice President. Swing states are those that are up for grabs in any given election; historically, they have swung back and forth between Democrats and Republicans. However, many of them have large numbers of Electoral College votes, meaning that candidates play to voters in swing states more than in other states. Further, some maintain that it is a doctrinal problem that presidential elections in the United States are not decided by popular vote.

Campaign Attention to Swing States (2004)

These maps show the amount of attention the Bush and Kerry campaigns (considered together) gave to each state during the final five weeks of the 2004 election: At the top, each waving hand represents a visit from a presidential or vice-presidential candidate during the final five weeks of the election. (Candidates’ visits to their own home states are not counted. ) At the bottom, each dollar sign represents one million dollars spent on TV advertising by the campaigns during the same time period. This shows the influence of the Electoral College on the prominence of swing states, those with small populations but large Electoral College votes.

Proponents argue that the Electoral College is an important, distinguishing feature of federalism in the United States and that it protects the rights of smaller states. Many proponents of the Electoral College see its negative effect on third parties as a good thing. They argue that the two party system has provided stability through its ability to change during times of rapid political and cultural change. They believe it protects the most powerful office in the country from control by what these proponents view as regional minorities until they can moderate their views to win national election.

8.4.5: Presidential Candidates

Presidential candidates seek the highest office of the executive branch of government and carry out campaigns in pursuit of election.

Learning Objective

Assess the costs and benefits — to candidates and the public — of the two party system

Key Points

• The U.S. has a two party political system in which most influential presidential candidates have the endorsement of a major political party.
• Presidential candidates in the United States must conduct extensive fundraising efforts to successfully acquire advertising time and campaign staffs.
• The U.S. Constitution places restrictions on who can run for presidential office, including that they must be 35 years old and a natural-born citizen.

Key Terms

PAC

A political action committee, which is any organization in the United States that campaigns for or against political candidates, ballot initiatives, or legislation.

candidate

A person who is running in an election or who is applying to a position for a job.

election

A process of choosing a leader, members of parliament, councillors or other representatives by popular vote.

Example

• Presidential candidates engage in debates over governing strategies and policy positions in an attempt to secure votes in the general election.

Background

In democratic countries, the head of state or the head of the executive branch of government, is often called the president. Presidents are usually elected to office by a democratic election. Elections may depend upon a candidate, or a person who is seeking presidential office, winning the popular vote. Likewise, elections can also depend on the candidate winning a certain proportion of a vote as determined by election guidelines. For example, in the United States, presidential candidates must win a majority of votes as allocated by the electoral college, which depends upon the candidate winning the popular vote in individual states rather than in the nation at large. By contrast, in France a candidate must win over 50% of the popular vote to be elected to office. This means that if there are more than two candidates in the race and they split the popular vote, there is often a runoff election to determine who becomes the president.

U.S. Presidential Candidates

The United States has generally embraced a two party political system, in which two primary candidates seek the office of president. Historically, the two parties have changed many times, but elections have usually involved a conservative and a liberal party — in modern days, the Republican and Democratic parties. There are some notable exceptions in which third party candidates had an impact on elections, such as the candidacy of Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 and Ross Perot in 1992, but by and large candidates must have the backing of a major party in order to be influential. The benefits of party membership include a pre-existing voter base, but perhaps more significantly, access to a fundraising network. The endorsement of a political party ensures that presidential candidates have access to a powerful network of political strategists and wealthy donors.

The importance of financial resources cannot be underestimated when talking about United States presidential candidates. Presidential campaigns cost substantial amounts of money because candidates need print, radio, and television ads, as well as large staffs of campaign organizers, in order to be successful. However, in recent years the role of fundraising has increased, as campaign contributions have grown. Political action committees, commonly known as PACs, are groups of donors and advocates who band together to fund advertisements and events on behalf of candidates. The 2010 Supreme Court decision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission further paved the way for large campaign contributions by allowing unlimited contributions to so-called “super PACs,” or political action committees that are not directly connected to candidates. As a result of the decision, there is no limit on the size of allowable campaign contributions. Super PACs generally support a candidate by attaining large contributions for expensive television ads. Since they are not directly tied to candidates, super PACs often produce attack ads, or negative ads against opposing candidates, that the primary parties would not explicitly endorse.

As a result of the cost of presidential campaigns, many U.S. presidential candidates tend to be wealthy. However, there are other restrictions on candidacy that also impact who runs. The U.S. Constitution requires that candidates are natural-born U.S. citizens who are at least 35 years old at the time of election. Unofficially, presidents tend to be educated at elite institutions, and only one U.S. president has practiced a religion other than that of the mainstream protestant faith (John F. Kennedy was Catholic). Some evidence indicates that historical candidacy trends may be changing, though. For example, President Barack Obama was the first non-white U.S. president to be elected. Also, 2012 Republican candidate Mitt Romney is Mormon, which is considered by many to be a fringe protestant denomination. While no women have been elected to the highest office in the U.S., Hillary Clinton’s ran in  2008, and in 2016 was the Democratic Party’s first female nominee, indicating the “glass ceiling” may soon be shattered.

8.4.6: Campaigning: Traditional Media, New Media, and Campaign Advertisements

Campaigns seek to engage the public through traditional forms of media, such as television and the press, and more recently, social media.

Learning Objective

Compare and contrast traditional and contemporary ways in which candidates interact with the media and the public

Key Points

• Presidential campaigns have always worked closely with journalists to present a particular image of the candidate.
• Today, candidates are expected to be fluent in social media. President Barack Obama used social media effectively in the 2008 election to reach out to young voters.
• Campaign television ads are used to reach broad audiences. Ads can either be positive, supporting the views of the particular candidate buying the air time, or negative, deriding the candidate’s opponent.

Key Terms

campaign advertisements

Television ads sponsored by political campaigns to reach broad audiences and convince the masses to vote for the sponsoring candidate.

social media

Interactive forms of media that allow users to interact with and publish to each other, generally by means of the Internet.

Example

• Campaigns seek to actively engage with the media in order to present a particular image of the candidate. In the 2008 campaign, Republican candidate Senator John McCain created a unique space to engage with journalists, inviting them to travel with him on his campaign bus, called “the Straight Talk Express,” in reference to his engagement with journalists

Engaging with the media is an essential part of any presidential campaign. Usually, the candidate’s campaign manager is tasked with engaging with the media. Although people often assume that candidates are elected because of their policy positions, many presidential elections are won and lost based on likability of the candidate. Americans only “get to know” a candidate through the representation of the candidate in the media.

Throughout the history of American elections, journalists have followed candidates as they advertised their positions, gave speeches, and visited American towns. This tradition continues today, with certain journalists being given the sole responsibility of following candidates. In the 2008 campaign, Republican candidate Senator John McCain created a unique space to engage with journalists, inviting them to travel with him throughout the course of his campaign on his campaign bus, called “the Straight Talk Express” in reference to his engagement with journalists.

Campaign journalism has developed with the times. With the advent of television, TV reporters were sent to cover elections. Campaign engagement with the media has changed again with the proliferation of social media. Today, candidates are expected to have Facebook and Twitter accounts and to be fluent in the language of social media. This was particularly clear by then-candidate Senator Barack Obama’s use of social media in the 2008 election. The campaign relied heavily on social media to engage voters, recruit campaign volunteers and raise funds. It brought the spotlight on the importance of using the internet in a new age of political campaigning by utilizing various forms of social media such as Facebook and YouTube to reach targeted audiences. In the 2008 and 2012 elections, Barack Obama supporters could sign up for volunteer shifts and donate funds through apps on their mobile phones. The campaign’s social website, my.BarackObama.com, utilized a low cost and efficient method of mobilizing voters and increasing participation among various voter populations. President Obama’s efforts to reach out through new media are credited with bringing in the support of young Americans and contributing to his 2008 victory . This practice has now become standard; Republican candidate Governor Mitt Romney also released an app in 2012.

President Obama Tweeting

This image shows President Obama answering tweets, demonstrating his proficiency with social media and appealing to younger voters.

But even with the rise of new media, campaigns continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars buying air time on television networks to put on campaign advertisements. Television ads have been popular because they are an effective way to reach millions of voters at once. Campaign ads can either be positive, supporting the views of the particular candidate buying the air time, or negative, deriding the candidate’s opponent. Television campaign ads have been accused of being manipulative, but have been incredibly successful in influencing voter perceptions of the candidates.

8.5: How Voters Decide

8.5.1: Party Identification

Party identification is typically determined by the political party that an individual most commonly supports.

Learning Objective

Discuss the central features that make up party identification

Key Points

• Party identification refers to the political party with which an individual identifies.
• In the United States, political parties consist of three parts: the party as government, the party as organization, and the party as electorate.
• Some researchers view party identification as “a form of social identity”, in the same way that a person identifies with a religious or ethnic group. This identity develops early in a person’s life mainly through family and social influences.
• Those who consider themselves to be strong partisans, strong Democrats and strong Republicans respectively, tend to be the most faithful in voting for their party’s nominee for office.
• The same level of voting behavior can also be applied to state and local levels. While straight ticket voting has declined among the general voting population, it is still prevalent in those who are strong Republicans and strong Democrats.

Key Terms

party identification

Party identification refers to the political party with which an individual identifies. Party identification is typically determined by the political party that an individual most commonly supports (by voting or other means).

partisan

An adherent to a party or faction.

Example

• Children remember events that happened during their childhood and associate them with the political party, whether or not they were connected with those events. For example, a child growing up in the 1970s would associate the Republican party with the Watergate scandal of the Nixon administration, a child growing up in the 1990s would associate the Democratic party with the sex scandal of the Clinton administration, or a child growing up in early 2000 would associate the Republican party with the Iraq War and the War on Terror.

Introduction

Party identification refers to the political party with which an individual identifies. Party identification is typically determined by the political party that an individual most commonly supports (by voting or other means). In the United States, political parties consist of three parts: the party as government (members of the party who hold public office), the party as organization (committees, leaders and activists who work to promote the party and the candidates), and the party as electorate (citizens who support the party through party identification).

Citizens in the general population who identify with a particular party make up the Party in the Electorate. Party identifiers (partisans) could be described by their support in the following ways:

• They register as a member of the particular party when registered to vote.
• They show a strong tendency to vote for candidates in their preferred party in most elections.
• When surveyed, they identify themselves as members of that particular party.
• They are inclined to support policies endorsed by the particular party.
• They volunteer for campaigns to support party candidates more than the general population.
• They have a higher voter turnout in primary elections than the general population.

Some researchers view party identification as “a form of social identity”, in the same way that a person identifies with a religious or ethnic group. This identity develops early in a person’s life mainly through family and social influences. This description would make party identification a stable perspective, which develops as a consequence of personal, family, social and environmental factors. Other researchers consider party identification to be more flexible and more of a conscious choice. They see it as a position and a choice based on the continued assessment of the political, economic and social environment. Party identification can increase or even shift by motivating events or conditions in the country.

Characterization

Party Identification is characterized in three ways. Some view party attachment as a form of social identity, which is similar to a religious or ethnic identity. Moreover, childhood influence is one of main driving factors behind formation of party identification. During childhood, the main political influence comes from parents, other close family members and close surroundings such as the immediate community. Children remember events that happened during their childhood and associate them with the political party, whether or not they were connected with those events. For example, a child growing up in the 1970s would associate the Republican party with the Watergate scandal of the Nixon administration, a child growing up in the 1990s would associate the Democratic party with the sex scandal of the Clinton administration, or a child growing up in early 2000 would associate the Republican party with the Iraq War and the War on Terror. Although these parties might or might not embrace the issues that happened during that administration, a child could forever associate the party with those memorable events. Political Scientists have developed many theories to childhood influence on political party identification. David O. Sears developed a theory stating that major childhood events will influence a child at a young age and make a permanent impression.

Voting

Those people who identify with a party tend to vote for their party’s candidate for various offices in high percentages. Those who consider themselves to be strong partisans, strong Democrats and strong Republicans respectively, tend to be the most faithful in voting for their party’s nominee for office. In the case of voting for president, since the 1970s, party identification on voting behavior has been increasing significantly. By the late 1990s, party identification on voting behavior was at the highest level of any election since the 1950s. When voting in congressional elections, the trend is similar. Strong party identifiers voted overwhelmingly for their party’s nominee in the general election. It is important to note that each party respectively in certain elections, would have stronger voting behavior of their strongest party identifiers. For instance, in the years the Democrats dominated House and Senate elections in the 1970s and 1980s, it can be explained that their strong party identifiers were more loyal in voting for their party’s nominee for Congress than the Republicans were.

The same level of voting behavior can also be applied to state and local levels. While straight ticket voting has declined among the general voting population, it is still prevalent in those who are strong Republicans and strong Democrats. According to Paul Allen Beck and colleagues, “the stronger an individual’s party identification was, the more likely he or she was to vote a straight ticket. “

Roll Call DNC

Those people who identify with a party tend to vote for their party’s candidate for various offices in high percentages. Those who consider themselves to be strong partisans, strong Democrats and strong Republicans respectively, tend to be the most faithful in voting for their party’s nominee for office.

8.5.2: Issue Voting

Issue voting is the process by which voters select candidates based on how closely their views on certain issues match the voter’s own.

Learning Objective

Describe issue voting and its relationship to larger trends in the electorate

Key Points

• Issue voting occurs when voters base their decisions on how the candidates address political issues.
• The rise in issue voting can be traced to increased polarization between the Democratic and Republican parties, which has increased numbers of independents.
• Issue voting can be problematic when candidates’ stances on issues do not match the voter’s own and when candidates possess similar views on issues.

Key Terms

issue voting

The type of voting that occurs when voters cast their vote based on political issues.

party voting

The type of voting that describes when voters cast their vote based on their self-identification with a particular political party.

In contrast to party voting, issue voting is when voters base their election decisions on political issues. These issues can relate to any questions of public policy that are a source of debate between political parties. The process of issue voting involves voters comparing their opinions about how certain issues should be addressed against candidates’ stances on these issues. Individuals vote for the candidate that best matches their own views.

Voting Booth

Issue voting has affected the decisions Americans make at the voting booth.

Issue voting has become prominent in recent elections. The in issue voting rise can be traced to increasing polarization between the Democratic and Republican parties. Moderates, who account for a large segment of the American population, become more alienated as each party adopts more extreme viewpoints. Subsequently, this alienation has led to an increase in the amount of people who identify as independents in order to escape the constraints of a polarized party. The loss of party identification affiliated with being an independent generates the greater issue voting.

While issue voting has risen in recent years, many factors can complicate it. For instance, many stances can be taken on issues and voters must settle for the candidate whose views most closely match their own. This becomes difficult when the available candidates have viewpoints that are vastly different from a voter’s views. Issue voting is also challenging when candidates possess similar views on issues and there is no clear distinction between the candidates’ views and the voter’s own. When the aforementioned situations take place, a voter may revert to party voting or may base their decision off of the individual personalities of the candidates. Similarly, issue salience is when people vote on the basis of how relevant an issue is to their lives.

Most issues that are part of the national agenda can sometimes be a consequence of media agenda-setting and agenda-building. In a commercialized media context, the media can often not afford to ignore an important issue which another television station, newspaper, or radio station is willing to pick up. The media may be able to create new issues by reporting and should that should be considered seriously. Also, they can obscure issues by reporting through negligence and distraction. If persons are affected by high crime rates, or unemployment, for instance, the media can reduce the time they report on potential solutions, the nature of class-based society or other related issues. They can reduce the direct awareness of these problems in the lives of the public. The media can make the problem in essence “go away” by obfuscating it. The public can go away to another media source, so it is in the media’s commercial interest to try to find an agenda which corresponds as closely as possible to peoples’ desires. They may not be entirely successful, but the agenda-setting potential of the media is considerably limited by the competition for the viewers’ interest, readers and listeners. It is difficult to see, for instance, how an issue which is a major story to one television station could be ignored by other television stations.

8.5.3: The Candidates

Due to a decrease in party identification, the personal traits of candidates have become an influential factor in voters’ decisions.

Learning Objective

Describe how and why candidates’ personal characteristics can be relevant to an election campaign

Key Points

• Increasing numbers of independents and problems with issue voting have made the personal traits of candidates an important factor in how voters decide.
• Candidates use their own personal attributes to relate to voters and use the negative personal attributes of their opponents to dissuade voters from supporting them.
• Candidates may use their upbringing, religious affiliations, and family to appeal to voters.

Key Terms

campaign

An organized effort to influence the decision making process within a specific group when seeking election to political office.

demographic

A demographic criterion: a characteristic used to classify people for statistical purposes, such as age, race, or gender.

The personal traits of candidates have become an influential factor in voters’ decisions during recent elections. Although issues currently remain central in many voters’ election decisions, issue voting can be difficult when candidates are closely aligned in their stances on given issues. Issue voting can also be problematic when candidates’ stances differ drastically from those of voters. At the same time, the United States has witnessed increasing polarization between the Democratic and Republican Parties that has caused many voters to identify themselves as independents. This increasing lack of party identification combined with the difficulties that arise with issue voting has resulted in voting decisions based on the personality and demographic traits of candidates.

Candidates are most often evaluated on their party affiliation and stances on prominent issues. However, when the aforementioned problems with party identification and issue voting arise, the personal characteristics of candidates may enter into campaign strategies and voting decisions. Many candidates utilize demographic factors to appeal to voters. For example, candidates may emphasize the importance of their families and their upbringing in humble middle-class households as a way to relate to a wide segment of American voters . Other candidates appeal to voters through shared religious affiliations. Candidates may also emphasize their personality traits by showing how their actions have demonstrated their trustfulness and hard work.

Michelle Obama at the 2012 Democratic National Convention

First Lady, Michelle Obama, appealed to voters by emphasizing the humble background of her husband during her speech at the 2012 Democratic National Convention.

At the same time, candidates also tend to emphasize the demographic and personality traits of their opponents that will create mistrust among voters. For example, candidates often air advertisements that question the honesty of their opponents while emphasizing their own fortitude and work ethic. Candidates may also emphasize the excessive wealth of their opponents as a way to show how they are out of touch with the average middle-class American.

8.6: Recent Elections

8.6.1: The 2008 Presidential Election

The 2008 U.S. presidential election possessed many unique attributes and was won in a historic landslide victory by Democrat Barack Obama.

Learning Objective

Analyze the key components of Obama’s victory in the 2008 presidential election

Key Points

• The 2008 presidential election featured many firsts, including the widespread use of the Internet in campaigning and the first African American elected to the presidency.
• The Obama victory can be attributed to a number of factors, including the Obama campaign’s abilities to both distance itself from the unpopular Bush administration and to emphasize the change and experience it would bring the White House.
• The 2008 presidential election was characterized by high levels of participation, aided by the widespread use of the Internet.
• Obama’s win set the record for the most amount of votes cast for a U.S. presidential candidate.

Key Term

swing states

States in which no single candidate or party has overwhelming support in securing the state’s electoral college votes

The 2008 Presidential Election

The 2008 U.S. presidential election was the 56^th quadrennial presidential election. Barack Obama, the junior U.S. senator from Illinois, was nominated as the Democratic candidate while John McCain, the senior U.S. senator from Arizona, was nominated as the Republican candidate. Joe Biden, U.S. senator from Delaware, was later chosen as Obama’s running mate. Meanwhile, Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, was chosen as McCain’s running mate. Barack Obama won the election by a historic majority vote .

Obama Taking Oath of Office

After winning the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama was sworn into office on January 20, 2009.

Unique Attributes

The 2008 presidential election was exceptional in many ways. It was the first U.S. presidential election in which an African American was elected president, having also been the first African American to be nominated by a major party. Obama also received the highest number of votes in the history of U.S. presidential elections. In addition, the 2008 presidential election was the first time that both major party candidates were sitting U.S. senators. The election was also characterized by high levels of public interest and engagement. Social media sites joined traditional forms of campaign activity to generate increased election interest.

Stances and Campaign Strategy

Obama’s overwhelming presidential win can be attributed to many factors. His strong opposition to the war in Iraq was a view embraced by many Americans. Meanwhile, McCain supported the war; his statement that the U.S. could be in Iraq for the next 50 to 100 years proved costly, even though it was intended as a peacetime presence. Obama was more successful than McCain in separating himself from the unpopular George W. Bush administration. The downturn in the economy provided an additional boost to the Obama campaign after McCain made comments that portrayed him as out of touch with the average American and the economic plight of the nation. The use of social media websites was another factor better handled by the Obama campaign, and one that appealed to many young voters.

In general, the Obama campaign was much more adept at emphasizing the change and experience Obama would bring to the presidency, and distancing itself from the Bush administration, than was the McCain campaign. The Obama campaign also emphasized the experience Hillary Clinton would carry as Secretary of State. Meanwhile the McCain campaign introduced Sarah Palin as the vice presidential candidate hoping to balance McCain’s more extensive experience with the potential of a relatively unknown politician. However, Palin was often painted by the media as lacking knowledge on key issues. Although Palin appealed to the conservative base of the GOP, there remained the fear that her conservative views would alienate moderates and independents.

Electoral Vote

The 2008 U.S. presidential election took place on November 4, 2008. While John McCain won the majority vote in traditionally Republican states and in his home state of Arizona, Barack Obama’s wins in his home state of Illinois, the Northeast, and the swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania precluded a McCain victory. Obama also won some of the southern states and the contested states of Iowa and New Mexico. The projected electoral vote count came to 365 for Obama and 173 for McCain.

8.6.2: The 2010 Elections

The 2010 midterm elections, for national, state, and local governments, resulted in an overwhelming victory for the Republican Party.

Learning Objective

Explain the political forces that contributed to the Republicans success in the 2010 elections

Key Points

• During the 2010 midterm elections 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, 37 of the 100 seats in the U.S. Senate, 38 State and territorial governorships, 46 state legislatures, 4 territorial legislatures, and numerous state and local government positions were filled.
• In spite of the large number of government seats to be filled, voter turnout was much lower than it had been during the 2008 presidential election.
• The Republican Party gained several government seats and recaptured a majority in the Congress that led to a divided government.
• Factors contributing to the Republican victories included a continuing high unemployment rate, Congressional scandals, dissatisfaction with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the mobilizing ability of the Tea Party movement,, and heightened debate over immigration regulation.

Key Terms

midterm election

a type of staggered election where the members take office at the middle of the term of another set of members, or of the executive

Congress

The two legislative bodies of the United States: the House of Representatives, and the Senate.

senate

The United States Senate, “the Senate”.

house of representatives

The name of the lower house in the bicameral legislatures of several countries, also used of some singular legislative bodies in unicameral systems.

The 2010 midterm elections on November 2, 2010 filled 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and 37 of the 100 seats in the U.S. Senate. In addition, 38 state and territorial governorships, 46 state legislatures, and 4 territorial legislatures were filled. Numerous state and local races also took place during this time.

Voter turnout dropped steeply from the previous 2008 presidential election in spite of the large number of political positions to be filled. Approximately 82.5 million people voted, about one-third fewer than those who voted in 2008. However, voter turnout was still slightly higher than the last midterm elections in 2006 and more states gained than lost voters.

The Democratic Party suffered massive defeats in most national and state elections, with many seats switching over to Republican Party control. Indeed, the Republicans gained 63 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives to recapture the majority and expanded its minority in the U.S. Senate by gaining 6 seats. This caused a divided government with Democrat President Obama in office and a Republican majority in the Congress. The Republican Party additionally broke the previous majority record of 628 seats in the state legislatures, set by the Democrats in the post-Watergate elections of 1974, by gaining 680 seats in the state legislative races. The Republicans also gained control of 29 of the 50 state governorships.

The Republican victories during the 2010 midterm elections can be attributed to a number of factors. First, unemployment was over 9% during the elections and had not declined significantly since Obama had entered the White House. Secondly, public trust in Congress had diminished with a series of scandals in which Democratic Representatives Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters, along with Republican Senator John Ensign, were accused of unethical and/or illegal conduct prior to the midterm elections. Furthermore, passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act led to low approval ratings of Congress. Indeed, many Republicans ran on a promise to repeal the act and beat incumbent Democrats who had voted for it. A fourth factor that contributed to the Republican victories was the mobilizing ability of the Tea Party movement in favor of Republican candidates . Meanwhile, the controversial Arizona Senate Bill 1070 ignited a national debate over immigration that led many in support of stronger immigration regulations to vote for the Republican Party.

Tea Party Gathering

The Tea Party movement’s ability to mobilize voters in favor of the Republican Party was one of the factors that contributed to many Republican victories during the 2010 elections.

8.6.3: The 2012 Presidential Election

Barack Hussein Obama was re-elected President of the United States on November 6th, 2012, serving a second term as the nation’s first black president.

Learning Objective

Describe the key issues and the electoral landscape that led to Obama’s reelection

Key Points

• The 2012 U.S. presidential election was between Democratic candidate President Barack Obama and Republican candidate Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. Requiring 270 electoral votes to win the election, Obama received 303 electoral votes, while Romney earned 206.
• The major policy issues at stake in the 2012 election included: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care reform; the ongoing economic crisis; tax reform; women’s rights; and American foreign policy.
• Changes to the Electoral College apportionment of votes affected the the 2012 presidential election, likely in favor of the Republican party.
• In his second term, President Obama faced a divided political climate, negotiating between a Democratic Senate and a Republican House, often resulting in stalemate in the Congress.

Key Terms

Mitt Romney

Willard Mitt Romney (born March 12, 1947) is an American businessman and was the Republican Party’s nominee for President of the United States in the 2012 election. From 2003 to 2007, he served as the 70th Governor of Massachusetts.

electoral college

A body of electors empowered to elect someone to a particular office

incumbent

Being the current holder of an office or a title.

Barack Obama

Barack Hussein Obama II (born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and current President of the United States. On November 6th, 2012, he was re-elected for a second term.

Barack Hussein Obama was re-elected President of the United States on Tuesday, November 6th, 2012. He served a second term as the nation’s first black president. 

The 2012 presidential election was the 57^th quadrennial election in the United States. The Democratic Party Candidate, President Barack Obama, sought re-election for his second and final term as president. Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney ran as the Republican candidate.

Requiring 270 electoral votes to win the election, Obama received 303 electoral votes, while Romney earned 206. His victory was much narrower than his electoral victory in the 2008 Presidential Election against Senator John McCain. Obama carried Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Wisconsin, many of the often decisive battleground states in presidential elections. Obama also carried a small advantage in Florida.

In his second term, President Obama will continue to face a divided political climate, with a Democratic Senate and a Republican House, often leading to stalemate in the Congress. Obama tackled many of the large issues he campaigned about before the 2008 Presidential Election, including immigration reform. The economic crisis, the growing deficit, and America’s longest undeclared war were the biggest obstacles to Obama’s re-election. Days prior to the 2012 Presidential Election, Hurricane Sandy hit the East Coast, devastating many states in the Mid-Atlantic and New England regions.

Mitt Romney was highly criticized during his campaign due to his personal wealth. While he lost the popular vote by a slight margin, a much greater margin in the electoral college necessitated his loss.

The two other presidential candidates included Green Party nominee Jill Stein and Libertarian Party nominee, New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. While unlikely, both possessed the ballot access to mathematically win the majority of the Electoral College and, accordingly, the election.

The major policy issues at stake in the 2012 election were: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care reform; the ongoing economic crisis; tax reform; women’s rights; and American foreign policy.

Nominations

The Democratic nomination was uncontested with the incumbent, President Barack Obama, running for reelection . The Republican primaries were more complex, with many different candidates winning different contests. Romney won New Hampshire, Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania won in Iowa, and former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, won South Carolina by a surprising margin. Santorum suspended his campaign in April, leaving Romney as the frontrunner for the Republican nomination. Romney was officially declared as the Republican Party’s nominee at the Republican National Convention on August 30, 2012 .

Mitt Romney

Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts was the Republican candidate for the 2012 presidential election.

Barack Obama

Incumbent President Barack Obama was the Democratic candidate for the 2012 presidential election. On November 6th, 2012, Obama was re-elected President for a second term.

Electoral College Changes and Controversies

Population changes indicated by the 2010 U.S. Census changed the apportionment of votes in the Electoral College, potentially changing the allocation of votes among swing states. Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Washington gained votes. Conversely, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania lost votes. The change in electoral allotment shifts the allocation of votes across the Democratic-Republican divide, as pundits predicted that the Democratic Party would lose electoral votes in states previously won in the past three presidential elections, and the Republican Party would gain votes in states won by Republican candidates in the last three elections.

Some states enacted new electoral laws in 2011. For example, Florida and Iowa banned felons from voting, and various states shortened their voting periods, eliminating the option of early voting. These measures were criticized as strategies to impede voter blocs, including college students, African Americans, and Latino Americas.

8.7: The Role of Money in Campaigns and Elections

8.7.1: Regulating Campaign Finance

Campaign finance in the United States is the financing of electoral campaigns at the federal, state, and local levels.

Learning Objective

Assess the origins, scope, and impact of money spent on election campaigns

Key Points

• At the federal level, campaign finance law is enacted by Congress and enforced by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), an independent federal agency.
• Races for non-federal offices are governed by state and local law. Over half the states allow some level of corporate and union contributions.
• At the federal level, public funding is limited to subsidies for presidential campaigns. To receive subsidies in the primary, candidates must qualify by privately raising $5000 each in at least 20 states.
• In addition to primary matching funds, the public funding program also assists with financing the major parties’ presidential nominating conventions and funding the major party nominees’ general election campaigns.
• In 1971, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), instituting various campaign finance disclosure requirements for federal candidates.

Key Terms

public funding

At the federal level, public funding is limited to subsidies for presidential campaigns. This includes (1) a “matching” program for the first $250 of each individual contribution during the primary campaign, (2) financing the major parties’ national nominating conventions, and (3) funding the major party nominees’ general election campaigns.

federal election commission

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an independent regulatory agency that was founded in 1975 by the United States Congress to regulate the campaign finance legislation in the United States.

Example

• In 2008—the last presidential election year—candidates for office, political parties, and independent groups spent a total of $5.3 billion on federal elections. The amount spent on the presidential race alone was $2.4 billion, and over $1 billion of that was spent by the campaigns of the two major candidates: Barack Obama spent $730 million in his election campaign, and John McCain spent $333 million.

Introduction

Campaign finance in the United States is the financing of electoral campaigns at the federal, state, and local levels. At the federal level, campaign finance law is enacted by Congress and enforced by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), an independent federal agency. Although most campaign spending is privately financed, public financing is available for qualifying candidates for President of the United States during both the primaries and the general election. Eligibility requirements must be fulfilled to qualify for a government subsidy, and those that do accept government funding are usually subject to spending limits.

Federal Elections Commission

Seal of the United States Federal Election Commission.

Races for non-federal offices are governed by state and local law. Over half the states allow some level of corporate and union contributions. Some states have limits on contributions from individuals that are lower than the national limits, while four states (Missouri, Oregon, Utah and Virginia) have no limits at all.

Campaign Finance Numbers

In 2008—the last presidential election year—candidates for office, political parties, and independent groups spent a total of $5.3 billion on federal elections. The amount spent on the presidential race alone was $2.4 billion, and over $1 billion of that was spent by the campaigns of the two major candidates: Barack Obama spent $730 million in his election campaign, and John McCain spent $333 million. In the 2010 midterm election cycle, candidates for office, political parties, and independent groups spent a total of $3.6 billion on federal elections. The average winner of a seat in the House of Representatives spent $1.4 million on his or her campaign. The average winner of a Senate seat spent $9.8 million.

Public financing of campaigns

At the federal level, public funding is limited to subsidies for presidential campaigns. This includes (1) a “matching” program for the first $250 of each individual contribution during the primary campaign, (2) financing the major parties’ national nominating conventions, and (3) funding the major party nominees’ general election campaigns.

To receive subsidies in the primary, candidates must qualify by privately raising $5000 each in at least 20 states. During the primaries, in exchange for agreeing to limit his or her spending according to a statutory formula, eligible candidates receive matching payments for the first $250 of each individual contribution (up to half of the spending limit). By refusing matching funds, candidates are free to spend as much money as they can raise privately.

From the inception of this program in 1976 through 1992, almost all candidates who could qualify accepted matching funds in the primary. In 1996 Republican Steve Forbes opted out of the program. In 2000, Forbes and George W. Bush opted out. In 2004 Bush and Democrats John Kerry and Howard Dean chose not to take matching funds in the primary. In 2008, Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and Republicans John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul decided not to take primary matching funds. Republican Tom Tancredo and Democrats Chris Dodd, Joe Biden and John Edwards elected to take public financing.

In addition to primary matching funds, the public funding program also assists with financing the major parties’ (and eligible minor parties’) presidential nominating conventions and funding the major party (and eligible minor party) nominees’ general election campaigns. The grants for the major parties’ conventions and general election nominees are adjusted each Presidential election year to account for increases in the cost of living. In 2012, each major party is entitled to $18.2 million in public funds for their conventions, and the parties’ general election nominees are eligible to receive $91.2 million in public funds. If candidates accept public funds, they agree not to raise or spend private funds or to spend more than $50,000 of their personal resources.

8.7.2: Sources of Campaign Funding

Different sources of campaign funding help party candidates to raise funds through multiple avenues.

Learning Objective

Identify the varied sources and roles of money in campaigns and politics

Key Points

• Corporations and unions are barred from donating money directly to candidates or national party committees.
• Lobbying in the United States describes paid activity in which special interests hire well-connected professional advocates, often lawyers, to argue for specific legislation in decision-making bodies such as the United States Congress.
• Federal law allows for multiple types of Political Action Committees, including connected PACs, nonconnected PACs, leadership PACs, Super PACs.
• A 527 organization is a type of American tax-exempt organization named after “Section 527” of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code.
• Political party committees may contribute funds directly to candidates, subject to the specified contribution limits.
• Different sources of campaign funding help party candidates to raise funds through multiple avenues. Campaign finance in the United States is the financing of electoral campaigns at the federal, state, and local levels.

Key Terms

527 organization

A 527 organization is a type of American tax-exempt organization named after “Section 527” of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. Technically, almost all political committees, including state, local, and federal candidate committees, traditional political action committees, “Super PACs”, and political parties are “527s. “

lobbying

Lobbying (also lobby) is the act of attempting to influence decisions made by officials in the government, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies.

bundlers

Bundlers are people who can gather contributions from many individuals in an organization or community and present the sum to the campaign. Campaigns often recognize these bundlers with honorary titles and, in some cases, exclusive events featuring the candidate.

Sources of Campaign Funding

Different sources of campaign funding enable party candidates raise funds through multiple avenues. Campaign finance in the United States is the financing of electoral campaigns at the federal, state, and local levels. At the federal level, campaign finance law is enacted by Congress and enforced by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), an independent federal agency. Although most campaign spending is privately financed, public financing is also available for qualifying candidates for President of the United States during both the primaries and the general election. Eligibility requirements must be met to qualify for a government subsidy, and those that accept government funding are usually subject to spending limits. Federal law restricts how much individuals and organizations may contribute to political campaigns, political parties, and other FEC-regulated organizations.

Corporations and unions are barred from donating money directly to candidates or national party committees. One consequence of the limitation upon personal contributions from any one individual is that campaigns seek out “bundlers”—people who can gather contributions from many individuals in an organization or community and present the sum to the campaign. Campaigns often recognize these bundlers with honorary titles and, in some cases, exclusive events featuring the candidate. Although bundling had existed in various forms since the enactment of the FECA, it became more structured and organized in the 2000s, spearheaded by the “Bush Pioneers” for George W. Bush’s 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns. During the 2008 campaign, the six leading primary candidates (three Democratic, three Republican) had listed a total of nearly two thousand bundlers.

Lobbying and Special Interests

Lobbying in the United States describes paid activity in which special interests hire well-connected professional advocates, often lawyers, to argue for specific legislation in decision-making bodies such as the United States Congress . It is a highly controversial phenomenon, often seen in a negative light by journalists and the American public, and frequently misunderstood. While lobbying is subject to extensive and often complex rules which, if not followed, can lead to penalties including jail, the activity of lobbying has been interpreted by court rulings as free speech and protected by the Constitution.

Tony Podesta, Senator Kay and Chip Hagan

Lobbying depends on cultivating personal relationships over many years. Photo: Lobbyist Tony Podesta (left) with Senator Kay Hagan (center) and her husband.

Spending by Outside Organizations

Federal law allows for multiple types of Political Action Committees, including connected PACs, nonconnected PACs, leadership PACs and Super PACs. 501(c)(4) organizations are defined by the IRS as “social welfare” organizations. Unlike 501(c)(3) charitable organizations, they may also participate in political campaigns and elections, as long as the organization’s “primary purpose” is the promotion of social welfare and not political advocacy. A 527 organization is a type of American tax-exempt organization named after “Section 527” of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. Technically, almost all political committees, including state, local, and federal candidate committees, traditional political action committees, “Super PACs”, and political parties are “527s. ” However, in common practice the term is usually applied only to such organizations that are not regulated under state or federal campaign finance laws because they do not “expressly advocate” for the election or defeat of a candidate or party.

Political party committees may contribute funds directly to candidates, subject to the specified contribution limits. National and state party committees may make additional “coordinated expenditures,” subject to limits, to help their nominees in general elections. National party committees may also make unlimited “independent expenditures” to support or oppose federal candidates. However, since 2002, national parties have been prohibited from accepting any funds outside the limits established for elections in the FECA.

8.7.3: PACs and Campaigns

A political action committee is any organization that campaigns for or against political candidates, ballot initiatives or legislation.

Learning Objective

Analyze the role of PACs in federal elections

Key Points

• At the federal level, an organization becomes a PAC when it receives or spends more than $1,000 for the purpose of influencing a federal election, according to the Federal Election Campaign Act.
• Individuals are limited to contributing $5,000 per year to Federal PACs; corporations and unions may not contribute directly to federal PACs, but can pay for the administrative costs.
• Federal law allows for two types of PACs, connected and non-connected. Most of the 4,600 active, registered PACs are “connected PACs” established by businesses, labor unions, trade groups, or health organizations. By contrast, “non-connected PACs” have an ideological mission.
• Super PACs may not make contributions to candidate campaigns or parties, but may engage in unlimited political spending independently of the campaigns. Unlike traditional PACs, they can raise funds from corporations, unions and other groups, and from individuals, without legal limits.
• In 2010, the United States Supreme Court held in “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission” that it is legal for corporations and unions to spend from their general treasuries to finance independent expenditures.

Key Terms

citizens united

In 2010, the United States Supreme Court held in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that laws prohibiting corporate and union political expenditures were unconstitutional. Citizens United made it legal for corporations and unions to finance independent expenditures with money from their general treasuries. It did not alter the prohibition on direct corporate or union contributions to federal campaigns—those are still prohibited.

super pacs

Super PACs, officially known as “independent-expenditure only committees,” may not make contributions to candidate campaigns or parties, but may engage in unlimited political spending independently of the campaigns. Also unlike traditional PACs, they can raise funds from corporations, unions and other groups, and individuals—without legal limits.

political action committee

A political action committee (PAC) is any organization in the United States that campaigns for or against political candidates, ballot initiatives, or legislation.

Example

• According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, the top 100 individual super PAC donors in 2011–2012 made up just 3.7% of contributors, but accounted for more than 80% of the total money raised, while less than 0.5% of the money given to “the most active Super PACs” was donated by publicly traded corporations.

Introduction

A political action committee (PAC) is any organization in the United States that campaigns for or against political candidates, ballot initiatives or legislation. At the federal level, an organization becomes a PAC when it receives or spends more than $1,000 for the purpose of influencing a federal election, according to the Federal Election Campaign Act. At the state level, an organization becomes a PAC according to the state’s election laws.

In 2010, the United States Supreme Court held in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that laws prohibiting corporate and union political expenditures were unconstitutional. Citizens United made it legal for corporations and unions to spend from their general treasuries to finance independent expenditures, but did not alter the prohibition on direct corporate or union contributions to federal campaigns; those are still prohibited.

History of PACs in the United States

In 1947, as part of the Taft-Hartley Act, the U.S. Congress prohibited labor unions or corporations from spending money to influence federal elections, and prohibited labor unions from contributing to candidate campaigns. Labor unions moved to work around these limitations by establishing political action committees, to which members could contribute. In 1971, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). In 1974, Amendments to FECA defined how a PAC could operate and established the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to enforce the nation’s campaign finance laws. The FECA and the FEC’s rules provide for the following: Individuals are limited to contributing $5,000 per year to Federal PACs; corporations and unions may not contribute directly to federal PACs, but can pay for the administrative costs of a PAC affiliated with the specific corporation or union; Corporate-affiliated PACs may only solicit contributions from executives, shareholders, and their families.

Categorization of PACs

Federal law allows for two types of PACs, connected and non-connected. Most of the 4,600 active, registered PACs are “connected PACs” established by businesses, labor unions, trade groups, or health organizations. These PACs receive and raise money from a “restricted class,” generally consisting of managers and shareholders in the case of a corporation and members in the case of a union or other interest group. Groups with an ideological mission, single-issue groups, and members of Congress and other political leaders may form “non-connected PACs. ” These organizations may accept funds from any individual, connected PAC, or organization.

Super PACs, officially known as “independent-expenditure only committees,” may not make contributions to candidate campaigns or parties, but may engage in unlimited political spending independently of the campaigns. Also unlike traditional PACs, they can raise funds from corporations, unions and other groups, and from individuals, without legal limits. Super PACs may support particular candidacies. In the 2012 presidential election, super PACs have played a major role, spending more than the candidates’ election campaigns in the Republican primaries. As of early April 2012, Restore Our Future—a Super PAC usually described as having been created to help Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign—has spent $40 million . In the 2012 election campaign, most of the money given to super PACs has come not from corporations but from wealthy individuals. According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, the top 100 individual super PAC donors in 2011–2012 made up just 3.7% of contributors, but accounted for more than 80% of the total money raised, while less than 0.5% of the money given to “the most active Super PACs” was donated by publicly traded corporations.

Mitt Romney

Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts was the Republican candidate for the 2012 presidential election.

PAC Backlash

It was generally agreed in the 2012 campaign that the formation of a super PAC and the acceptance of large contributions was legal. However, a lingering question was whether super PACs are legal when examined on the basis of how they act. Two agreed-upon illegal actions were that a super PAC could not accept foreign funds and could not coordinate directly with a candidate. Super PACs were seen in the press as a possible means of allowing illegal donations from foreign entities – either individuals or companies – to be disguised. The concept of actions being illegal, when coordinated with a candidate, came out, in part, after a super PAC named American Crossroads requested permission to communicate to their favored candidate on an above-board basis.

International Comparison and Response

The leading democracies have different systems of campaign finance, and several have no institutions analogous to American PACs, in that there are no private contributions of large sums of money to individual candidates. This is true, for example in Germany, in France, and in Britain. In these countries, concerns about the influence of campaign contributions on political decisions are less prominent in public discussion.

8.7.4: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

The Citizens United case held that it was unconstitutional to ban campaign financial contributions by corporations, associations and unions.

Learning Objective

Analyze the significance of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission for campaign finance reform

Key Points

• Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in 2010 in which the court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions.
• The nonprofit group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. In a 5 to 4 decision, the court held that portions of BCRA violated the First Amendment.
• The Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional to ban free speech through the limitation of independent communications by corporations, associations, and unions. This ruling was frequently interpreted as permitting corporate corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns.
• Citizens United has often been credited for the creation of “super PACs,” political action committees which make no contributions to candidates or parties and so can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, and unions.

Key Terms

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in 2010 in which the court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions.

super pacs

Political action committees, which make no contributions to candidates or parties, and so can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, and unions.

Example

• In the 2012 presidential election, super PACs have played a major role, spending more than the candidates’ election campaigns in the Republican primaries. As of early April 2012, Restore Our Future—a Super PAC usually described as having been created to help Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign—has spent $40 million.

Introduction

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in 2010 in which the court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions. The nonprofit group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. In a 5 to 4 decision, the court held that portions of BCRA violated the First Amendment.

Background

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury to fund “electioneering communications” within 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. During the 2004 presidential campaign, a conservative nonprofit organization named Citizens United filed a complaint before the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that advertisements for Michael Moore’s film, Fahrenheit 9/11, a documentary critical of the Bush administration’s response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, constituted political advertising and thus could not be aired within the 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election. The FEC dismissed the complaint after finding no evidence that broadcast advertisements for the movie and featuring a candidate within the proscribed time limits had actually been made.

In the wake of these decisions, Citizens United sought to establish itself as a bona fide commercial filmmaker, producing several documentary films between 2005 and 2007. By early 2008, it sought to run television commercials to promote its latest political documentary, Hillary: The Movie, and to air the movie on DirecTV. The movie was highly critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, with the District Court describing the movie as an elongated version of a negative 30-second television spot. In January 2008, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the television advertisements for Hillary: The Movie violated the BCRA restrictions of “electioneering communications” within 30 days of a primary. Though the political action committee claimed that the film was fact-based and nonpartisan, the lower court found that the film had no purpose other than to discredit Clinton’s candidacy for president. The Supreme Court docketed the case on August 18, 2008 and heard oral argument on March 24, 2009.

Opinions of the Court

The Supreme Court held in Citizens United that it was unconstitutional to ban free speech through the limitation of independent communications by corporations, associations and unions. This ruling was frequently interpreted as permitting corporate corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns, or else removing limits on how much a donor can contribute to a campaign. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion found that the BCRA prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.

Justice Anthony Kennedy

Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion found that the BCRA prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.

A dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens was joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor. Stevens concurred in the court’s decision to sustain BCRA’s disclosure provisions, but dissented from the principal holding of the majority opinion. The dissent argued that the court’s ruling “threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution. ” He wrote: “A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold. “

Justice John Paul Stevens

John Paul Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion, arguing that the Court’s ruling “threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. “

Impact

On January 27, 2010, President Barack Obama condemned the decision during the 2010 State of the Union Address, stating that, “Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. ” Moreover, The New York Times stated in an editorial, “The Supreme Court has handed lobbyists a new weapon. A lobbyist can now tell any elected official: if you vote wrong, my company, labor union or interest group will spend unlimited sums explicitly advertising against your re-election. ” The New York Times reported that 24 states with laws prohibiting or limiting independent expenditures by unions and corporations would have to change their campaign finance laws because of the ruling.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has often been credited for the creation of “super PACs”, political action committees which make no contributions to candidates or parties and so can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, and unions. In the 2012 presidential election, super PACs have played a major role, spending more than the candidates’ election campaigns in the Republican primaries. As of early April 2012, Restore Our Future—a Super PAC usually described as having been created to help Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign—has spent $40 million.

8.7.5: Campaign Finance Reform

In the U.S., campaign finance reform is the common term for the political effort to change the involvement of money in political campaigns.

Learning Objective

Identify major legislative and judicial milestones in campaign finance reform in the United States

Key Points

• The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1972 required candidates to disclose sources of campaign contributions and campaign expenditures. It was amended in 1974 with the introduction of statutory limits on contributions, and creation of the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
• The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, is the most recent major federal law on campaign finance, which revised some of the legal limits on expenditures set in 1974, and prohibited unregulated contributions to national political parties.
• The voting with dollars plan would establish a system of modified public financing coupled with an anonymous campaign contribution process. It has two parts: patriot dollars and the secret donation booth.
• Another method allows the candidates to raise funds from private donors, but provides matching funds for the first chunk of donations. This would effectively make small donations more valuable to a campaign, potentially leading them to put more effort into pursuing such donations.
• Another method, which supporters call clean money, clean elections, gives each candidate who chooses to participate a certain, set amount of money. In order to qualify for this money, the candidates must collect a specified number of signatures and small (usually $5) contributions.

Key Term

federal election campaign act

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 is a United States federal law which increased disclosure of contributions for federal campaigns. It was amended in 1974 to place legal limits on the campaign contributions.

Introduction

Campaign finance reform is the common term for the political effort in the United States to change the involvement of money in politics, primarily in political campaigns. Although attempts to regulate campaign finance by legislation date back to 1867, the first successful attempts nationally to regulate and enforce campaign finance originated in the 1970s. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1972 required candidates to disclose sources of campaign contributions and campaign expenditures. It was amended in 1974 with the introduction of statutory limits on contributions, and creation of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). It attempted to restrict the influence of wealthy individuals by limiting individual donations to $1,000 and donations by political action committees (PACs) to $5,000. These specific election donations are known as ‘hard money. ‘ The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, is the most recent major federal law on campaign finance, which revised some of the legal limits on expenditures set in 1974, and prohibited unregulated contributions to national political parties.

Federal Election Campaign Act

In 1971, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act, requiring broad disclosure of campaign finance. In 1974, fueled by public reaction to the Watergate Scandal, Congress passed amendments to the Act establishing a comprehensive system of regulation and enforcement, including public financing of presidential campaigns and creation of a central enforcement agency, the Federal Election Commission. Other provisions included limits on contributions to campaigns and expenditures by campaigns, individuals, corporations and other political groups. However, in 1976 Buckley v. Valeo challenged restrictions in FECA as unconstitutional violations of free speech. The court struck down, as infringement on free speech, limits on candidate expenditures and certain other limits on spending.

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002

The Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), also called the McCain-Feingold bill after its chief sponsors, John McCain and Russ Feingold . The BCRA was a mixed bag for those who wanted to remove big money from politics. It eliminated all soft money donations to the national party committees, but it also doubled the contribution limit of hard money, from $1,000 to $2,000 per election cycle, with a built-in increase for inflation. In addition, the bill aimed to curtail ads by non-party organizations by banning the use of corporate or union money to pay for “electioneering communications,” a term defined as broadcast advertising that identifies a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or nominating convention, or 60 days of a general election.

Russ Feingold

Senator Russ Feingold from Wisconsin.

Current proposals for reform

The voting with dollars plan would establish a system of modified public financing coupled with an anonymous campaign contribution process. It has two parts: patriot dollars and the secret donation booth. It was originally described in detail by Yale Law School professors Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres in their 2004 book Voting with Dollars: A new paradigm for campaign finance. All voters would be given a $50 publicly funded voucher (Patriot dollars) to donate to federal political campaigns. All donations including both the $50 voucher and additional private contributions must be made anonymously through the FEC. Ackerman and Ayres include model legislation in their book in addition to detailed discussion as to how such a system could be achieved and its legal basis.

Another method allows the candidates to raise funds from private donors, but provides matching funds for the first chunk of donations. For instance, the government might “match” the first $250 of every donation. This would effectively make small donations more valuable to a campaign, potentially leading them to put more effort into pursuing such donations, which are believed to have less of a corrupting effect than larger gifts and enhance the power of less-wealthy individuals. Such a system is currently in place in the U.S. presidential primaries.

Another method, which supporters call clean money, clean elections, gives each candidate who chooses to participate a certain, set amount of money. In order to qualify for this money, the candidates must collect a specified number of signatures and small (usually $5) contributions. The candidates are not allowed to accept outside donations or to use their own personal money if they receive this public funding. Candidates receive matching funds, up to a limit, when they are outspent by privately-funded candidates, attacked by independent expenditures, or their opponent benefits from independent expenditures. This is the primary difference between clean money public financing systems and the presidential campaign system, which many have called “broken” because it provides no extra funds when candidates are attacked by 527s or other independent expenditure groups.

8.7.6: The Federal Election Campaign Act

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 is a United States federal law which increased disclosure of contributions for federal campaigns.

Learning Objective

Describe the history of campaign finance regulation in the twentieth century

Key Points

• The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an independent regulatory agency that was founded in 1975 by the United States Congress to regulate the campaign finance legislation.
• Early legislation by Congress sought to limit the influence of wealthy individuals and special interest groups on the outcome of federal elections, regulate spending in campaigns for federal office, and deter abuses by mandating public disclosure of campaign finances.
• A political action committee (PAC) is any organization in the United States that campaigns for or against political candidates, ballot initiatives, or legislation.
• In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Supreme Court upheld a federal law which set limits on campaign contributions, but it also ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech, striking down portions of FECA.
• With the Buckley v. Valeo decision, the Supreme Court also ruled that candidates can give unlimited amounts of money to their own campaigns.
• Following Buckley v. Valeo, the Federal Elections Campaign Act was amended in 1976 and 1979 with the goal to allow parties to spend unlimited amounts of soft money on activities like increasing voter turnout and registration. This led to passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in 2002.

Key Terms

political action committee

A political action committee (PAC) is any organization in the United States that campaigns for or against political candidates, ballot initiatives, or legislation.

federal election commission

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an independent regulatory agency that was founded in 1975 by the United States Congress to regulate the campaign finance legislation in the United States.

federal election campaign act

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 is a United States federal law which increased disclosure of contributions for federal campaigns. It was amended in 1974 to place legal limits on the campaign contributions.

Example

• According to FECA, an organization becomes a PAC when it receives or spends more than $1,000 for the purpose of influencing a federal election.

Introduction

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 is a United States federal law which increased disclosure of contributions for federal campaigns. It was amended in 1974 to place legal limits on the campaign contributions. The amendment also created the Federal Election Commission (FEC), an independent agency responsible for regulating campaign finance legislation . The FEC describes its duties as “to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections.”

Federal Elections Commission

Seal of the United States Federal Election Commission.

History

As early as 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt asserted the need for campaign finance reform and called for legislation to ban corporate contributions for political purposes. In response, the United States Congress enacted the Tillman Act of 1907, named for its sponsor Senator Benjamin Tillman. This act banned corporate contributions. Further regulation followed with the Federal Corrupt Practices Act enacted in 1910 with subsequent amendments in 1910 and 1925, the Hatch Act, the Smith-Connally Act of 1943, and the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. These acts sought to:

President Theodore Roosevelt

President of the United States Theodore Roosevelt, who asserted the need for campaign finance reform and called for legislation to ban corporate contributions for political purposes.

• Limit the influence of wealthy individuals and special interest groups on the outcome of federal elections.
• Regulate spending in campaigns for federal office.
• Deter abuses by mandating public disclosure of campaign finances..

In 1971, Congress consolidated earlier reform efforts in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), instituting more stringent disclosure requirements for federal candidates, political parties and political action committees. A political action committee(PAC) is any organization in the United States that campaigns for or against political candidates, ballot initiatives, or legislation. According to the FECA, an organization becomes a PAC when it receives or spends more than $1,000 for the purpose of influencing a federal election. Without a central administrative authority, campaign finance laws were difficult to enforce.

Public subsidies for federal elections, originally proposed by President Roosevelt in 1907, began to take shape as part of FECA. Congress established the income tax checkoff to provide financing for Presidential general election campaigns and national party conventions. Amendments to the Internal Revenue Code in 1974 established the matching fund program for Presidential primary campaigns. Following reports of serious financial abuses in the 1972 Presidential campaign, Congress amended the FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties, and PACs. The 1974 amendments also established the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to enforce the law, facilitate disclosure, and administer the public funding program. The FEC opened its doors in 1975 and administered the first publicly funded Presidential election in 1976.

Buckley v. Valeo

In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Supreme Court struck down or narrowed several provisions of the 1974 amendments to FECA, including limits on spending and limits on the amount of money a candidate could donate to his or her own campaign. The court upheld a federal law which set limits on campaign contributions, but it also ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech, striking down portions of the law. The court also ruled candidates can give unlimited amounts of money to their own campaigns.

Further Legislation

Following Buckley v. Valeo, FECA was amended again in 1976 and 1979. The aim of these amendments was to allow parties to spend unlimited amounts of hard money on activities like increasing voter turnout and registration. In 1979, the Commission ruled that political parties could spend unregulated or “soft” money for non-federal administrative and party building activities. Later, this money was used for candidate related issue ads, leading to a substantial increase in soft money contributions and expenditures in elections. The increase of soft money created political pressures that led to passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). The BCRA banned soft money expenditure by parties. Some of the legal limits on giving of “hard money” were also changed in by BCRA.

8.7.7: The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 is a United States federal law that regulates the financing of political campaigns.

Learning Objective

Analyze the history of legal challenges to campaign finance reform legislation

Key Points

• The Act was designed to address two issues: the increased role of soft money in campaign financing, and the proliferation of issue advocacy ads.
• Soft money refers to “non-federal money” that corporations, unions and individuals contribute to political parties to influence state or local elections.
• Provisions of the legislation were challenged as unconstitutional by a group of plaintiffs led by then–Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, a long-time opponent of the bill.
• “McConnell v. Federal Election Commission” is a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of most of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA).
• The impact of BCRA was felt nationally during the 2004 elections. One impact was that all campaign advertisements included a verbal statement to the effect of “I’m (candidate’s name) and I approve this message.

Key Terms

mcconnell v. federal election commission

In McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of most of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA).

soft money

Soft money refers to “non-federal money” that corporations, unions and individuals contribute to political parties to influence state or local elections.

bipartisan campaign reform act

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 is a United States federal law amending the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 regulating the financing of political campaigns.

Example

• The impact of BCRA was felt nationally during the 2004 elections. One impact was that all campaign advertisements included a verbal statement to the effect of “I’m (candidate’s name) and I approve this message.

Introduction

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 is a United States federal law amending the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 regulating the financing of political campaigns. Its chief sponsors were Senators Russ Feingold (, D-WI) and John McCain (, R-AZ). The law became effective on November 6, 2002, with the new legal limits going into effect on January 1, 2003. Although the legislation is known as “McCain–Feingold,” the Senate version is not the bill that became law. Instead, the companion legislation introduced by Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT),H.R. 2356, is the version that became law. Shays–Meehan was originally introduced as H.R. 380.

2008 Republican Party Presidential Candidate John McCain

Senator John McCain from Arizona.

Russ Feingold

Senator Russ Feingold from Wisconsin.

The Act addresses the increased role of soft money in campaign financing by prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending funds not subject to federal limits. Soft money refers to “non-federal money” that corporations, unions and individuals contribute to political parties to influence state or local elections. The Act also addresses proliferation of issue advocacy ads, defining as “electioneering communications” broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election. Any such ad paid for by a corporation or a non-profit organizations is also prohibited .

In June 2003, the D.C. Circuit issued a ruling on the constitutionality of the law, but the ruling never took effect as the case was immediately appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Legal Disputes

Provisions of the legislation were challenged as unconstitutional by a group of plaintiffs led by then–Senate Majority WhipMitch McConnell . President Bush signed the law despite “reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising. ” Bush appeared to expect that the Supreme Court would overturn some of its key provisions. However, in December 2003, the Supreme Court upheld most of the legislation in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission.

Mitch McConnell

Official portrait of United States Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

In McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of most of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a special session on September 8, 2003. On December 10, 2003, it issued a complicated decision that upheld the key provisions of McCain-Feingold. These included “electioneering communication” provisions placing restrictions on using corporate and union treasury funds to disseminate broadcast ads identifying a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election) The court also upheld the “soft money” ban prohibiting the raising or use of these funds in federal elections.

Impact and Overturn

The impact of BCRA was felt nationally during the 2004 elections. One immediately recognizable impact was the so-called “Stand By Your Ad” provision. The provision requires all U.S. political candidates and parties to identify themselves and state that they have approved a particular communication, i.e. “I’m (a candidate) and I approve this message. “

In Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that the organizations engaged in genuine discussion of issues were entitled to a broad, “as applied” exemption from the electioneering communications provisions of BCRA applying to naming a candidate before an election or primary. Observers argue that the Court’s exemption effectively nullifies those provisions of the Act, but the full impact of Wisconsin Right to Life remains to be seen.

8.7.8: Campaign Financing

Campaign finance in the United States refers to the process of financing electoral campaigns at the federal, state, and local levels.

Learning Objective

Describe the nature of and uses for campaign finance in the United States

Key Points

• At the federal level, campaign finance law is enacted by Congress and enforced by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), an independent federal agency.
• Political finance refers to all funds that are raised and spent for political purposes. This includes all political contests for voting by citizens, especially the election campaigns for various public offices.
• Political expenses can be caused by election campaigns or contests for nomination or re-selection of parliamentary candidates.

Key Terms

political finance

Political finance covers all funds that are raised and spent for political purposes. Such purposes include all political contests for voting by citizens, especially the election campaigns for various public offices that are run by parties and candidates.

grassroots fundraising

Grassroots fundraising is a method of fundraising used by or for political candidates, which has grown in popularity with the emergence of the Internet and its use by US presidential candidates like Howard Dean and Ron Paul.

Introduction

Campaign finance in the United States refers to the process of financing electoral campaigns at the federal, state, and local levels. At the federal level, campaign finance law is enacted by Congress and enforced by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), an independent federal agency. Although most campaign spending is privately financed, public financing is available for qualifying US presidential candidates during both the primaries and the general election. Eligibility requirements must be fulfilled to qualify for a government funding, and candidates who accept this funding are usually subject to spending limits.

Political Finance

Political finance refers to all funds that are raised and spent for political purposes. This includes all political contests for voting by citizens, especially the election campaigns for various public offices. Modern democracies operate a variety of permanent party organizations. For example, in the United States this includes the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee. Political expenses can include:

• Election campaigns run by candidates, candidate committees, interest groups or political parties
• Contests for nomination or re-selection of parliamentary candidates
• Training activities for party activists, officeholders or candidates
• Efforts to educate citizens with regard to popular initiatives, ballot issues or referendums.

Grassroots fundraising is a method of fundraising used by or for political candidates. This method has grown in popularity with the emergence of the Internet and its use by US presidential candidates like Howard Dean and Ron Paul . Grassroots fundraising is a way of financing campaigns for candidates who don’t have significant media exposure or candidates who are in opposition to the powerful lobby groups. It often involves mobilizing grassroots support to meet a specific fundraising goal, or it sets a specific day for grassroots supporters to donate to the campaign.

Ron Paul

Ron Paul is a congressman from Texas who employs the method of grassroots fundraising.

7.2: Interest Group Strategies

7.2.1: Direct Lobbying

Learning Objective

Describe direct lobbying

Key Points

• During the direct lobbying process, the lobbyist introduces to the legislator information that may supply favors, may otherwise be missed or makes political threats.
• Direct lobbying is different from grassroots lobbying, a process that uses direct communication with the general public.
• Direct lobbying is often used alongside grassroots lobbying.

Key Terms

grassroots lobbying

A process that uses direct communication with the general public, which, in turn, contacts and influences the government.

legislative bodies

Legislative bodies are a kind of deliberative assembly with the power to pass, amend and repeal laws.

direct lobbying

Direct lobbying refers to methods used by lobbyists to influence legislative bodies through direct communication with members of the legislative body, or with a government official who formulates legislation.

Direct lobbying refers to methods used by lobbyists to influence legislative bodies through direct communication with members of the legislative body, or with a government official who participates in formulating legislation .

Direct Lobbying

Both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives are subject to direct lobbying tactics by lobbyists.

During the direct lobbying process, the lobbyist introduces to the legislator information that may supply favors, may otherwise be missed or makes political threats. A common use of direct lobbying is to persuade the general public about a ballot proposal. In this case, the public is considered to be the legislator. This aspect of direct lobbying attempts to alter the legislature before it is placed on the ballot. Communications regarding a ballot measure are also considered direct lobbying. Direct lobbying is different from grassroots lobbying, a process that uses direct communication with the general public, which, in turn, contacts and influences the government.

Washington, D.C. is the home to many firms that employ these strategies. Lobbyists often attempt to facilitate market entry through the adoption of new rules, or the revision of old ones. They also remove regulatory obstacles for a company looking to grow, while also stopping others from attaining regulatory changes that would harm a company’s cause.

Meta-analysis reveals that direct lobbying is often used alongside grassroots lobbying. There is evidence that groups are much more likely to directly lobby previous allies rather than opponents. Allies are also directly lobbied if a counter lobby is brought to light. When groups have strong ties to a legislator’s district, they will use a combination of grassroots and direct lobbying, even if the legislator’s original position does not support theirs. When strong district ties are not present, groups will rely on direct lobbying with committee allies.

7.2.2: Direct Techniques

Learning Objective

Identify the direct techniques used by interest groups to influence policy and what groups would use them

Key Points

• Revolving door is a term used to describe the cycling of former federal employees into jobs as lobbyists while former lobbyists are pulled into government positions.
• There have been several efforts to regulate the lobbying sector including the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 and the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act.
• Direct lobbying is different from grassroots lobbying, a process that uses direct communication with the general public, who in turn, contacts and influences the government.

Key Terms

Lobbying Disclosure Act

The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 signed into law by President Bill Clinton was revised in 2006 to require the registration of all lobbying entities to occur shortly after the individual lobbyist makes a first plan to lobby any highly ranked federal official.

Honest Leadership and Open Government Act

The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, signed September 15, 2007 by President Bush, requires a quarterly report on lobby spending, places restrictions on gifts to Congress members, provides for mandatory disclosure of earmarks in expenditure bills, and places restrictions on the revolving door in direct lobbying.

direct lobbying

Direct lobbying in the United States consists of methods used by lobbyists to influence U.S. legislative bodies through direct interaction with those who have influence on the legislature.

Direct lobbying in the United States consists of methods used by lobbyists to influence the United States legislative bodies . Interest groups from many sectors spend billions of dollars on lobbying. There are three lobbying laws in the U.S. that require a lobbying entity to be registered, allow nonprofit organizations to lobby without losing their nonprofit status, require lobbying organizations to present quarterly reports, places restrictions on gifts to U.S. Congress members, and makes it mandatory for earmarks to be disclosed in expenditure bills. Revolving door, when a former federal employee becomes a lobbyist and vice-versa, occurs in the direct lobbying sector.

Washington D.C., Lobbyist Central

As Washington D.C. is the seat of the United States Federal Government, it attracts a high concentration of lobbyists.

Theory

Lobbying is a common practice at all levels of legislature. Direct lobbying is done either through direct communication with members or employees of the legislative body, or with a government official who participates in formulating legislation. During the direct lobbying process, the lobbyist introduces statistics that will inform the legislator of any recent information that might otherwise be missed, and may make political threats or promises, and/or grant favors. Communications regarding a ballot measure are also considered direct lobbying. Direct lobbying is different from grassroots lobbying, a process that uses direct communication with the general public, who in turn contact and influence the government.

The most common goals of lobbyists are:

• to facilitate market entry through the adoption of new rules, or the repeal or revision of old ones.
• to remove regulatory obstacles that prevent the growth of a company.
• to stop others from attaining regulatory changes that would harm the business of one’s company’s or one’s cause.

Direct lobbying is often used alongside grassroots lobbying. When groups have strong ties to a legislator’s district, those groups will use a combination of grassroots and direct lobbying, even if the legislator’s original position does not support theirs, which may help groups expand their coalitions. When strong district ties are not present, groups tend to rely on direct lobbying with committee allies.

Spending

In 2010, the total amount spent on lobbying in the U.S. was $3.5 billion . The top sectors for lobbying as of 2010 are financial, insurance, and real estate, with $4,405,909,610 spent on lobbying. Health is the second largest sector by spending, with $4,369,979,173 recorded in 2010.

Spending on Lobbying

This graph compares the number of lobbyists with the amount of lobby spending.

The oil and gas sector companies are among the biggest spenders on lobbying. During the 2008 elections, oil companies spent a total of $132.2 million into lobbying for law reform. The three biggest spenders from the oil and gas sector are Koch Industries (1,931,562), Exxon ( ), and the Mobil Corporation (1,192,361).

Lobbying Laws

Lobbying Disclosure Act

The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 was signed into law by President Bill Clinton . Under a January 1, 2006 revision, the act requires the registration of all lobbying entities with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives. The registration must occur within 45 days after the individual lobbyist makes a first plan to lobby. Penalizations include fines of over $50,000 and being reported to the United States Attorney.

Public Charity Lobbying Law

The Public Charity Lobbying Law gives nonprofit organizations the opportunity to spend about 5% of their revenue on lobbying without losing their nonprofit status with the Internal Revenue Service. Organizations must elect to use the Public Charity Law, and so increase the allowable spending on lobbying to increase to 20% for the first $500,000 of their annual expenditures. Another aspect to the law is the spending restrictions between direct lobbying and grassroots lobbying—no more than 20% can be spent on grassroots lobbying at any given time, while 100% of the lobbying expenditures can be on direct lobbying.

Honest Leadership and Open Government Act

The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act was signed on September 15, 2007 by President Bush, amending the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. The bill includes provisions that require a quarterly report on lobby spending by organizations, places restrictions on gifts to Congress members, provides for mandatory disclosure of earmarks in expenditure bills, and places restrictions on the revolving door in direct lobbying.

Revolving Door

Revolving door is a term used to describe the cycling of former federal employees into jobs as lobbyists, while former lobbyists are pulled into government positions. Government officials with term limits form valuable connections that could help influence future law-making even when they are out of office. The other form of the revolving door is pushing lobbyists into government positions, developing connections, and returning into the lobbying world to use said connections. A total of 326 lobbyists are part of the Barack Obama Administration . In the past, 527 lobbyists were part of the Bush Administration, compared to 358 during the Clinton Administration.

7.2.3: Indirect Techniques

Learning Objective

Identify the indirect techniques used by interest groups to influence legislation

Key Points

• A grassroots lobby puts pressure on the legislature to address the concerns of a particular group by mobilizing that group, usually through raising public awareness and running advocacy campaigns.
• A group or individual classified as a lobbyist must submit regular disclosure reports; however, reporting requirements vary from state to state.
• The unique characteristic of grassroots lobbying, in contrast to other forms of lobbying, is that it involves stimulating the politics of specific communities.

Key Term

indirect lobbying

Grassroots lobbying, or indirect lobbying, is a form of lobbying that focuses on raising awareness in the general population of a particular cause at the local level, with the intention of influencing the legislative process.

Grassroots lobbying

Grassroots lobbying, or indirect lobbying, is a form of lobbying that focuses on raising awareness for a particular cause at the local level, with the intention of influencing the legislative process. Grassroots lobbying is an approach that separates itself from direct lobbying through the act of asking the general public to contact legislators and government officials concerning the issue at hand, as opposed to conveying the message to the legislators directly.

The unique characteristic of grassroots lobbying, in contrast to other forms of lobbying, is that it involves stimulating the politics of specific communities. Interest groups, however, do not recruit candidates to run for office. Rather, they choose to influence candidates and public officials using indirect tactics of advocacy.

Tactics

The main two tactics used in indirect advocacy are contacting the press (by either a press conference or press release), and mobilizing the mass membership to create a movement.

Media Lobbying

Grassroots lobbying oftentimes implement the use of media, ranging from television to print, in order to expand their outreach. Other forms of free media that make a large impact are things like boycotting, protesting, and demonstrations.

Social Media

The trend of the past decade has been the use of social media outlets to reach people across the globe. Using social media is, by nature, a grassroots strategy.

Mass movements

Mobilizing a specific group identified by the lobby puts pressure on the legislature to address the concerns of this group. These tactics are used after the lobbying group gains the public’s trust and support through public speaking, passing out flyers, and even campaigning through mass media.

Trends

Trends from the past decade in grassroots lobbying include an increase in the aggressive recruitment of volunteers, as well as starting campaigns early on, before the legislature has made a decision. Also, lobbying groups have been able to create interactive websites and utilize social media (including Facebook and Twitter) to email, recruit volunteers, assign them tasks, and keep the goal of the lobbying group on track.

Regulations

Lobbying is protected by the First Amendment rights of speech, association, and petition . Federal law does not mandate grassroots lobbying disclosure, yet 36 states regulate grassroots lobbying. There are 22 states that define lobbying as direct or indirect communication to public officials, and 14 additional states that define it as any attempt to influence public officials. A group or individual classified as a lobbyist must submit regular disclosure reports; however, reporting requirements vary from state to state. Some states’ disclosure requirements are minimal and require only registration, while other states’ requirements are extensive, including the filing of monthly to quarterly expense reports, which include all legislative activity relevant to the individual or groups activities, amounts of contributions and donations, and the names and addresses of contributors and specified expenses. Penalties range from civil fines to criminal penalties if regulations are not complied with.

Bill of Rights

The First Amendment rights of free speech, freedom of association, and freedom of petition protect lobbying, including grassroots lobbying.

7.2.4: Cultivating Access

Learning Objective

Describe how lobbying and campaign finance intersect

Key Points

• Getting access can sometimes be difficult, but there are various avenues: email, personal letters, phone calls, face-to-face meetings, meals, get-togethers, and even chasing after congresspersons in the Capitol building.
• When getting access is difficult, there are ways to wear down the walls surrounding a legislator.
• One of the ways in which lobbyists gain access is through assisting congresspersons with campaign finance by arranging fundraisers, assembling PACs, and seeking donations from other clients.

Key Terms

PACs

A political action committee (PAC) is any organization in the United States that campaigns for or against political candidates, ballot initiatives or legislation.

access

A way or means of approaching or entering; an entrance; a passage.

Access is important and often means a one-on-one meeting with a legislator . Getting access can sometimes be difficult, but there are various means one can try: email, personal letters, phone calls, face-to-face meetings, meals, get-togethers, and even chasing after congresspersons in the Capitol building. One lobbyist described his style of getting access as “not to have big formal meetings, but to catch members on the fly as they’re walking between the House and the office buildings. “

Cultivating Access

Connections count: Congressperson Tom Perriello with lobbyist Heather Podesta at an inauguration party for Barack Obama.

When getting access is difficult, there are ways to wear down the walls surrounding a legislator. Lobbyist Jack Abramoff explains:

Access is vital in lobbying. If you can’t get in your door, you can’t make your case. Here we had a hostile senator, whose staff was hostile, and we had to get in. So that’s the lobbyist safe-cracker method: throw fundraisers, raise money, and become a big donor. —Abramoff in 2011

One of the ways in which lobbyists gain access is through assisting congresspersons with campaign finance by arranging fundraisers, assembling PACs, and seeking donations from other clients. Many lobbyists become campaign treasurers and fundraisers for congresspersons. This helps incumbent members cope with the substantial amounts of time required to raise money for reelection bids; one estimate was that Congresspersons had to spend a third of their working hours on fundraising activity. PACs are fairly easy to set up; all they require is a lawyer and about $300.

An even steeper possible reward which can be used in exchange for favors is the lure of a high-paying job as a lobbyist. According to Abramoff, one of the best ways to “get what he wanted” was to offer a high-ranking congressional aide a high-paying job after they decided to leave public office. When such a promise of future employment was accepted, according to Abramoff, “we owned them”. This helped the lobbying firm exert influence on that particular congressperson by going through the staff member or aide. At the same time, it is hard for outside observers to argue that a particular decision, such as hiring a former staffer into a lobbying position, was purely as a reward for some past political decision, since staffers often have valuable connections and policy experience needed by lobbying firms. Research economist Mirko Draca suggested that hiring a staffer was an ideal way for a lobbying firm to try to sway their old bosses—a congressperson—in the future.

7.2.5: Mobilizing Public Opinion

Learning Objective

Differentiate between direct and indirect lobbying efforts

Key Points

• Efforts to influence Congress indirectly, by trying to change public opinion, are often referred to as indirect lobbying.
• Larger, more diverse, and more wealthy coalitions tend to be the most effective at outside lobbying (the “strength in numbers” principle applies).
• Increasingly, in order to influence elections, lobbyists have put together large coalitions and mobilized outside lobbying efforts aimed at swaying and controlling public opinion.

Key Terms

indirect lobbying

Efforts to influence Congress indirectly by trying to change public opinion. These efforts depend on the fact that politicians must frequently appeal to the public during regular election cycles.

direct lobbying

Direct lobbying refers to methods used by lobbyists to influence legislative bodies through direct communication with members of the legislative body, or with a government official who formulates legislation.

public opinion

The opinion of the public, the popular view.

In 1953, following a lawsuit that included a congressional resolution that authorized a governmental committee to investigate “all lobbying activities intended to influence, encourage, promote, or retard legislation,” the Supreme Court narrowly construed “lobbying activities” to mean only “direct” lobbying. The Court defined this “direct” method of lobbying as “representations made directly to the Congress, its members, or its committees”. It contrasted this with indirect lobbying, which it defined as efforts to influence Congress indirectly by trying to change public opinion.

Mobilizing Public Opinion

Large health notices on tobacco products is one way in which the anti-smoking lobby and the government have tried to mobilize public opinion against smoking.

Increasingly, lobbyists seek to influence politics by putting together coalitions and by utilizing outside lobbying to mobilize public opinion on issues. Larger, more diverse, and more wealthy coalitions tend to be more effective at outside lobbying (the “strength in numbers” principle often applies). These groups have been defined as “sustainable coalitions of similarly situated individual organizations in pursuit of like-minded goals. ” According to one study, it is often difficult for a lobbyist to influence a staff member in Congress directly, because staffers tend to be well-informed, and because they frequently hear views from competing interests. As an indirect tactic, lobbyists often try to manipulate public opinion which, in turn, can sometimes exert pressure on congresspersons, who must frequently appeal to that public during electoral campaigns. One method for exerting this indirect pressure is the use of mass media. Interest groups often cultivate contacts with reporters and editors and encourage these individuals to write editorials and cover stories that will influence public opinion regarding a particular issue. Because of the important connection between public opinion and voting, this may have the secondary effect of influencing Congress. According to analyst Ken Kollman, it is easier to sway public opinion than a congressional staff member, because it is possible to bombard the public with “half-truths, distortion, scare tactics, and misinformation. ” Kollman suggests there should be two goals in these types of efforts. First, communicate to policy makers that there is public support behind a particular issue, and secondly, increase public support for that issue among constituents. Kollman asserted that this type of outside lobbying is a “powerful tool” for interest group leaders. In a sense, using these criteria, one could consider James Madison as having engaged in outside lobbying. After the Constitution was proposed, Madison wrote many of the 85 newspaper editorials that argued for people to support the Constitution. These writings later came to be known as the Federalist Papers. As a result of Madison’s “lobbying” effort, the Constitution was ratified, although there were narrow margins of victory in four of the states.

Lobbying today generally requires mounting a coordinated campaign, which can include targeted blitzes of telephone calls, letters, and emails to congressional lawmakers. It can also involve more public demonstrations, such as marches down the Washington Mall, or topical bus caravans. These are often put together by lobbyists who coordinate a variety of interest group leaders to unite behind a hopefully simple, easy-to-grasp, and persuasive message.

7.2.6: Using Electoral Politics

Learning Objective

Give an example of an interest group making determined use of electoral politics

Key Points

• One example of an interest group using electoral politics is the National Caucus of Labor Committees.
• in 1972, the NCLC launched the U.S. Labor Party (USLP), a registered political party, as its electoral arm. They later nominated LaRouche for President of the United States.
• The National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC) is a political cadre organization in the United States founded and controlled by political activist Lyndon LaRouche, who has sometimes described it as a “philosophical association”.

Key Terms

electoral politics

An election is a formal decision-making process by which a population chooses an individual to hold public office.

interest group

Collections of members with shared knowledge, status, or goals. In many cases, these groups advocate for particular political or social issues.

All electoral politics are interest politics in some sense. Over the course of American history, a number of interest groups have sought out electoral politics as a means of gaining access and influence on broader American policies. One example of an interest group using electoral politics is the National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC).

The NCLC is a political cadre organization in the United States, founded and controlled by political activist Lyndon LaRouche, who has sometimes described it as a “philosophical association. “

Lyndon LaRouche

LaRouche was the leader of the National Caucus of Labor Committees, an interest group that later developed a distinct political party that nominated LaRouche for president of the U.S.

LaRouche is the NCLC’s founder and the inspiration for its political views. (For more information on these views see the article “Political Views of Lyndon LaRouche,” as well as the main article titled “Lyndon LaRouche. ” An overview of LaRouche’s organizations is in “LaRouche movement. “) The highest group within the NCLC is the “National Executive Committee” (NEC), described as the “inner leadership circle” or “an elite circle of insiders” that “oversees policy. ” The next most senior group is the “National Committee” (NC), which is reportedly “one step beneath the NEC. “

In 1972, the NCLC launched the U.S. Labor Party (USLP), a registered political party, as its electoral arm. In 1976, they nominated LaRouche for President of the United States on the Labor Party ticket, along with numerous candidates for lower office. In 1979, LaRouche changed his political strategy to allow him to run in the Democratic primaries, rather than as a third party candidate. This resulted in the USLP being replaced by the National Democratic Policy Committee (NDPC) a political action committee unassociated with the Democratic National Committee.

7.3: Types of Interest Groups

7.3.1: Business and Economic Interest Groups

Economic interest groups advocate for the economic benefit of their members, and business interests groups are a prominent type of economic interest group.

Learning Objective

Identify the organization and purpose of business and economic interest groups

Key Points

• Economic interest groups are one of the five broad categories of interest groups in the US.
• These groups advocate for the economic interest and benefits of their members.
• Economic interest groups are varied and for and given issue there will be large number of competing interest groups. These category includes groups representing representing business, labor, professional and agricultural interests.
• Business interest groups generally promote corporate or employer interests.

Key Terms

business group

a collection of parent and subsidiary companies that function as a single economic entity through a common source of control

partisan

An adherent to a party or faction.

Business and Economic Interest Groups

Interest groups represent people or organizations with common concerns and interests. These groups work to gain or retain benefits for their members, through advocacy, public campaigns and even by lobbying governments to make changes in public policy. There are a wide variety of interest groups representing a variety of constituencies.

Economic Interest Groups

Economic interest groups are one of the five broad categories of interest groups in the US. These groups advocate for the economic interest and benefits of their members. Economic interest groups are varied, and for any given issue there will be a large number of competing interest groups. Categories of economic interest groups include those representing business, labor, professional and agricultural interests.

Business Interest Groups

Business interest groups generally promote corporate or employer interests. Larger corporations often maintain their own lobbyists to work on behalf of their specific interests. Companies and organizations will also come together in larger groups to work together on general business interests.

Umbrella organizations such as the US Chambers of Commerce (USCC) work around general business interests. While the name might suggest that this is a government agency, the USCC represents various business and trade organizations, and was formed as a counterbalance to the growing power of the labor movement in 1912. The USCC uses a wide variety of strategies and tactics in its work including lobbying or representation, and monitoring various laws and programs. USCC’s work is at times more partisan; for example, it might endorse a specific candidates.

US Chamber of Commerce

This banner celebrating both jobs and free enterprise hung outside of the US Chamber of Commerce to commemorate the groups hundredth year.

Another example of an umbrella business interest group is the US Women’s Chamber of Congress (USWCC). The USWCC’s work could be described as agenda setting, as their work representing women in business attempts to bring attention to an issue that had been neglected. Like other business interest groups, USWCC will work though legal and lobbying to gain benefits for its constituency.

Because of how numerous and well funded business interest groups tend to be, there is always a concern that they are interfering with, rather than enhancing, the democratic process.

7.3.2: Labor Interest Groups

Labor interest groups advocate for the economic interests of workers and trade organizations.

Learning Objective

Explain the decline of labor interest groups and new kinds of organization

Key Points

• Labor interest groups are a type of economic interest group. Economic interest groups advocate for the economic benefit of their members and constituents.
• Labor interest groups advocate for the economic interests of workers and trade organizations.
• In addition to representing their members unions also often organized opportunities for direct citizen participation, along with public education and lobbying.
• Membership in private unions has steadily declines. In 2011 on 7% of workers were union members. Public workers are still unionized at much higher rates.
• New kinds of labor interest groups are developing to represent workers outside of the mainstream workforce, such as low-wage or freelance workers.

Key Terms

Industrial Unionism

Industrial unionism is a labor union organizing method through which all workers in the same industry are organized into the same union—regardless of skill or trade—thus giving workers in one industry, or in all industries, more leverage in bargaining and in strike situations.

craft unionism

Craft unionism refers to organizing a union in a manner that seeks to unify workers in a particular industry along the lines of the particular craft or trade that they work in by class or skill level.

Labor Interest Groups

Labor interest groups are a type of economic interest group. Economic interest groups advocate for the economic benefit of their members and constituents. There are a wide variety of types of economic interest groups, including labor groups which advocate on behalf of individual workers and trade organizations. In addition to representing their members, unions also often organize opportunities for direct citizen participation , along with public education and lobbying.

May Day Marches

May 1st is traditionally a day for protests and celebration for labor interest groups. In the US there is now also a focus on immigration and labor rights.

History of Labor Interest Groups

Some of the earliest unions in the US were formed by women in the textile industry in cities such as Lowell, Massachusetts. The National Labor Union (NLU) was the first American federation of unions formed in 1866. In these early days, unions lobbied against dangerous work conditions and for regulations around the work conditions of women and children. They also pushed for an eight hour work day and the right to strike.

The strength of labor interest groups continued in the 19^th century. One example was the American Federation of Labor, a large umbrella group made up primarily of locals involved in craft unionism. While labor was more disorganized during the 1920s, the period during and right after WWII saw a continued growth of unions including the formation of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). The CIO was built around an industrial unionism model. These two major unions merged in 1955 to form the AFL-CIO.

Unions have had an uneven history with women and people of color. Some early unions, for example, specifically banned members who were Chinese or of Chinese decent. The Pullman’s union and the United Farm Workers unions are examples of unions that came together to advocate for the economic interests of African-American and latino workers.

Decline of Private Labor Interest Groups

With the reduction of manufacturing jobs in the US, the number of people represented by unions has fallen. Also, legislation such as the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act made it harder to organize by allowing individual states to ban “closed-shops. ” These are workplaces in which all new employees are required to join a union. Twenty-three states have such laws in place; these are the so-called “right-to-work” states.

While private union membership has declined, public unions are still quite strong. While only 7% of workers in the private sectors belong to unions, 31% of federal workers, 35% of state workers, and 46% of local government employees belong to unions.

New Kinds of Organizing

Even as traditional labor interest groups are seeing their numbers fall, there are new groups developing around new constituencies of workers who are outside of the mainstream workforce. Some examples include the National Domestic Workers Alliance, Domestic Workers United and the Restaurant Opportunities Center (ROC), which represent low-wage workers. These groups focus on member education as well as advocacy and public education, ensuring their members are aware of the rights that they are already entitled to as well as organizing around new economic benefits.

Another example is the Freelancers Union which provides health care for members who are independent workers. Many of these workers are high-skilled or creative workers who are not eligible for workplace related benefits. This union also works as an agenda building organization, bringing attention to the challenges of freelance workers including the high tax burden for independent workers.

7.3.3: Professional Interest Groups

Professional interest groups represent the economic interests for members of various professions including doctors, engineers, and lawyers.

Learning Objective

Classify professional interest groups that influence policy

Key Points

• Professional interest groups are another type of economic interest group. Economic interest groups advocate for the economic benefit of their members and constituents.
• While labor groups focused on trades and industrial labor, professional interest groups represent members of various professions including doctors and engineers.
• These groups also often set rule for their members, including rules about certification and conduct including professional codes of ethics.
• Professional organizations also provide direct economic benefits to their members. These benefits include personal or professional insurance as well as professional development opportunities.

Key Term

professions

A job, especially one requiring a high level of skill or training.

Professional Interest Groups

Professional interest groups are another type of economic interest group. Economic interest groups advocate for the economic benefit of their members and constituents. There are many types of economic interest groups, including professional interest groups which organize and represent professional workers. While trade unions represent skilled and industrial labor, professional organizations represent skilled workers such as doctors, engineers, and lawyers.

These groups advocate for the economic interests of their members. They groups often set the rules for membership in their organizations. This includes rules about certification and conduct including professional codes of ethics. Professional organizations also provide direct economic benefits to their members. These benefits include access to personal or professional insurance as well as professional development opportunities.

One critique of professional organizations is that they serve to increase the income of their membership without any added value or service.

An example of a professional interest group is the American Medical Association (AMA), which represents doctors and medical students throughout the United States. The AMA conducts significant amounts of member and public education work, including publishing the Journal of the America Medical Association . It also carries out a substantial amount of charity work. Its broad mission is to promote the art and science of medicine for the betterment of the public health. However, it is also committed to advancing the interest of physicals, including economic interests. The AMA often lobbies on behalf of its members. For example, the AMA lobbied in campaigns against Medicare during the 1950’s and 1960’s. While the AMA now supports Medicare it did opposed attempts to create a national health care system. Another campaign that is directly related to economic interests is one to limit the damages awarded in medical malpractice suits.

Journal of the America Medical Association

The first edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association. Today it is the most widely read medical journal in the world.

7.3.4: Agricultural Interest Groups

Agricultural interest groups are a type of economic interest group that represent farmers.

Learning Objective

Analyze the organization and purpose of agricultural interest groups

Key Points

• Agricultural interest groups are a type of economic interest group.
• Agricultural interest groups represent the economic interests of farmers, including issues such as crop prices, land use zoning, government subsidies, and international trade agreements.
• There is a long history of agricultural interest groups in the United States. An example is the American Farm Bureau Federation which started in 1911.
• Today, agricultural interest groups are often divided among themselves. There are various types of farms and farmers in the U.S. with conflicting interests.

Key Term

yeoman farmer

Yeoman refers chiefly to a free man owning his own farm. Work requiring a great deal of effort or labor, such as would be done by a yeoman farmer, came to be described as yeoman’s work. Thus, yeoman became associated with hard toil.

Agricultural Interest Groups

Economic interest groups are varied. For any given issue, there will be large number of competing interest groups. Categories of economic interest groups include those representing business, labor, professional, and agricultural interests.

Agricultural interest groups represent the economic interests of farmers. These interests include business and agricultural extension concerns, as well as matters of local, national, and even international policy. These include crop prices, land use zoning, government subsidies, and international trade agreements.

There is a long history of agricultural interest groups in the United States. An example is the American Farm Bureau Federation which was founded in 1911. As a result of the majority of the country’s rural history, agricultural concerns have long been of great importance. Specifically, the vision of the yeoman farmer was one of the important American archetypes moving into the progressive era.

Today, agricultural interest groups are often divided among themselves. There are various types of farms and farmers in the U.S. that often have conflicting interests. For example, a policy that is beneficial to large scale agribusiness might be highly damaging for small, family farms.

Agricultural interest groups range from large agribusiness, to groups such as the Farm Bureau representing mid-sized and commodity crop farmers, to the Farmers Market Coalition which advocates for policies that would benefit local farm production.

Organizations such as the Farmers Market Coalition represents a fairly new type of agricultural interest group. These are the groups advocating for policies that would support the renewal of small and local agriculture. One example are advocacy around the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program/Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program . These programs provide fresh, locally produced fruits and vegetables for participants in other government nutritional subsidy programs. By sourcing local foods these programs also provide direct economic benefits for local farmers.

Farmers Market

Small farmers are just one part of the larger group of farmers involved in agricultural interest groups.

7.3.5: Environmental Interest Groups

Environmental interest groups are public-interest groups that advocate around conservation and ecological issues.

Learning Objective

Identify the historical origins and purpose of environmental interest groups

Key Points

• Environmental interest groups are generally public-interest groups, as their work benefits a wider community beyond their own active membership. They advocate for conservation and ecological issues.
• There is a long history of conservation and early forms of environmentalism in the US. Some early conservationists were members of the transcendental movement which developed in the 1830s.
• Today environmental interests groups are extremely varied, and while they all share some concern for conversation or the environment, many hold conflicting views.
• Different types of environmental interest groups include conservation, environmental justice, ecology, and bright green environmentalism.

Key Terms

greenwash

A false or misleading picture of environmental friendliness used to conceal or obscure damaging activities.

direct action

A form of political activism, in which participants act directly, ignoring established political procedures. This is often (but not always) accomplished by means of strikes, workplace occupations, sabotage, sit-ins, squatting, revolutionary/guerrilla warfare, demonstrations, vandalism, or graffiti.

environmental racism

Environmental racism is inequality — in the form of racism linked with environmental factors and practices — that causes disproportionate distress on minority communities.

Environmental Interest Groups

Environmental interest groups are generally public-interest groups, as their work benefits a wider community beyond their own active membership. These groups advocate around conservation and ecological issues. Interest groups in general are groups represent people or organizations with common concerns and interests. These groups work to gain or retain benefits for their members, or to make general changes for the public good.

There is a long history of conservation and early forms of environmentalism in the US. Some early conservationists were members of the transcendental movement which developed in the 1830s, and represented a general rejection of the rise in urbanization in the US. They advocated for meaningful and consistent interactions with nature, often employing poetic language to describe their ideals for a human environmental relationship. Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau were both part of this movement.

Today environmental interests groups are extremely varied, and while they all share some concern for conversation or the environment, many hold conflicting views about levels of conservation versus for example stewardship, and about appropriate strategies for pursuing their interests.

Some of the different types of environmentalism include the conservation movement, mostly focused on preserving land for sustainable use; the environmental justice movement that developed as a reaction to environmental racism in the US and particular in urban areas; the ecology movement, focused on human relationships and responsibilities to the environment; and bright green environmentalism, which looks at technological and design solutions to environmental question.

Love Canal

This 1978 protest at Love Canal was one of the early events in the environmental justice movement.

Each of these groups will use different strategies including scientific research, and public education as well as lobbying and litigation. Environmental groups are also known for their use of *direct action* techniques. These actions range from the work of Greenpeace in disrupting nuclear tests, or whaling to removing genetically modified crops to groups such as the Earth Liberation Front who take a more radical approach and regularly conduct destructive actions as a part of their work.

There are criticisms of environmental interest group including the concern that not all of their claims are scientifically sound, and the complaint that environmental actions or regulations will disrupt business.

On the other hand some business groups have also taken up environmental causes, with business practices and promotion geared towards members and supporters of environmental interests. However other businesses have started to greenwash their products, leading environmental and consumer interest groups to pressure governments to regulate environmental product claims.

7.3.6: Consumer Interest Groups

Consumer Interest Groups advocate for consumer rights and information.

Learning Objective

Classify consumer interest groups and their influence in policy-making

Key Points

• Consumer Interest Groups can be considered public-interest groups because they focus on the issues and interests of consumers rather than providing exclusive economic benefits to a closed set of members.
• The Better Business Bureau (BBB) and the Consumer Union, who publishes the Consumer Reports, are two examples of consumer groups concerned with a broad range of consumer goods.
• These groups focus on a number of different issues including product safety, price issues and consumer notification.
• Consumer Interest Groups employ a variety of strategies– from lobbying to public campaigns.
• They also provide important checks and balances to business interests, make market exchanges more transparent, and help consumers make more informed choices.

Key Term

arbitration

A process through which two or more parties use an arbitrator or arbiter (an impartial third party) in order to resolve a dispute.

Consumer Interest Groups

Interest groups represent people or organizations with common concerns and interests. These groups work to gain or retain benefits for their members, or to make general changes for the public good. Consumer Interest Groups focus on the issues and interests of consumers .

Consumers

Consumer Interest Groups represent, protect, and inform consumers.

Consumer Interest Groups can be considered public-interest groups since their work benefits consumers rather than providing exclusive economic benefits to a closed set of members.

These groups focus on a number of different issues that include product safety, price issues, and consumer notification. They employ a variety of strategies– from lobbying to public campaigns. In these ways Consumer Interest Groups protect and represent consumers. They also provide important checks and balances to business interests, make market exchanges more transparent, and help consumers make more informed choices.

Two examples of consumer groups concerned with a broad range of consumer goods are the Better Business Bureau (BBB) and the Consumer Union, who publishes the Consumer Reports. The BBB works to advance marketplace trust by publishing business reviews and providing a dispute resolution process. This process allows consumers with conflicts or complaints regarding a particular business receive arbitration through the BBB. Consumer Reports is known for its rigorous product testing including side-by-side comparison of similar products. Consumer Reports also continues to do lobbying work around issues such as telecommunications and mass media, health care, and product safety.

Consumer Interest Groups can also be single-issue interests groups. In a very different vein from the example above, the British Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) is one of the oldest and largest single-issue consumer interest groups in the UK. They work to promote quality, choice, and value. They support small pubs with a community focus, promote traditional beers and ciders, and seek to improve licensing permits.

7.3.7: Ideological Interest Groups

Ideological interest groups unite on issues, with their work driven by deeply held beliefs.

Learning Objective

Describe ideological interest groups and their role in the policy-making process

Key Points

• Interest groups represent people or organizations who have common concerns and interests.
• Ideological interest groups might work on various different issues, but their work is driven by deeply held beliefs.
• The ideology of any given group can range from regressive or conservative, to liberal or libertarian, or to progressive or radical.
• These types of interest groups use a variety of strategies including education, representation, participation, and advocacy that includes lobbying and litigation.

Key Term

ideology

Doctrine, philosophy, body of beliefs or principles belonging to an individual or group.

Ideological Interest Groups

Interest groups represent people or organizations with common concerns and interests. These groups work to gain or retain benefits for their members, or to make general changes they perceive to be for the public good. Interest groups work through advocacy, public campaigns, and even directly lobbying governments to change public policy. There are a wide range of ideological interest groups that represent many different constituencies.

Types of Ideological Interest Groups

Ideological interest groups often work on a variety of specific issues, with their work driven by deeply held beliefs. The ideology, or collective beliefs, of any given group might range from regressive or conservative, to liberal or libertarian, or to progressive or radical.

Some examples of ideological interest groups include the National Organization for Women (NOW), the National Taxpayers Union, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and the Christian Coalition. Each organization has an ideological point of view that determines which specific issues or campaigns they get involved in and which side of an issue they take. Additionally, these organizations use a variety of strategies including public education, representation, member participation, and advocacy with governments that includes lobbying and litigation.

NOW is an example of an ideological interest group. It is a liberal feminist organization, and its main mission is advocating for equality and full societal participation for women. However, NOW also works on a number of other issues. The current priorities for NOW include constitutional equality, violence against women, diversity/racism, abortion rights/reproductive issues, lesbian rights, and economic justice.

Leaders of NOW

National Organization for Women (NOW) founder and president Betty Friedan; NOW co-chair and Washington, D.C., lobbyist Barbara Ireton; and feminist attorney Marguerite Rawalt.

On the other hand, the Christian Coalition favors a conservative Christian ideology. The stated goal of the organization is to represent Christians who support a traditional family point of view.The group works on a variety of more specific issues such as disputing abortion, improving traditional education, and lowering taxes.

Some groups fall between being single issue groups or ideological interest groups. Examples include the National Rifle Association (NRA), a gun rights advocacy group, or AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP), an LGBTQ group advocating around AIDS research and health. While both focus on one main unifying issue, their advocacy work is also driven by larger ideological concerns.

7.3.8: Public Interest Groups

Public interest groups advocate for what they consider to be the public good.

Learning Objective

Illustrate how interest groups work for the public interest

Key Points

• Interest groups represent people or organizations with common concerns and interests.
• Public interest groups work on issues that impact the general public, rather than a small group of members.
• One of the challenges that public interest groups face is the difficulty in defining a single idea of the public good in a pluralist society.
• One of the challenges, or criticisms of public interest groups is the difficulty in defining a single idea of the public good in a pluralist society.

Key Terms

free rider

One who obtains benefit from a public good without paying for it directly.

pluralism

A social system based on mutual respect for each other’s cultures among various groups that make up a society, wherein subordinate groups do not have to forsake their lifestyle and traditions and can express their culture and participate in the larger society free of prejudice.

public interest group

a group concerned with the common well-being or general welfare of the population

Public Interest Groups

Interest groups represent people or organizations with common concerns and interests. These groups work to gain or retain benefits for their members, or to make general changes for the public good. Interest groups work through advocacy, public campaigns, and even lobbying governments to make changes in public policy. There are a wide variety of interest groups representing a variety of constituencies. For example, public interest groups work on issues that impact the general public, rather than a select group of members. These groups advocate for their ideals of general good, or common well-being. Some of the issues a public interest group might address include health, the environment, and the political system.

One of the challenges, or criticisms, of public interest groups is the difficulty in defining a single idea of the public good in a society that values pluralism, such as the United States. Because of this difficulty, even when there is consensus around the good of a broad topic, the work of a single public interest group might still be controversial.

An example is in education where most agree that education is a public good, but there are strong disagreements over how to achieve that, or over what sort of education would be best. Groups like the National Education Association, a teachers union and general public interest group, might still be seen by some as primarily promoting teachers’ rights. While a program such as the charter school program might be seen as weakening public schools.

Public interest groups

Public interest groups advocate for issues that impact the general public, such as education.

Another challenge for public-interest groups is the so-called free rider effect. Because the benefits brought about by public interest groups benefit a large group of individuals, there is less direct incentive for people to become involved in an organization’s work since they will still gain from the work even if they remain inactive.

7.3.9: Single-Issue Interest Groups

Single-issue interest groups focus on advocacy around a single defining issue.

Learning Objective

Give examples of single-issue interest groups

Key Points

• Interest groups use various forms of advocacy in order to influence public opinion and/or policy.
• Single-issue interest groups focus on advocacy around a single defining issue.
• These groups focus on a diverse array of issues including abortion, taxation, and animal rights.
• Because of their singular focus, these groups are known for the intensity of their lobbying.
• The National Riffle Associate (NRA) is arguably the best known, and most influential single-issue interest group in the United States.

Key Terms

lobbying

Lobbying (also lobby) is the act of attempting to influence decisions made by officials in the government, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies.

constituencies

interest groups or fan bases

issue network

an alliance of various interest groups and individuals who unite in order to promote a single concern in government policy

Single-Issue Interest Groups

Interest groups use various forms of advocacy in order to influence public opinion and/or policy. Interest groups work through advocacy, public campaigns, and even lobbying governments to make changes in public policy. There are a wide variety of interest groups representing a variety of constituencies.

As the name suggests, these are groups that focus all of their energy on a single defining issue. Their membership is often quite devoted to the issue, and motivated by personal experiences or to participation in ongoing social movements. There are a growing number of single-issue interest groups in the US. These groups focus on a diverse array of issues including abortion, taxation, and animal rights. Because of their singular focus these groups are known for the intensity of their lobbying.

An example of a single-issue interest group is Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), which was formed by a mother whose teenaged daughter was killed by a drunk driver. The organization now lobbies heavily to stop drunk driving as well as supporting the victims of drunk driving and preventing underage drinking.

Another example is the National Riffle Associate (NRA, ), which is also, arguably, the best known and most influential single-issue interest group on the United States. The NRA lobbies in favor of the right of individuals to own and use fire arms. It also lobbies against any laws that its members and leadership see as abridging this right or invading the privacy of gun owners. The NRA spent $10 million dollars campaigning during the 2008 presidential election. Some see this as proof that the NRA has too much influence in government, while others would simple describe it as evidence of the broad support for the organization. However you interpret the actions of the NRA, they have been successful in their efforts, since the United States has the least restrictive gun laws of any country in the Global North.

National Rifle Association (NRA) Headquarters

The NRA is one of the best known, and arguably the most influential single-issue interest group in the US.

7.3.10: Governmental Interest Groups

Government interest groups are a unique type of interest group that represents the interests of government to other governments.

Learning Objective

Give examples of government interest groups and their influence on policy

Key Points

• Government interest groups are a unique form of interest groups that represent the interests of government to other governments.
• City and state governments, for example might lobby in Washington to pursue their goals and gain benefits.
• As with other interest groups many government interest groups also conduct work in public education and media campaigns in addition to their direct advocacy work.
• Foreign governments may also send representatives to make their case with Congress and the executive branch.

Key Terms

New Federalism

New Federalism is a political philosophy of devolution, or the transfer of certain powers from the United States federal government back to the states.

lobby

To attempt to influence (a public official or decision-maker) in favor of a specific opinion or cause.

New Deal

The New Deal was a series of economic programs enacted in the United States between 1933 and 1936. They involved presidential executive orders or laws passed by Congress during the first term of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The programs were in response to the Great Depression, and focused on what historians call the “3 Rs”: Relief, Recovery, and Reform.

Government Interest Groups

Government interest groups are a unique form of interest groups that represent the interests of government to other governments. City and state governments, for example, might lobby in Washington to pursue their goals and gain benefits. In many cases local governments are seeking more funding to carry out their work and responsibilities. This support often comes in the form of federal grants. At other times local governments may advocate for increased direct decision making powers, and control over new policy areas.

As with other interest groups many government interest groups also conduct work in public education and media campaigns in addition to their direct advocacy work.

US Government Interest Groups

The practice of local governments lobbying the federal government started with the New Deal during which an attempt was made to organize the distribution of funds and programs during that period. Since then local governments have continued their efforts. Major gains were made in the 1960s and 1970s, especially around social program funding.

New Deal Programs

These women are learning new skills in a Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) program in Pennsylvania during the Great Depression. FERA was part of the New Deal federal funding to state and local governments.

However, and particularly with President Reagan’s move towards what was known as New Federalism, there has been a move to shrink the size of the federal government and also federal grants. States and cities are now stuck between wanting continued support for their work, and wanting to be free of federal regulations.

Some government interest groups in the US include the National League of Cities, the National Conference of Mayors, and the National Governors Association.

The International Lobby

Additionally, foreign governments may send representatives to make their case with Congress and the executive branch. Again, the support they seek might be direct finding through aid, but might also involve economic arrangements such as trade deals including free trade arrangements or reduction of US tariffs.

7.4: Regulating Interest Groups

7.4.1: Regulating Congressional Lobbyists

Generally, the United States requires systematic disclosure of lobbying in all branches of government, including in Congress.

Learning Objective

Describe the key difficulties that make the regulation of lobbying activity challenging

Key Points

• The rules often specify how much a lobbyist can spend on specific activities, and how to report expenses; many of the laws and guidelines are specified in the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.
• Sometimes defining clearly who is a “lobbyist” and what precisely are lobbying activities can be difficult.
• The legal ramifications of lobbying are further inter-tangled with aspects of campaign finance reform, since lobbyists often spend time seeking donations for the reelection efforts of congresspersons; sorting out these issues can pose ethical challenges.
• Supporters for regulating lobbying hold the view that existing regulations designed to rein in the excesses of lobbying have not been effective, and that reforms and regulations have not cleaned up the system “at all”.
• Laws requiring disclosure have been more prevalent in the twentieth century.

Key Terms

lobbyist

A person remunerated to persuade (to lobby) politicians to vote in a certain way or otherwise use their office to effect a desired result.

disclosure

The act of revealing something

The United States generally requires a systematic disclosure of lobbying, and it may be one of the few countries to have such extensive requirements. Disclosure in one sense allows lobbyists and public officials to justify their actions under the banner of openness and with full compliance of the law. The rules often specify how much a lobbyist can spend on specific activities, and how to report expenses. Many of the laws and guidelines are specified in the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.

Clearly defining who is a “lobbyist” and what precisely are lobbying activities can sometimes be difficult. According to the Lobbying Disclosure Act, several authorized definitions include: Lobbying activities means “lobbying contacts and efforts in support of such contacts, including preparation and planning activities, research and other background work that is intended, at the time it is performed, for use in contacts, and coordination with the lobbying activities of others. ” Lobbying contact means “any oral or written communication (including an electronic communication) to a covered executive branch official or a covered legislative branch official.”

Distinguishing lobbyists from a strategic adviser can still be difficult, since the duties of each can often overlap and are hard to define precisely. There have been issues raised about what constitutes the difference between a lobbyist and a bundler. One report described bundlers as “supporters who contribute their own money to a campaign and solicit it from others. ” There was a question whether such persons were really lobbyists involved with raising campaign monies for the election of Barack Obama, and whether Obama had broken his own pledge not to receive money from lobbyists.

The legal ramifications of lobbying are further inter-tangled with aspects of campaign finance reform, since lobbyists often spend time seeking donations for the reelection efforts of congresspersons. Sorting out these issues can pose ethical challenges. There are numerous regulations governing the practice of lobbying, often ones requiring transparency and disclosure. People paid to lobby must register with the secretary of the Senate and the clerk of the House of Representatives within 45 days of contacting a legislator for the first time, or 45 days after being employed. An exception is that lobbyists who earn less than $3,000 per client for each fiscal quarter, or whose total lobbying expenses are less than $11,500 each quarter, do not need to register. Part-time lobbyists are exempt from registering unless they spend more than 20% of their working hours doing lobbying activities in any quarter. If lobbyists have two or more contacts with a legislator as a lobbyist, then they must register. Requirements for registering also apply to companies that specialize in lobbying, or ones that have an in-house lobbyist, particularly if they spend more than $11,500 on lobbying.

Laws requiring disclosure have been more prevalent in the twentieth century. In 1946, there was a so-called “sunshine law” requiring lobbyists to disclose what they were doing, on whose behalf, and how much they received in payment. The resulting Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act (1946) governed lobbying rules up until 1995 when the Lobbying Disclosure Act replaced it. In 2002, the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 later amended the law to the McCain Feingold Act, which contained rules governing campaign contributions. Lobbying law is a constantly evolving field; the American Bar Association published a book of guidelines in 2009 with over 800 pages .

American Bar Association

The American Bar Association published a book about lobbying regulations.

Lobbyists sometimes support rules requiring greater transparency and disclosure: “Our profession is at a critical point where we can either embrace the constructive changes and reforms by Congress or we can seek out loopholes and continue the slippery slide into history along side the ranks of snake oil salesmen.” —Lobbyist Gerald S. J. Cassidy, 2007.

Supporters for regulating lobbying hold the view that existing regulations designed to rein in the excesses of lobbying have not been effective, and that reforms and regulations have not cleaned up the system at all. Jack Abramoff said lobbyists could “find a way around just about any reform Congress enacted. ” He gave the following example: You can’t take a congressman to lunch for $25 and buy him a hamburger or a steak or something like that … But you can take him to a fund-raising lunch and not only buy him that steak, but give him $25,000 extra and call it a fund-raiser — and have all the same access and all the same interactions with that congressman. A similar view suggested that lobbying reform efforts have been “fought tooth and nail to prevent its passage” since the people with the power to reform would curtail their own powers and income flows.

7.4.2: Regulating Executive Branch Lobbyists

Lobbying the Executive Branch is similar to any other branch of the U.S. government and is regulated by laws pertaining to disclosure.

Learning Objective

Summarize the key reasons behind the movement of lobbying activity from the state to the federal level

Key Points

• Executive branch agencies added a new layer of rule-making to congressional legislation.
• It was not until the 20th century that lobbying the Executive Branch really emerged as a widespread issue with several new political trends in the government.
• Many executive branch agencies have the power to write specific rules and are a target for lobbying.

Key Terms

lobbying

Lobbying (also lobby) is the act of attempting to influence decisions made by officials in the government, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies.

executive branch

The branch of government that oversees the carrying out of the laws, led by the president.

Most lobbying during the nineteenth century happened within state legislatures. While the federal government had a larger jurisdiction, it did not handle many matters pertaining to the economy. The state governments did much more legislating than the federal government. When lobbying did happen, it was often “practiced discreetly” with little or no public disclosure. By one account, more intense lobbying in the federal government happened from 1869 to 1877 during the administration of President Grant near the start of the so-called Gilded Age. The most influential lobbyists wanted railroad subsidies and a tariff on wool. At the same time in the Reconstruction South, lobbying was intense near the state legislatures, especially regarding railroad subsidies, but it also happened in other areas, such as gambling. For example, Charles T. Howard of the Louisiana State Lottery Company actively lobbied state legislators and the governor of Louisiana for the purpose of getting a license to sell lottery tickets.

President Grant

President Ulysses S. Grant was in office during a period of more intense lobbying in the federal government between 1869 and 1877.

But, it was not until the 20^th century that lobbying the Executive Branch really emerged as a widespread issue with several new political trends in the government, including:

• Expensive campaigns. Winning reelection meant spending huge sums on expensive media, particularly television advertising. Congresspersons seeking reelection found themselves having to spend much of their time raising money instead of governing. In 1976, the average cost of running for a House seat was 86,000. By 2006, it was 1.3 million. Running for Senate was even pricier, with an average cost in 2006 of $8.8 million.
• Increased Complexity. This was partly the result of a continuing shift of legislative authority from state governments to Washington and partly the result of new technologies and systems. It became difficult for voters or watchdog groups to monitor this activity since it became harder to follow or even comprehend. Complexity encouraged more specialized lobbying, often with more than one agency affected by any one piece of legislation. It also encouraged lobbyists to become familiar with the intricate details and history of many issues. Executive branch agencies added a new layer of rule-making to congressional legislation. The economy expanded.

In many ways, lobbying the Executive Branch is similar to any other branch of the U.S. government and is thereby regulated by laws pertaining to disclosure discussed in Regulation Congressional Lobbyists. However, it is true that many executive branch agencies have the power to write specific rules and are a target of lobbying. Federal agencies, like the State Department, make rules to give aid money to countries like Egypt. In fact, an Egyptian-American businessman named Kais Menoufy organized a lobby to try and halt U.S. aid to Egypt.

Further complicating the relationship between lobbying and the Executive Branch is the fact that it is possible for one level of government to lobby another level. The District of Columbia, seeking better voting rights for its citizens, has been lobbying Congress and the president for greater power—including possible statehood or voting representation in Congress. An assessment in 2011 suggested that the district needed to rethink its lobbying strategy, since its past efforts have only had “mixed results.”

7.4.3: Results of the 1946 Act

The Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946 was a statute enacted by the United States Congress to reduce the influence of lobbyists.

Learning Objective

Summarize the contents of the 1946 Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act and reactions to it

Key Points

• Section 308 of the bill forced lobbyists to register with the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate and to provide information including the names and addresses of their employers, and to identify in whose interest the particular lobbyist worked.
• The 1946 Act expanded the definition of who could be considered a lobbyist. It included in this category any person who directly or indirectly solicits, collects, or receives money or any other thing of value to be used principally to aid in relation to the passage or defeat of any legislation.
• Lobbyists challenged the Regulation of Lobbying Act on the grounds that it was vague and unclear.

Key Terms

regulation

A law or administrative rule, issued by an organization, used to guide or prescribe the conduct of members of that organization; can specifically refer to acts in which a government or state body limits the behavior of businesses.

scope

The breadth, depth or reach of a subject; a domain.

provision

A clause in a legal instrument, a law, etc., providing for a particular matter and/or stipulation.

The Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946 was a statute enacted by the United States Congress that was intended to reduce the influence of lobbyists on the government.

There is general agreement that money is a key variable in lobbying . This has been viewed as problematic, because it allows those with the most financial resources to influence government more than those who possess less money. The Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946 was specifically crafted to deal with this issue. The act defined lobbying as an activity, and thus created the legal conditions for the behavior to be regulated by the government.

Lobbying for Pay

There is general agreement that money is a key variable in lobbying.

The provisions of the act define lobbying in the following manner:

Section 308 states that, “any person who shall engage himself for pay, or for any consideration, for the purpose of attempting to influence the passage or defeat of any legislation by the Congress of the United States shall, before doing anything in furtherance of such object, register with the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate and shall give to those officers in writing and under oath, his name and business address, the name and address of the person by whom he is employed, and in whose interest he appears or works, the duration of such employment, how much he is paid and is to receive, by whom he is paid or is to be paid, how much he is to be paid for expenses, and what expenses are to be included. “

Section 307 further describes what is regulated. “The Provisions of this act apply to any person (except a political committee as defined in the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, and duly organized State or local committees of a political party), who by himself, or through any agent or employee or other persons in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, solicits, collects, or receives money or any other thing of value to be used principally to aid, or which the principal purpose of which person is to aid, in the accomplishment of influencing, directly or indirectly, the passage or defeat of any legislation by the Congress of the United States. “

Lobbyists claimed that the Regulation of Lobbying Act was unconstitutional on the grounds that it was vague and unclear. In a 1954 case (United States v. Harriss), the Supreme Court made its voice heard on the issue. The Court upheld the act’s constitutionality, but it also narrowed the scope and application of the act. The Supreme Court ruled that the act applied only to paid lobbyists who directly communicated with members of Congress, and only when that communication regarded pending or proposed federal legislation. This meant that lobbyists who visited with congressional staff members, rather than members of Congress themselves, were not considered lobbyists. In addition, the act only monitored attempts to specifically influence the passage or defeat of legislation in Congress, and thus excluded other congressional activities or communication between officials and lobbyists. Finally, the Court also ruled that the act only applied to individuals who spent at least half of their time lobbying. This set basic occupational limits as to who would be affected by the law.

7.4.4: The Reforms of 1995

The Lobbying and Disclosure Act of 1995 was legislation aimed at bringing a level of accountability to federal lobbying practices in the United States.

Learning Objective

Summarize the content and effectiveness of the lobbying reforms of 1995

Key Points

• The law was amended substantially by the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.
• The Lobbying and Disclosure Act of 1995 defines a number of provisions attempting to maintain a degree of transparency in the activities of lobbyists.
• The legislation does not include those lobbyists whose “activities constitute less than 20 percent of the time engaged in services”, thus failing to regulate grassroots (small donors) lobbying.
• The ultimate failure of the Lobbying and Disclosure Act of 1995 was in its failure to provide adequate funding to implement the regulations.

Key Terms

loophole

A method of escape, especially an ambiguity or exception in a rule that can be exploited in order to avoid its effect.

transparency

(figuratively) openness, degree of accessibility to view

lobbyist

A person remunerated to persuade (to lobby) politicians to vote in a certain way or otherwise use their office to effect a desired result.

The Lobbying and Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. § 1601) was legislation aimed at bringing a level of accountability to federal lobbying practices in the United States. This law was then amended substantially by the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. Under provisions which took effect on January 1, 2006, lobbyists are required to register with the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate. Failing to do so is punishable by a civil fine of up to $50,000. The Clerk and Secretary must refer any acts of non-compliance to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia.

Bill Provisions

Definitions: The LDA defines a number of provisions attempting to maintain a degree of transparency in the activities of lobbyists. The legislation defines a client as: “…any person or entity that employs or retains another person for financial or other compensation to conduct lobbying activities on behalf of that person or entity. A person or entity whose employees act as lobbyists on its own behalf is both a client and an employer of such employees….”. The legislation also includes lobbyists that are affected: “The term “lobbyist” means any individual who is employed or retained by a client for financial or other compensation for services that include more than one lobbying contact, other than an individual whose lobbying activities constitute less than 20 percent of the time engaged in the services provided by such individual to that client over a six month period. ” Also included in the legislation are the definitions of what actions must be disclosed, which includes lobbying to certain members of the Executive Branch who are included on specific payrolls. Also included are members of Congress.

Loopholes: The legislation does not include those lobbyists whose “activities constitute less than 20 percent of the time engaged in services”, thus failing to regulate grassroots (small donors) lobbying. The LDA includes a number of other “thresholds” that define what must be recorded. Any organization that contributes more than $10,000 towards lobbying activities must also be registered. Amounts even slightly below this threshold are exempt from reporting. The outline for registration includes “name, address, business telephone number, and principal place of business of the registrant, and a general description of its business or activities;” as well as for the client. The register must also include a statement of what issues the registrant expects to lobby or what may have already been lobbied.

After recording, the records are maintained by the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate. Due to severe understaffing, these two offices are unable to check for illegal activities or corrupt practices. This is the significant failure of this bill. During a hearing before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Senator Christopher Dodd stated that “[s]ince 2003, the Office of Public Records has referred over 2,000 cases to the Department of Justice, and nothing’s been heard from them again.”

Senator Christopher Dodd

Senator Christopher Dodd, while pointing out gaps in the 1995 lobbying reform, was himself implicated in controversy surrounding his role as Chairman of the Senate Banking committee and his relationship with Countrywide Financial

7.4.5: Lobbying Scandals and the Reforms of 2007

The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 sought to amend and strengthen parts of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.

Learning Objective

Describe the rules that the Honest Leadership and Open Government act put in place to regulate lobbying

Key Points

• The bill strengthens public disclosure requirements concerning lobbying activity and funding, places more restrictions on gifts for members of Congress and their staff, and provides for mandatory disclosure of earmarks in expenditure bills.
• The bill sought to address the “revolving door” issue, by declaring limitations on the ability of members of the government to serve as lobbyists following the end of their terms.
• The bill requires lobbyist disclosure filings to be filed twice as often, by decreasing the time between filing from semi-annual to quarterly.

Key Terms

revolving door

The movement between roles as legislators and regulators become lobbyists

disclosure

The act of revealing something

house ethics rules

The Committee on Ethics, often known simply as the Ethics Committee, is one of the committees of the United States House of Representatives. Prior to the 112th Congress it was known as the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

Lobbying Scandals and the Reforms of 2007

The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 is a law of the United States federal government that amended parts of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. It strengthens public disclosure requirements concerning lobbying activity and funding, places more restrictions on gifts for members of Congress and their staff, and provides for mandatory disclosure of earmarks in expenditure bills. The bill was signed into law by President George W. Bush on September 15, 2007.

Details of the bill include closing the revolving door , prohibiting senators from gaining undue lobbying access by increasing the “cooling off” period before they can lobby Congress from one to two years, prohibiting cabinet secretaries and other senior executive personnel from lobbying the department or agency in which they worked for two years after they leave their position, and prohibiting senior Senate staff and officers from lobbying contacts with the entire Senate for one year, instead of just their former employing office. The bill also includes numerous other prohibitions and requirements including:

Closing the Revolving Door

As the former Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services and lobbyist for the Podesta Group in 2009, Ellen Haas represents the revolving door phenomenon that the 2007 lobbying reforms sought to address.

• Prohibits senior House staff from lobbying their former office or committee for one year after they leave House employment.
• Requires that executive and legislative branch employees who leave government positions and seek to lobby on behalf of Native American tribes face the same revolving door provisions as others.
• Exempts those who serve as elected or appointed officials of Native American tribes.
• Prohibits members of Congress and their staff from influencing hiring decisions of private organizations on the sole basis of partisan political gain.
• Subjects those who violate this provision to a fine and imprisonment for up to 15 years.
• Prohibits gifts by lobbyists.
• Prohibits lobbyists from providing gifts or travel to members of Congress with knowledge that the gift or travel is in violation of House or Senate rules.
• Full public disclosure of lobbying activity.
• Requires lobbyist disclosure filings to be filed twice as often, by decreasing the time between filing from semi-annual to quarterly.
• Requires lobbyist disclosures in both the Senate and House to be filed electronically and requires creation of a public searchable Internet database of such information.Increases civil penalty for knowing and willful violations of the Lobby Disclosure Act from 200,000 and imposes a criminal penalty of up to five years for knowing and corrupt failure to comply with the Act.
• Requires the Government Accountability Office to audit annually lobbyist compliance with disclosure rules.
• Requires lobbyists to certify they have not given gifts or travel that would violate Senate or House rules.
• Requires the disclosure of businesses or organizations that contribute more than 15,000 semiannually in campaign contributions for any federal elected official, candidate (including Senate, House and Presidential), or leadership PAC.
• Requires lobbyists to disclose to the Secretary of the Senate and the House Clerk their campaign contributions and payments to Presidential libraries, Inaugural Committees or entities controlled by, named for or honoring members of Congress.
• Includes congressional pension accountability.

Unlike previous lobbying regulations, the 2007 reforms also made an attempt to amend House ethics rules in the following ways:

• Requires disclosure of employment negotiations by members and staff.
• Prohibits members from engaging in any agreements or negotiations about future employment until a successor has been selected unless the member files a statement with the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct; and requires that members recuse themselves from any matter in which there is a conflict of interest or appearance of a conflict.
• Requires senior staff to notify the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct within three days if they engage in negotiations or agreements for future employment or compensation.
• Requires that members prohibit their staff from having any lobbying contact with the Member’s spouse if such individual is a registered lobbyist or is employed or retained by a registered lobbyist to influence legislation.
• Requires that travel by members financed by outside groups be posted on a searchable, sortable and downloadable website by August 1, 2008. Requires that members’ financial disclosure forms be posted on a searchable, sortable and downloadable website by August 1, 2008.
• Prohibits members from attending parties held in their honor at national party conventions if they have been sponsored by lobbyists, unless the member is the party’s presidential or vice presidential nominee.

7.4.6: Obama vs. the Lobbyists?

Early in his presidency, Obama said “[lobbyists] won’t find a job in my White House,” but softened his stance later in the campaign.

Learning Objective

Summarize the Obama White House’s position on hiring former lobbyist

Key Points

• On January 21, 2009, Obama issued an executive order which stated no appointee who was a registered lobbyist within the two years before his appointment could participate on matters in which he lobbied for a period of two years after the date of appointment.
• As of March 21, 2009, at least thirty officials appointed by Obama had been lobbyists in the past five years.
• Critics of Obama’s administration claim Obama is retreating from his own ethics rules barring lobbyists from working on the issues about which they lobbied during the previous two years by issuing waivers.

Key Terms

recusal

An act of recusing. To remove oneself from a decision/judgment because of a conflict of interest.

appointee

a person who is appointed

waiver

Something that releases a person from a requirement.

Early in his presidential campaign, Obama stated that “they [lobbyists] won’t find a job in my White House”, but softened his stance later in the campaign. On January 21, 2009, Obama issued an executive order for all future appointees to his administration, which stated, no appointee who was a registered lobbyist within the two years before his appointment could participate on matters in which he lobbied for a period of two years after the date of appointment. Three formal waivers were initially issued in early 2009, out of 800 executive appointments: to William J. Lynn III, a lobbyist for Raytheon, to hold the position of Deputy Secretary of Defense; to Jocelyn Frye, former general counsel at the National Partnership for Women and Families, to serve as Director of Policy and Projects in the Office of the First Lady; and to Cecilia Muñoz, former senior vice president for the National Council of La Raza, to serve as Director of Intergovernmental Affairs in the Executive Office of the President. As of March 21, 2009, at least thirty officials appointed by Obama had been lobbyists in the past five years. Ten additional waivers were announced in September 2009.

President Barack Obama

Starting his presidential years as an outspoken advocate of lobbying regulation, President Obama’s actions in relation to lobbying have led some to believe that he has not lived up to the high ethical standards that he set out for himself.

Not all recent former lobbyists require waivers; those without waivers write letters of recusal stating issues from which they must refrain because of their previous jobs. USA Today reported that 21 members of the Obama administration have at some time been registered as federal lobbyists, although most have not within the previous two years. Lobbyists in the administration include William Corr, an anti-tobacco lobbyist, as Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services and Tom Vilsack, who lobbied in 2007, for a national teachers union, as Secretary of Agriculture. Also, the Secretary of Labor nominee, Hilda Solis, formerly served as a board member of American Rights at Work, which lobbied Congress on two bills Solis co-sponsored, and Mark Patterson, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s chief of staff, is a former lobbyist for Goldman Sachs.

The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington have criticized the administration, claiming that Obama is retreating from his own ethics rules barring lobbyists from working on the issues about which they lobbied during the previous two years by issuing waivers. According to Melanie Sloan, the group’s executive director, “It makes it appear that they are saying one thing and doing another. “

7.5: Elements of Successful Interest Groups

7.5.1: Size and Resources

Interest groups, comprised of members with shared knowledge, status, or goals, frequently advocate on behalf of particular political issues.

Learning Objective

Explain the purpose, composition, and functioning of interest groups.

Key Points

• Interest groups may attempt to influence policy through lobbying, political contributions, or media campaigns.
• Access to financial resources is generally necessary in order for lobbying efforts to be successful.
• The greater the size of an interest group, the more likely it is to have the ability to influence policy.

Key Terms

interest group

Collections of members with shared knowledge, status, or goals. In many cases, these groups advocate for particular political or social issues.

lobbying

Lobbying (also lobby) is the act of attempting to influence decisions made by officials in the government, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies.

media campaign

An attempt to influence public opinion using television, radio, internet, and print advertisements.

Example

• Greenpeace and the National Rifle Association (NRA) are both examples of interest groups. They lobby politicians, contribute to campaigns, and organize media campaigns in attempts to influence policy.

Introduction

Interest groups are comprised of individuals with shared knowledge, status, or goals, and in many cases these groups advocate for particular political or social issues. In the United States, interest groups are often associated with lobbying groups, who seek to influence government officials to act favorably towards them. Interest groups, however, are not always involved in lobbying. They may not be politically active, or else they may use indirect tactics such as media campaigns, research, and public opinion polls in order to advance their cause.

The Iron Triangle

In United States politics, the iron triangle comprises the policy-making relationship among the congressional committees, the bureaucracy, and interest groups.

Interest groups that are politically active with regards to one or more issues are called advocacy groups. In liberal democracies, advocacy groups tend to treat bureaucracy as their main channel of influence, because that is where the decision-making power lies. The aim of advocacy groups is to influence a member of the legislature to support their cause by voting a certain way. The practice of attempting to influence lawmakers is called lobbying, and the effectiveness of a group’s lobbying efforts is usually tied to its access to resources (almost always financial).

Interest Groups and Resources

Interest groups may gain influence because of their access to money. Indeed, financial resources are often critical in influencing governmental policy. In some cases, money is used directly to influence politicians — for example, a lobbyist may treat a legislator to an expensive dinner. These instances are almost always considered corrupt, and are often outlawed as bribery. Money can also be used in more subtle ways to pressure lawmakers into voting in a particular way. For example, because they play a large role in the national economy, large corporations have an advantage in influencing lawmakers. If these large corporations were to suddenly become less successful, it might create economic trouble, which could turn public opinion against elected officials. Thus, the wealthier a corporation is, the more political clout it tends to have. Likewise, large corporations have greater access to politicians than other groups, because corporate leaders often have insider status in powerful groups. Moreover, an interest group might also make use of financial resources in order to donate to a political campaign. In this instance, the donation is not explicitly tied to a policy vote, and is therefore a legal contribution. That being said, the expectation is that interest groups will use their wealth to elect candidates that support their issues. In all of these ways, interest groups use money to gain success and influence on many levels.

Issue Campaigns

Apart from using money to directly influence bureaucrats, interest groups may also use their wealth to launch issue campaigns. In this case, organizations try to gain popular support among American voters for a particular issue. Ultimately, the goal of this tactic is to pressure legislators into acting a certain way in response to a perceived public mandate. Since legislators are elected, there is a strong incentive for them to vote for issues that are popular with the current public opinion. Media campaigns can be very effective at marshaling public opinion, but they are very expensive, because campaigns need to buy television and radio air time, as well as print advertisements. Money is also required to hire and fund the professionals who will run these campaigns. Thus, interest groups with greater funds are far more likely to successfully influence policy than those groups with fewer financial resources.

Size of Interest Groups

As organizations attempting to influence politics through public opinion, interest groups with larger memberships have an advantage over smaller ones. Since legislators are accountable to voters, the more public support there is for an issue, the more likely it is to receive support and governmental attention. Larger interest groups necessarily have influence because of how many voters participate in them. They are also effective because the core group membership is able to more effectively campaign on behalf of an issue than a group with a smaller membership. Additionally, larger interest groups are able to stage large demonstrations that make visible the widespread support for an issue .

7.5.2: Leadership

Interest groups often rely on leaders to organize their fundraising and make their advocacy efforts successful.

Learning Objective

Differentiate between the different kinds of leadership structures in interest groups and social movements.

Key Points

• Corporate interest groups usually choose professional lobbyists to lead their advocacy.
• Interest groups that use public campaigns to influence opinion tend to rely on campaign strategists.
• Interest groups that form social movements may not have a clear leader, though a figurehead may become an informal spokesperson for the group.

Key Terms

political strategist

A consultant who advises and assists political campaigns.

lobbyist

A person remunerated to persuade (to lobby) politicians to vote in a certain way or otherwise use their office to effect a desired result.

social movement

A large, informal grouping of individuals or organizations which advocates for specific political or social issues.

Example

• Martin Luther King, Jr. is an example of an unofficial leader of a social movement–the Civil Rights Movement was a diffuse political movement, not a discrete organization, but King became the figurehead of the movement through his charismatic and influential leadership.

The role of leadership varies based on the political orientation or goals of an interest group. Some interest groups, especially corporations, hire lobbyiststo lead their advocacy efforts. Interest groups with organized media campaigns may be led by political strategists. In contrast, more amorphous social movements that act as interest groups may coalesce around charismatic, but often unofficial, group leaders.

When interest groups attempt to influence policymakers through lobbying, they usually rely on professional lobbyists. Lobbyists are often well-connected professionals, such as lawyers, whose role is to argue for specific legislation. Successful lobbyists achieve insider status in legislative bodies, meaning they can talk directly to lawmakers. Once they gain access to legislators, the lobbyist’s job is to persuade them to act on behalf of their client. Recent estimates put the number of registered lobbyists in Washington, D.C. at about 13,700, though there are likely thousands more unregistered lobbyists working to influence policymakers.

Interest groups that attempt to influence policy by changing public opinion may be led by political strategists, who are often consultants familiar with public relations, advertising, and the political process. Political strategists are responsible for determining a campaign plan. The campaign plan usually involves deciding on a central message the interest group hopes to use for persuading voters to support their position. Additionally, the strategist determines where advertisements will be placed, where grassroots organizing efforts will be focused, and how fundraising will be structured. In issue-based campaigns, successful political strategists create public awareness and support for an issue, which can then pressure legislators to act in favor of the interest group.

Interest groups may be broader than one formal organization, in which case advocacy may form a social movement. A social movement is group action aimed at social change. Social movements may have some formal hierarchy, but they are often disorganized, with funding and support coming from a range of decentralized sources. Because of these factors, social movements do not always have a clear leader the way corporate lobbying efforts and media campaigns do. Instead, social movements may either rely on a network of local leaders, or may be led informally by a charismatic or influential participant. For example, the Civil Rights Movement was a diffuse and widespread effort toward social change, involving many formal organizations and informal groups. Still, many consider Martin Luther King, Jr. to be the leader of the Civil Rights Movement because of the highly influential and public role he played in influencing policies and opinions. Interest groups with a de facto leader may be more successful at sustained political advocacy than those with no clear hierarchy, because a clearly defined leader allows for more efficient organization of fundraising efforts, demonstrations, and campaigns. That being said, social scientists often disagree when defining social movements and the most effective forms of advocacy, finding that leadership plays an ambiguous role in terms of the overall success of many interest groups.

7.5.3: Cohesiveness

Advocacy groups that form along ideological, ethnic, or foreign policy objectives tend to have higher levels of internal cohesion.

Learning Objective

Describe the key characteristics and aims of advocacy groups

Key Points

• In the social sciences, a social group has been defined as two or more humans who interact with one another, share similar characteristics, and collectively have a sense of unity. A social group exhibits degrees of social cohesion and is more than a simple collection or aggregate of individuals.
• Advocacy groups use various forms of advocacy to influence public opinion and/or policy; they have played and continue to play an important part in the development of political and social systems.
• An ethnic interest group, according to the political scientist Thomas Ambrosio, is an advocacy group established along cultural, ethnic, religious, or racial lines by an ethnic group for the purposes of directly or indirectly influencing the foreign policy.
• While many formal organizations established by ethnic identity groups are apolitical, others are created explicitly for political purposes.
• Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs when group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints.
• Deindividuation is a concept in social psychology that is generally thought of as the loosening of self-awareness in groups, although this is a matter of contention.

Key Terms

ethnic interest group

An ethnic interest group, according to the political scientist Thomas Ambrosio, is an advocacy group established along cultural, ethnic, religious or racial lines by an ethnic group for the purposes of directly or indirectly influencing the foreign policy of their resident country in support of the homeland and/or ethnic kin abroad with which they identify.

social cohesion

The bonds or “glue” that maintain stability in society.

groupthink

A process of reasoning or decision-making by a group, especially one characterized by uncritical acceptance or conformity to a perceived majority view.

Introduction

In the social sciences a social group has been defined as two or more humans who interact with one another, share similar characteristics, and collectively have a sense of unity. Other theorists, however, are a wary of definitions which stress the importance of interdependence or objective similarity. Instead, for researchers in the social identity tradition, “a group is defined in terms of those who identify themselves as members of the group. ” Regardless, social groups come in a myriad of sizes and varieties.

A social group exhibits some degree of social cohesion and is more than a simple collection or aggregate of individuals, such as people waiting at a bus stop or people waiting in a line. Characteristics shared by members of a group may include interests, values, representations, ethnic or social background, and kinship ties. Kinship ties being a social bond based on common ancestry, marriage, or adoption. In a similar vein, some researchers consider the defining characteristic of a group as social interaction.

Advocacy Groups

Advocacy groups use various forms of advocacy to influence public opinion and/or policy; they have played and continue to play an important part in the development of political and social systems. Groups vary considerably in size, influence, and motive; some have wide-ranging, long-term social purposes, others are focused and are a response to an immediate issue or concern. Motives for action may be based on a shared political, faith, moral, or commercial position. Groups use varied methods to try to achieve their aims including lobbying, media campaigns, publicity stunts, polls, research, and policy briefings. Some groups are supported by powerful business or political interests and exert considerable influence on the political process, others have few such resources.

An ethnic interest group, according to the political scientist Thomas Ambrosio, is an advocacy group established along cultural, ethnic, religious, or racial lines by an ethnic group for the purposes of directly or indirectly influencing the foreign policy of their resident country in support of the homeland and/or ethnic kin abroad with which they identify. According to Ambrosio, “like other societal interest groups, ethnic identity groups establish formal organizations devoted to promoting group cohesiveness and addressing group concerns. ” While many formal organizations, established by ethnic identity groups, are apolitical, others are created explicitly for political purposes. In general, groups who seek to influence government policy on domestic or foreign issues are referred to as “advocacy groups. ” Those interest groups, established by ethnic identity groups, are referred to as ethnic interest groups. The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee is an example of an ethnic interest group in the United States – its mission is to influence American foreign policy and maintain a robust alliance with Israel .

AIPAC Protest DC 2005

The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee is an example of an ethnic interest group. This is a photograph of a group of protesters outside the AIPAC conference at the Washington, D.C. Convention Center.

Groupthink

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within groups of people, in which the desire for harmony in a decision-making group overrides a realistic appraisal of alternatives. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints. Antecedent factors, such as group cohesiveness, structural faults, and situational context, play into the likelihood of whether or not groupthink will impact the decision-making process.

Deindividuation is a concept in social psychology that is generally thought of as the loosening of self-awareness in groups, although this is a matter of contention. Sociologists also study the phenomenon of deindividuation, but the level of analysis is somewhat different. For the social psychologist, the level of analysis is the individual in the context of a social situation. As such, social psychologists emphasize the role of internal psychological processes. Other social sciences, such as sociology, are more concerned with broad social, economic, political, and historical factors that influence events in a given society.

7.5.4: Members

Members join interest groups because of common concerns and to unite under one cause.

Learning Objective

Describe the activities of interest groups and the challenges they face

Key Points

• An interest group is a group of individuals who share common objectives and whose aim is to influence policymakers.
• Membership interests represent individuals for social, business, labor, or charitable purposes in order to achieve civil or political goals. Institutional interests represent other organizations, with agendas that fit the needs of the organizations they serve.
• A general theory is that individuals must be enticed with some type of benefit to join an interest group.
• People who join an interest group may not have shared opinions on other issues. With the membership united under one cause, the staff has the ability to pursue other issues that the membership may disagree on because members will remain united by the primary cause.

Key Terms

solidary

Having shared community interests and responsibilities.

interest group

Collections of members with shared knowledge, status, or goals. In many cases, these groups advocate for particular political or social issues.

incentive

Something that motivates, rouses, or encourages.

Example

• Mancur Lloyd Olson, a leading American economist, sought to understand the logical basis of interest group membership and participation. In his first book, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (1965), he theorized that “only a separate and ‘selective’ incentive will stimulate a rational individual in a latent group to act in a group-oriented way”; that is, members of a large group will not act in the group’s common interest unless motivated by personal gains.

Introduction

An interest group is a group of individuals who share common objectives, and whose aim is to influence policymakers. Institutional interest groups represent other organizations, with agendas that fit the needs of the organizations they serve. Examples include the American Cotton Manufacturers (which represents the generally congruous southern textile mills) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (which represents the multitude of wants of American businesses).

Membership interest groups are organizations that represent individuals for social, business, labor, or charitable purposes in order to achieve civil or political goals. Examples include the NAACP (African-American interests), the Sierra Club (environmental interests), the NRA (Second Amendment interests), and Common Cause (interests in an increase in voter turnout and knowledge). Membership includes a group of people that join an interest group and unite under one cause. Members may or may not have an opinion on some of the issues the staff pursues. Similarly, staff are the leaders. With the membership united under one cause, the staff has the ability to pursue other issues that the membership may disagree on because members will remain in the group because they are united by the primary cause.

NRA Headquarters

The headquarters of the NRA, an interest group, located in Fairfax Virginia, USA.

Benefits and Incentives

A general theory is that individuals must be enticed with some type of benefit to join an interest group. Known as the free rider problem, it refers to the difficulty of obtaining members when the benefits are reaped without membership. For instance, an interest group dedicated to improving farming standards will fight for the general goal of improving farming for all farmers, even those who are not members of the particular interest group. Thus, there is no real incentive to join an interest group and pay dues if the farmer will still receive that benefit even if they do not become a member. Interest groups must receive dues and contributions from members in order to accomplish their agendas. While every individual in the world would benefit from a cleaner environment, an environmental protection interest group does not, in turn, receive financial help from every individual in the world.

Selective material benefits are sometimes given in order to address the free rider problem. Interest groups give material benefits like travel discounts, free meals at certain restaurants, or free subscriptions to magazines, newspapers, or journals. Many trade and professional interest groups give these benefits to members.

A selective solidary benefit is another type of benefit offered to members of an interest group. These incentives involve benefits like socializing, congeniality, the sense of group membership and identification, the status resulting from membership, fun and conviviality, the maintenance of social distinctions, and so on. A solidary incentive is one in which the rewards for participation are social and created out of the act of association.

An expressive incentive can be another basic benefit to members of an interest group. People who join an interest group because of expressive benefits join to express an ideological or moral value they believe in. Such values include free speech, civil rights, economic justice, or political equality. To obtain these types of benefits, members simply pay dues or donate time or money to get a feeling of satisfaction from expressing a political value. Even if the interest group does not achieve its goals, members merely want to be able to say they helped out in the process of trying to obtain the goals, which is the expressive incentive. Interest groups that rely on expressive benefits include environmental groups and groups who claim to lobby for the public interest.

Collective Action

Mancur Lloyd Olson, a leading American economist, sought to understand the logical basis of interest group membership and participation. The reigning political theories of his day granted groups an almost primordial status. Some appealed to a natural human instinct for herding, others ascribed the formation of groups to kinship rooted in the process of modernization. Olson offered a radically different account of the logical basis of organized collective action. In his first book, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (1965), he theorized that “only a separate and ‘selective’ incentive will stimulate a rational individual in a latent group to act in a group-oriented way.” Olsen’s work laid the foundation for understanding how members of a large group will not act in the group’s common interest unless motivated by personal gains.

7.6: Political Parties

7.6.1: Political Parties

A political party seeks to influence government policy by nominating their own candidates and trying to seat them in office.

Learning Objective

Identify the functions and different structures of political parties in an electoral democracy

Key Points

• There are three general, main types of party systems, single or dominant party systems, two-party systems, or multi-party systems.
• Single party systems tend to be indicative of authoritarian regimes since the dominance of a single party means the repression of all other political opposition.
• The type of electoral system is a major factor in determining the type of party political system. In countries with a simple plurality voting system, parties elected tend to be few, sometimes only two in a single jurisdiction.

Key Terms

Single Dominant Party

In single dominant, or single-party systems, one political party is legally allowed to hold effective power. Although minor parties may sometimes be allowed, they are legally required to accept the leadership of the dominant party.

political party

A political party is a political organization that typically seeks to influence government policy, usually by nominating their own candidates and trying to seat them in political office. Parties often espouse an expressed ideology or vision, bolstered by a written platform with specific goals, forming a coalition among disparate interests.

Nonpartisan

In a nonpartisan system, no official political parties exist, sometimes reflecting legal restrictions on political parties. In nonpartisan elections, each candidate is eligible for office on his or her own merits.

Political Parties

A political party is a political organization that typically seeks to influence government policy, usually by nominating their own candidates and trying to seat them in political office. Parties often espouse an expressed ideology or vision bolstered by a written platform with specific goals, forming a coalition among disparate interests.

Parliamentary Party Structure

When the party is represented by members in the lower house of parliament, the party leader simultaneously serves as the leader of the parliamentary group of that full party representation. Depending on a minimum number of seats held, Westminster-based parties allow for leaders to form frontbench teams of senior fellow members of the parliamentary group who serve as critics of aspects of government policy. When a party becomes the largest party not to be represented in a Westminster-style parliament, the party’s parliamentary group forms the Official Opposition. The Official Opposition frontbench team members often form the Official Opposition Shadow cabinet. When a party achieves enough seats in an election to form a majority, the party’s frontbench becomes the Cabinet of government ministers.

Regulation of Party Formation

The freedom to form a political party is considered a measurement of a state’s adherence to liberal democracy as a political value. Regulation of political parties may manifest as a crackdown on or repression of all opposition parties or certain parties who promote ideals that run counter to the general ideology of the state’s incumbents or possess membership by-laws which are legally unenforceable.

Voting Systems

The type of electoral system is a major factor in determining the type of political party system. In countries with a simple plurality voting system, there tends to be few parties elected (often only two in any given jurisdiction). In countries that have a proportional representation voting system, as exists throughout Europe, or to a greater extent ranked voting systems, such as in Australia or Ireland, three or more parties are often elected to parliament in significant proportions, and thus may have more access to public office.

Partisan and Nonpartisan Style Political Parties

Partisan style political parties varies according to each jurisdiction, depending on how many parties there are, and how much influence each individual party has.

In a nonpartisan system, no official political parties exist, sometimes reflecting legal restrictions on political parties. In nonpartisan elections, each candidate is eligible for office on his or her own merits. Unless there are legal prohibitions against political parties, factions within nonpartisan systems often evolve into political parties.

A Single Dominant Party

In single-party systems, one political party is legally allowed to hold effective power. Although minor parties may sometimes be allowed, they are legally required to accept the leadership of the dominant party. This party may not always be identical to the government, although sometimes positions within the party may in fact be more important than positions within the government. North Korea and China are examples. Other examples can be found in Fascist states, such as Nazi Germany between 1934 and 1945. The single-party system is thus usually equated with dictatorships and tyranny.

In dominant-party systems, opposition parties are allowed, and there may be even a deeply established democratic tradition, but other parties are widely considered to have no real chance of gaining power. Political, social, and economic circumstances, and public opinion can be reasons for others parties’ failure. Typically in countries with less of an established democratic tradition, it is possible the dominant party will remain in power by using patronage and sometimes through voting fraud.

Two-Party Systems

Two-party systems are states in which there are two political parties dominant to such an extent that electoral success under the banner of any other party is almost impossible. One right wing coalition party and one left wing coalition party is the most common ideological breakdown in such a system, but in two-party states political parties are traditionally parties that are ideologically broad and inclusive.

The British Parliament and U.S. Congress are examples of two-party systems.

Multiple Political Parties

Multi-party systems are systems in which more than two parties are represented and elected to public office.

Australia, Canada, People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Ireland, United Kingdom, and Norway are examples of countries with two strong parties and additional smaller parties that have also obtained representation. The smaller or “third” parties may hold the balance of power in a parliamentary system, and thus may be invited to form a part of a coalition government together with one of the larger parties; or may instead act independently from the dominant parties.

More commonly, in cases where there are three or more parties, no one party is likely to gain power alone, and parties work with each other to form coalition governments. Political change is often easier with a coalition government than in one-party or two-party dominant systems.

Westminster-Based Government, British Parliament

The British Parliament is a Westminster-based system of government with multiple political parties.

Joint Session of a Two-Party Congress

The United States Congress is an example of a two-party system of governance. In this picture, Obama’s Health Care Speech is being given to both the House and the Senate.

7.6.2: Interest Groups

Interest groups are any voluntary associations that seek to publicly promote and create advantages for their cause.

Learning Objective

Compare and contrast the different types of interest groups

Key Points

• Interest groups, also known as advocacy groups or lobbying groups, work to gain support both governmental and popular, for their causes or communities. Lobbying groups tend to focus on influencing governmental legislation directly through appeals to members of government.
• The lobbying done by interest groups or advocacy groups may be on behalf of private interests, i.e. commercial business etc, or may be on behalf of public interests such as the civil rights or environmental regulation.
• Governments often define and regulate organized group lobbying.

Key Terms

lobbying

Lobbying (also to lobby) is the act of attempting to influence decisions made by officials in the government. Lobbying is done by many different types of people and organized groups including individuals in the private sector, corporations, fellow legislators or government officials, and advocacy groups (interest groups).

interest group

An interest group is any voluntary association that seeks to publicly promote and create advantages for its cause.

Special Interest Group

A Special Interest Group (SIG) is a community with an interest in advancing a specific area of knowledge, learning, or technology where members cooperate to affect or to produce solutions within their particular field and may communicate, meet, and organize conferences. At times, they may also advocate or lobby on a particular issue or on a range of issues.

Interest Group

The term interest group refers to nearly any voluntary association that seeks to publicly promote and create advantages for its cause. These diverse organizations include corporations, charitable organizations, civil rights groups, neighborhood associations, professional associations, and trade associations.

Special Interest Group

A Special Interest Group (SIG) is a community with an interest in advancing a specific area of knowledge, learning, or technology where members cooperate to affect or to produce solutions within their particular field. SIG members may communicate, meet, and organize conferences. At times they may also advocate or lobby on a particular issue or on a range of issues. However, they are generally distinct from advocacy groups and pressure groups which are normally set up for the specific political aim. The distinction is not firm though and some organizations evolve and change their focus over time.

Lobbying

Lobbying (also lobby) is the act of attempting to influence decisions made by officials in the government . Lobbying is done by many different types of people and organized groups, including individuals in the private sector, corporations, fellow legislators or government officials, or advocacy groups (interest groups). Professional lobbyists are people whose business is trying to influence legislation on behalf of a group or individual who hires them. Individuals and nonprofit organizations can also lobby as an act of volunteering or as a small part of their normal job. Governments often define and regulate organized group lobbying that has become influential.

The Lobby of the House of Commons

The Lobby of the House of Commons, painted in 1886 by Liborio Prosperi.

The ethics and morality of lobbying are dual-edged. Lobbying is often spoken of with contempt when the implication is that people with inordinate socioeconomic power are corrupting the law in order to serve their own interest. However, another side of lobbying is making sure that others’ interests are duly defended against corruption. Lobbying can also make sure that minority interests are fairly defended against mere tyranny of the majority. Governments often define and regulate organized group lobbying.

Lobby groups may concentrate their efforts on the legislatures, where laws are created, but may also use the judicial branch to advance their causes. For example, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People filed suits in state and federal courts in the 1950’s to challenge segregation laws. Their efforts resulted in the Supreme Court declaring such laws to be unconstitutional.

Advocacy Group

Advocacy groups use various forms of advocacy in order to influence public opinion and/or policy. They have played and continue to play an important part in the development of political and social systems.

Some advocacy groups have developed into important social, political institutions or social movements. Some powerful lobby groups have been accused of manipulating the democratic system for narrow commercial gain. In some instances, they have been found guilty of corruption, fraud, bribery, and other serious crimes. As a result, lobbying has become increasingly regulated. Some groups, generally ones with less financial resources, may use direct action and civil disobedience. At times, they are accused of being a threat to the social order or ‘domestic extremists. ‘

An advocacy group is a group or an organization that tries to influence the government, but does not hold power in the government. Smaller groups representing broad interests of a group may be formed with the purpose of benefiting the group over an extended period of time and in many ways. Examples are consumer organizations, professional associations, trade associations, and trade unions.

Advocacy groups exist in a wide variety of genres based upon their most pronounced activities.

Anti-defamation organizations issue responses or criticisms to real or supposed slights of any sort by an individual or group against a specific segment of the population which the organization exists to represent.

Watchdog groups provide oversight and rating of actions or media by various outlets, both government and corporate.

Lobby groups work to enact a change to the law or the maintenance of a particular law. Some lobby groups have considerable financial resources at their disposal. Lobbying is regulated to stop the worst abuses which can develop into corruption.

Legal defense funds provide funding for the legal defense for, or legal action against, individuals or groups related to their specific interests or target demographic.

Types

Organizations can be categorized along the lines of the three elements of commerce: business owners, workers, and consumers.

Employers’ organizations represent the interests of a group of businesses in the same industry.

Occupational or labor organizations promote the professional and economic interests of workers in a particular occupation, industry, or trade, through interaction with the government and by preparing advertising and other promotional campaigns to the public. Such groups will also provide member services such as career support, training, and organized social activities.

Consumer organizations exist to protect people from corporate abuse, promote fair business practices, and enforce consumer rights.

7.6.3: Party Identification

Party identification is usually determined by which political party the individual most commonly supports, through voting or other means.

Learning Objective

Discuss how voters form their party identification

Key Points

• Citizens who identify with a party are the Party in the Electorate. A partisan registers as a member of their party to vote, strongly tend to vote for their party’s candidates, support their party’s policies, work for the party’s campaigns, & have a higher voter turnout in primary elections.
• Some believe that voter identification is developed during childhood due to personal, family, social and environmental factors. In this case, party identification would be stable and nearly unchangeable.
• However, party identification changes can occur in times of party coalition change, or realignment. During these times, party coalitions themselves are being transformed. As a result, people are more likely to desert the party of their parents.

Key Terms

Party identifiers

Party identifiers (partisans) could be described by their support in the following ways: they register as a member of the particular party, they show a strong tendency to vote for candidates in their preferred party, when surveyed, they identify themselves as members of that particular party, they are inclined to support policies endorsed by the particular party, they volunteer for campaigns to support party candidates more than the general population, and they have a higher voter turnout in primary elections than the general population.

party identification

Party identification refers to the political party with which an individual identifies. Party identification is usually determined by which political party the individual most commonly supports, through voting or other means.

Likert Scale

The Likert Scale is a 7 point scale to measure party identification that goes from Strong Democrat to Strong Republican.

Party Identification

Party identification refers to the political party with which an individual identifies. Party identification is typically determined by the political party that an individual most commonly supports, by voting or other means. shows the shift of party identification between the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections.

Voting Shifts by County Between the 2004 and 2008 Presidential Election

Voter identification is shown no where more clearly perhaps than during presidential elections. This map shows shifts in broad county party identification between the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections.

In the United States, political parties consist of three parts: the party as government (members of the party who hold public office), the party as organization (committees, leaders and activists who work to promote the party and the candidates), and the party as electorate (citizens who support the party through party identification).

Citizens in the general population who identify with a particular party make up the Party in the Electorate. Party identifiers (partisans) could be described by their support in the following ways:

• They register as a member of the particular party when registered to vote.
• They show a strong tendency to vote for candidates in their preferred party in most elections.
• When surveyed, they identify themselves as members of that particular party.
• They are inclined to support policies endorsed by the particular party.
• They volunteer for campaigns to support party candidates more than the general population.
• They have a higher voter turnout in primary elections than the general population.

Some researchers view party identification as a form of social identity, in the same way that a person identifies with a religious or ethnic group. This identity develops early in a person’s life mainly through family and social influences. This description would make party identification a stable perspective, which develops as a consequence of personal, family, social and environmental factors. Other researchers consider party identification to be more flexible and more of a conscious choice. They see it as a position and a choice based on the continued assessment of the political, economic and social environment. Party identification can increase or even shift by motivating events or conditions in the country.

Characterization

Childhood influence

Childhood Influence is one of main driving factors behind formation of party identification. During childhood, the main political influence comes from parents, other close family members and close surroundings such as the immediate community. Children remember events that happened during their childhood and associate them with the political party, whether or not they were connected with those events. For example, a child growing up in the 1970s would associate the Republican party with the Watergate scandal of the Nixon administration, a child growing up in the 1990s would associate the Democratic party with the sex scandal of the Clinton administration, or a child growing up in early 2000 would associate the Republican party with the Iraq War and the War on Terror. Although these parties might or might not embrace the issues that happened during that administration, a child could forever associate the party with those memorable events.

Adulthood

During adulthood, people can begin to adjust their party loyalties according to their personal experiences. The longer an individual holds a party ID, the stronger that attachment to the party tends to become. Because of this, older adults are more likely to hold strong party attachments, and less likely to change them than young adults.

Change

Party ID changes can occur in times of party coalition change, or realignment. During these times, party coalitions themselves are being transformed, and as a result, people are more likely to desert the party of their parents. It is during these times of partisan turmoil when younger adults are more likely to change party ID.

Measuring Party Identification

It is important to measure party identification in order to determine its strengths and weaknesses. Political scientists have developed many ways to measure party identification in order to examine and evaluate it.

One method of measuring party identification uses the Likert Scale. The Likert Scale is a 7 point scale to measure party identification:

Strong Democrat-Weak Democrat-Lean Democrat-Independent-Lean Republican-Weak Republican-Strong Republican

This scale does have some problematic aspects. According to the scale, a weak party supporter should normally vote with the party, but many times this is not the case. A “leaning” party supporter shows more loyalty to the party than that of a weak party supporter. Weak party supporters are more likely to stray from their party than someone who does not really declare a party identification and only tends to lean to one or the other based on the issues at hand.

Voting

Those people who identify with a party tend to vote for their party’s candidate for various offices in high percentages. Those who consider themselves to be strong partisans, tend to be the most faithful in voting for their party’s nominee for office. In the case of voting for president, since the 1970s, party identification on voting behavior has been increasing significantly. By the late 1990s, party identification on voting behavior was at the highest level of any election since the 1950s. When voting in congressional elections, the trend is similar. Strong party identifiers voted overwhelmingly for their party’s nominee in the general election.

The same level of voting behavior can also be applied to state and local levels. While straight ticket voting has declined among the general voting population, it is still prevalent in those who are strong Republicans and strong Democrats.

7.7: The Two-Party System

7.7.1: The Two-Party System

Two-party systems are prominent in various countries, such as the U.S., and contain both advantages and disadvantages.

Learning Objective

Discuss the historical origins of the two-party system in the United States and its advantages and disadvantages

Key Points

• The advantages of a two party system are that they tend to be less extreme, support policies that appeal to a broader segment of the population, and generally more stable.
• The disadvantages of a two party system are that they tend to ignore alternative views, stifle debate, and may not promote inter-party compromise but simply partisan appeals to the population.
• Third parties can and do exist in two-party system, however, they do not wield very much influence.

Key Terms

Winner-Takes-All

The winner-takes-all voting system allows only a single winner for each possible legislative seat and is sometimes termed a plurality voting system or single-winner voting system.

two-party system

A two-party system is a system in which two major political parties dominate voting in nearly all elections at every level of government and, as a result, the majority of elected offices are members of one of the two major parties.

Two-party system

A two-party system is a system in which two major political parties dominate voting in nearly all elections at every level of government and the majority of elected offices are members of one of the two major parties. Under a two-party system, one party typically holds a majority in the legislature and is usually referred to as the majority party while the other is the minority party. The United States is an example of a two-party system in which the majority of elected officials are either Democrats or Republicans .

The United States Two-Party System

Breakdown of political party representation in the United States House of Representatives during the 112th Congress. Blue: Democrat Red: Republican.

The modern political party system in the U.S. is a two-party system dominated by the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. These two parties have won every United States presidential election since 1852 and have controlled the United States Congress to some extent since at least 1856. However, the political party system did not develop until tax reform. The First Party System of the United States featured the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party (Anti-Federalist). In 1829, the Second Party System saw a split of the Democratic-Republican Party into the Jacksonian Democrats, who grew into the modern Democratic Party, led by Andrew Jackson, and the Whig Party, led by Henry Clay. The Third Party System stretched from 1854 to the mid-1890s, and was characterized by the emergence of the anti-slavery Republican Party, which adopted many of the economic policies of the Whigs, such as national banks, railroads, high tariffs, homesteads and aid to land grant colleges. The Fourth Party System, 1896 to 1932, retained the same primary parties as the Third Party System, but saw major shifts in the central issues of debate. This period also corresponded to the Progressive Era, and was dominated by the Republican Party. The Fifth Party System emerged with the New Deal Coalition beginning in 1933. The Republicans began losing support after the Great Depression, giving rise to Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the activist New Deal. Experts debate whether this era ended in the mid-1960s when the New Deal coalition did, the early 1980s when the Moral Majority and the Reagan coalition were formed, the mid-1990s during the Republican Revolution, or continues to the present. Since the 1930s, the Democrats positioned themselves more towards Liberalism while the Conservatives increasingly dominated the GOP.

Causes

There are several reason two major parties often dominate the political landscape in some systems. In the U.S., forty-eight states have a standard winner-takes-all electoral system for amassing presidential votes in the Electoral College system. The winner–takes–all principle applies in presidential elections, thus if a presidential candidate gets the most votes in any particular state, all of the electoral votes from that state are awarded to the candidate. In all but Maine and Nebraska, the presidential candidate must win a plurality of votes to wins all of the electoral votes; this practice is called the unit rule.

There are two main reasons winner–takes–all systems lead to a two-party system. First, the weaker parties are pressured to form an alliance, sometimes called a fusion, attempting to become big enough to challenge a large dominant party and, in so doing, gain political clout in the legislature. Second, voters learn, over time, not to vote for candidates outside of one of the two large parties since their votes for third party candidates are usually ineffectual. Therefore, weaker parties are eliminated by the voters over time. The gravitation of voters towards one of the two main parties is called polarization.

Advantages and Disadvantages

One opinion in political science is that a two-party system promotes centrism, less extremism, and that a two-party system is generally more stable and easier to govern than multi-party systems which can become a hung parliament. However, two-party systems have been criticized for ignoring alternative views and putting a damper on debate within a nation. Multi-party governments tend to permit wider and more diverse viewpoints in government and encourage dominant parties to make deals with weaker parties to form winning coalitions. Compared to the United States’ two-party system, the most common form of democracy is the British multi-party model.

There have been arguments that the winner-take-all mechanism discourages independent or third-party candidates from running for office or promulgating their views. One analyst suggested that parliamentary systems, which typically are multi-party in nature, lead to a better “centralization of policy expertise” in government. Multi-party governments permit wider and more diverse viewpoints in government, and encourage dominant parties to make deals with weaker parties to form winning coalitions. While there is considerable debate about the relative merits of a constitutional arrangement such as that of the United States versus a parliamentary arrangement such as Britain, analysts have noted that most democracies around the world have chosen the British multi-party model.

7.7.2: The Republican Party

The Republican Party is a major political party in the U.S, along with the Democratic Party; its platform reflects American conservatism.

Learning Objective

Explain the ideology and political positions of the Republican Party

Key Points

• Currently the party’s platform reflects American conservatism in the U.S. political spectrum which is largely based on its support of classical principles against the modern liberalism of the Democratic Party that is considered American liberalism in contemporary American political discourse.
• The Republican Party includes fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, neoconservatives, moderates, and libertarians.
• In the 21st century, the Republican Party has been defined by social conservatism, a preemptive war foreign policy intended to defeat terrorism and promote global democracy, a more powerful executive branch, supply-side economics, support for gun ownership, and deregulation.

Key Term

Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States during the Civil War and first Republican President.

Republican Party

The Republican Party is one of the two major political parties in the United States, along with the Democratic Party. Founded by anti-slavery activists in 1854, it dominated politics nationally for most of the period 1860-1932. Eighteen presidents have been Republicans; most recently, George W. Bush.

Currently the party’s platform generally reflects American conservatism in the U.S. political spectrum. American conservatism of the Republican Party is not wholly based upon rejection of the political ideology of liberalism, as many principles of American conservatism are based upon classical liberalism. Rather the Republican Party’s conservatism is largely based upon its support of classical principles against the modern liberalism of the Democratic Party that is considered American liberalism in contemporary American political discourse.

History

Founded in the Northern states in 1854 by anti-slavery activists, modernizers, ex-Whigs and ex-Free Soldiers, the Republican Party quickly became the principal opposition to the dominant Southern Democratic Party. The main cause was opposition to the Kansas–Nebraska Act, which repealed the Missouri Compromise by which slavery was kept out of Kansas. The Northern Republicans saw the expansion of slavery as a great evil.

By 1858, the Republicans dominated nearly all Northern states. The Republican Party first came to power in 1860 with the election of Lincoln to the Presidency and Republicans in control of Congress and again, the Northern states . The Republicans were cemented as the party of business, though mitigated by the succession of Theodore Roosevelt who embraced trust busting. The party controlled the presidency throughout the 1920s, running on a platform of opposition to the League of Nations, high tariffs, and promotion of business interests.

Abraham Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president.

The second half of the 20^th century saw election or succession of Republican presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush. The Republican Party, led by House Republican Minority Whip Newt Gingrich campaigning on the Contract with America, was elected to majorities to both houses of Congress in the Republican Revolution of 1994.

In the 21^st century, the Republican Party has been defined by social conservatism, a preemptive war foreign policy intended to defeat terrorism and promote global democracy, a more powerful executive branch, supply-side economics, support for gun ownership, and deregulation.

Name and symbols

The party’s founding members chose the name “Republican Party” in the mid-1850s as homage to the values of republicanism promoted by Thomas Jefferson’s Republican Party. The traditional mascot of the party is the elephant. A political cartoon by Thomas Nast, published in Harper’s Weekly on November 7, 1874, is considered the first important use of the symbol. After the 2000 election, the color red became associated with the GOP when on election night, for the first time, all of the major broadcast networks used the same color scheme for the electoral map: red for states won by Republican George W. Bush and blue for Democrat Al Gore.

Ideology and political positions

The Republican Party includes fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, neoconservatives, moderates, and libertarians. Prior to the formation of the conservative coalition, which helped realign the Democratic and Republican Party ideologies in the mid-1960s, the party historically advocated classical liberalism, paleo-conservatism, and progressivism.

Neoconservatism

Neoconservatism is an intellectual movement born in the 1960s inside the monthly review Commentary. Neoconservatism is critical of the so-called welfare state as conceived by the New Left but supportive of the New Deal and moderate welfare statism, offers lukewarm applause for free markets, and advocates “assertive” promotion of democracy and American national interest in international affairs including by military means. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush had neoconservative advisors regarding military and foreign policies. During the George W. Bush administration, neoconservative officials of the Departments of Defense and State helped to plan and promote the Iraq War.

The Bush campaign and the early Bush administration did not exhibit strong endorsement of neoconservative principles. Bush’s policies changed dramatically immediately after the September 11, 2001, attacks. During Bush’s State of the Union speech of January 2002, he named Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as states that “constitute an axis of evil” and “pose a grave and growing danger”. Bush suggested the possibility of preemptive war: “I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.

7.7.3: The Democratic Party

The Democratic Party is a major political party in the US which promotes a social liberal, social democratic and progressive platform.

Learning Objective

Identify the historical origins and development of the Democratic Party, as well as the demographics of the party

Key Points

• The early Democratic Party favored states’ rights and strict adherence to the Constitution while opposing a national bank and wealthy, moneyed interests.
• The Fugitive Slave Law and the Kansas–Nebraska Act were the catalysts that drove the anti-slavery Democrats from the Party. These former Democrats created the Republican Party.
• Since the 1930s, however, the Democratic Party has become much more socially and economically liberal favoring such issues like progressive taxation and a mixed economy in which the government helps alleviate poverty through economic intervention.

Key Terms

The Democratic Party

The Democratic Party is one of two major contemporary political parties in the United States along with the Republican Party. Since the 1930s, the party has promoted a social liberal, social democratic and progressive platform, and its Congressional caucus is composed of progressives, liberals, centrists, and left-libertarians.

Blue Dog Coalition

The Blue Dog Coalition, a caucus of fiscal and social conservatives and moderates forms part of the Democratic Party’s current faction of conservative Democrats. They have acted as a unified voting bloc in the past, giving its forty plus members some ability to change legislation and broker compromises with the Republican Party’s leadership

Liberals

Social liberals (modern liberals) and progressives constitute roughly half of the Democratic voter base. A large majority of liberals favor universal health care, with many supporting a single-payer system, diplomacy over military action, stem cell research, legalization of same-sex marriage, secular government, stricter gun control, and environmental protection laws as well as the preservation of abortion rights. Immigration and cultural diversity is deemed positive; liberals favor cultural pluralism, a system in which immigrants retain their native culture in addition to adopting their new culture.

Democratic Party

The Democratic Party is one of two major contemporary political parties in the United States along with the Republican Party. Since the 1930s, the party has promoted a social liberal, social democratic and progressive platform, and its Congressional caucus is composed of progressives, liberals, centrists, and left-libertarians. The party has the lengthiest record of continuous operation in the United States and is one of the oldest political parties in the world. President Barack Obama is the15^th Democrat to hold the presidency.

The Democratic Party evolved from Anti-Federalist factions that opposed the fiscal policies of Alexander Hamilton in the early 1790s. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison organized these factions into the Democratic-Republican Party. The party favored states’ rights and strict adherence to the Constitution; it opposed a national bank and wealthy, moneyed interests. The Democratic-Republican Party gained power in the election of 1800.

Democratic-Republicans split over the choice of a successor to President James Monroe, and the party faction that supported many of the old Jeffersonian principles, led by Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, became the Democratic Party . In the 1850s, under the stress of the Fugitive Slave Law and the Kansas–Nebraska Act, anti-slavery Democrats left the party. Joining with former members of existing or dwindling parties, the Republican Party emerged. In the lead up to the 1860 election, the Democratic Party split further, this time, over nominees which led to a Republican victory and Abraham Lincoln was elected the 16^th President of the United States.

Andrew Jackson

Andrew Jackson is typically considered the first Democratic President.

As the American Civil War broke out, Northern Democrats were divided into War Democrats and Peace Democrats. Most War Democrats rallied to Republican President Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans’ National Union Party in the election of 1864, which featured Andrew Johnson on the Republican ticket even though he was a Democrat from the South.

After the end of Reconstruction in the 1870s, the South, voting Democratic, became known as the “Solid South. ” Though Republicans won all but two presidential elections, the Democrats remained competitive.

The Great Depression in 1929 that occurred under Republican President Hoover set the stage for a more liberal government; the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives nearly uninterrupted from 1931 until 1995 and won most presidential elections until 1968. Franklin D. Roosevelt, elected to the presidency in 1932, came forth with government programs called the New Deal.

New Deal liberalism meant the promotion of social welfare, labor unions, civil rights, and regulation of business. The opponents, who stressed long-term growth, support for business, and low taxes, started calling themselves “conservatives. “

African Americans, who traditionally supported the Republican Party, began supporting Democrats following the ascent of the Franklin Roosevelt administration, the New Deal, and the Civil Rights movement. The Democratic Party’s main base of support shifted to the Northeast, marking a dramatic reversal of history. Bill Clinton was elected to the presidency in 1992, as a New Democrat. Re-elected in 1996, Clinton was the first two term Democratic President since Roosevelt.

Some of the party’s key issues in the early 21^st century in their last national platform have included the methods of how to combat terrorism, homeland security, expanding access to health care, labor rights, environmentalism, and the preservation of liberal government programs.

Since 1912, the Democratic Party has moved to the left of the Republicans on economic and social issues. Roosevelt’s economic philosophy strongly influenced American liberalism and has shaped much of the party’s economic agenda since 1932.

Since the 1890s, the Democratic Party has favored liberal positions (“liberal” in this case meaning social liberalism). Historically, the party has favored farmers, laborers, labor unions, and religious and ethnic minorities; it has opposed unregulated business and finance, and favored progressive income taxes. In foreign policy, internationalism (including interventionism) was a dominant theme from 1913 to the mid-1960s. The major influences for liberalism were labor unions (which peaked in the 1936–1952 era), and the African American wing, which has steadily grown since the 1960s.

The mixed economy policy adopted by the modern Democratic Party has been referred to as the “Third Way”. Democrats believe government should play a role in alleviating poverty and social injustice and use a system of progressive taxation.

Initially calling itself the “Republican Party,” Jeffersonians were labeled “Democratic” by the Federalists, hoping to stigmatize them as purveyors of mob rule.

The most common mascot symbol for the party is the donkey, although the party never officially adopted this symbol. Andrew Jackson’s opponents had labeled him a jackass during the intense mudslinging in 1828

The Blue Dog Coalition, a caucus of fiscal and social conservatives and moderates, forms part of the Democratic Party’s current faction of conservative Democrats.

Since election night in 2000, the color blue has become the identified color of the Democratic Party, all major broadcast television networks used blue for Democrat Al Gore.

7.8: The History of Political Parties

7.8.1: The First Political Parties: Federalists and Anti-Federalists

The winning supporters of ratification of the Constitution were called Federalists, the opponents were called Anti-Federalists.

Learning Objective

Distinguish the differences between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist parties

Key Points

• The immediate problem faced by the Federalists was not simply one of acceptance of the Constitution, but the more fundamental concern of legitimacy for the government of the new republic.
• The Anti-Federalists objected to the new powerful central government, the loss of prestige for the states, and saw the Constitution as a potential threat to personal liberties.
• The major stumbling block for the Anti-Federalists was that the supporters of the Constitution had been more deeply committed, had cared more, and had outmaneuvered the less energetic opposition.

Key Terms

Bill of Rights

The collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.

Anti-Federalists

Opponents of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and a strong central government.

federalist

Supporters of ratification of the U.S. Constitution

The Federalist Era was a period in American history from roughly 1789-1801 when the Federalist Party was dominant in American politics. This period saw the adoption of the United States Constitution and the expansion of the federal government. In addition, the era saw the growth of a strong nationalistic government under the control of the Federalist Party. Among the most important events of this period were the foreign entanglements between France and Great Britain, the assertion of a strong centralized federal government, and the creation of political parties. The First Party System of the United States featured the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party (also known as the Anti-Federalist Party).

The United States Constitution was written in 1787 and unanimously ratified by the states in 1788, taking effect in 1789. The winning supporters of ratification of the Constitution were called Federalists and the opponents were called Anti-Federalists. The immediate problem faced by the Federalists was not simply one of acceptance of the Constitution but the more fundamental concern of legitimacy for the government of the new republic. With this challenge in mind, the new national government needed to act with the idea that every act was being carried out for the first time and would therefore have great significance and be viewed along the lines of the symbolic as well as practical implications. The first elections to the new United States Congress returned heavy Federalist majorities. The first Anti-Federalist movement opposed the draft Constitution in 1788, primarily because they lacked a Bill of Rights. The Anti-Federalists, or Democrat-Republicans, objected to the new powerful central government and the loss of prestige for the states, and saw the Constitution as a potential threat to personal liberties. During the ratification process the Anti-Federalists presented a significant opposition in all but three states. A major stumbling block for the Anti-Federalists, however, was that the supporters of the Constitution were more deeply committed and outmaneuvered the less energetic opposition.

Federalists v. Anti-Federalists

The dynamic force in the Presidency of George Washington was the secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton . Hamilton had the vision of a strong national government and a strong national economy. He devised a complex multi-faceted program to achieve that goal and simultaneously solved the debt problem for most of the states. Hamilton created a financial system for national and international stability that included paying off the national debt and laying the infrastructure for further economic development. Hamilton’s programs included:

Alexander Hamilton

Alexander Hamilton, secretary of treasury under President George Washington, became a leading Federalist in the Federalist vs. Anti-Federalists debate.

• the assumption of the state’s Revolutionary War debts;
• the payoffs of the debts of the old Continental Congress;
• the payoffs of loans from foreign treasuries and investors;
• the creation of a system of taxes and tariffs to pay for the debt; and
• a First Bank of the United States to handle the finances.

Congress approved Hamilton’s programs, which would later be labeled Federalist, over the opposition of the old Anti-Federalists element, which increasingly coalesced under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. In order to build a national network in support of his programs, Hamilton created a coalition of supporters in every city and state, often consisting of prominent businessmen and financiers. Hamilton’s network of supporters grew into the “Federalist Party” that included most, but not all, of those Federalists who supported the Constitution in 1788. A major emphasis of Hamilton’s policies and indeed the general outlook for the Federalist Party was that the federal government was to preside over the national economy.

Rise of political parties

Federalists during the ratification period had been unified around the Constitution and support for its form of government. Following the acceptance of the Constitution, the initial Federalist movement faded briefly only to be taken up by a second movement centered upon the support for Alexander Hamilton’s policies of a strong nationalist government, loose construction of the Constitution, and mercantile economic policies. The support around these policies eventually established the first official political party in the United States as the Federalist Party. The Party reached its political apex with the election of the strongly Federalist President John Adams. However the defeat of Adams in the election of 1800 and the death of Hamilton led to the decline of the Federalist Party from which it did not recover. While there were still Federalists after 1800, the party never again enjoyed the power and influence it had held earlier. One of the Federalists Era’s greatest accomplishments was that republican government survived and took root in the United States.

Republicans, or the Democratic-Republican Party, was founded in 1792 by Jefferson and James Madison. The party was created in order to oppose the policies of Hamilton and the Federalist Party. In contrast to the Federalists, the Republican supported a strict construction interpretation of the Constitution, and denounced many of Hamilton’s proposals (especially the national bank) as unconstitutional. The party promoted states’ rights and the primacy of the yeoman farmer over bankers, industrialists, merchants, and other monied interests. The party supported states’ rights as a measure against the tyrannical nature of a large centralized government that they feared the Federal government could have easily become. It would be Jefferson and the Republican Party that would replace the Federalist Party domination of politics following the election of 1800.

7.8.2: Political Parties from 1800–1824

The First Party System refers to political party system existing in the United States between roughly 1792 and 1824.

Learning Objective

Distinguish the issues and policies supported by the first political parties and identify the central elements of the First Party System

Key Points

• Rising out of the Federalist v. Anti-Federalist debates, it featured two national parties competing for control of the presidency, Congress, and the states: the Federalist Party and the rival Democratic-Republican Party.
• The Federalists were dominant until 1800, and the Republicans were dominant after 1800.
• The Federalists appealed to the business community, the Republicans to the planters and farmers.

Key Terms

Whig Party

The Whig Party was a political party of the United States during the era of Jacksonian democracy. Considered integral to the Second Party System and operating from the early 1830s to the mid-1850s, the party was formed in opposition to the policies of President Andrew Jackson and his Democratic Party. In particular, the Whigs supported the supremacy of Congress over the presidency and favored a program of modernization and economic protectionism.

republican

Advocating or supporting a republic as a form of government.

The First Party System is a model of American politics used by political scientists and historians to periodize the political party system existing in the United States between roughly 1792 and 1824. Rising out of the Federalist v. Anti-Federalist debates, it featured two national parties competing for control of the presidency, Congress, and the states: the Federalist Party, created largely by Alexander Hamilton, and the rival Democratic-Republican Party formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The Federalists were dominant until 1800, and the Republicans were dominant after 1800.

The First Party System

Federalist poster about 1800. Washington (in heaven) tells partisans to keep the pillars of Federalism, Republicanism and Democracy

In an analysis of the contemporary party system, Jefferson wrote on Feb. 12, 1798: “Two political Sects have arisen within the US, the one believing that the executive is the branch of our government which the most needs support; the other, that like the analogous branch in the English Government, it is already too strong for the republican parts of the Constitution; and therefore in equivocal cases they incline to the legislative powers: the former of these are called federalists, sometimes aristocrats or monocrats, and sometimes tories, after the corresponding sect in the English Government of exactly the same definition: the latter are stiled republicans, whigs, jacobins, anarchists, disorganizers, etc. these terms are in familiar use with most persons. “

Both parties originated in national politics, but later expanded their efforts to gain supporters and voters in every state. The Federalists appealed to the business community, the Republicans to the planters and farmers. By 1796 politics in every state was nearly monopolized by the two parties, with party newspapers and caucuses becoming especially effective tools to mobilize voters.

The Federalists promoted the financial system of Treasury Secretary Hamilton, which emphasized federal assumption of state debts, a tariff to pay off those debts, a national bank to facilitate financing, and encouragement of banking and manufacturing. The Republicans, based in the plantation South, opposed a strong executive power, were hostile to a standing army and navy, demanded a limited reading of the Constitutional powers of the federal government, and strongly opposed the Hamilton financial program. Perhaps even more important was foreign policy, where the Federalists favored Britain because of its political stability and its close ties to American trade, while the Republicans admired the French and the French Revolution. Jefferson was especially fearful that British aristocratic influences would undermine Republicanism. Britain and France were at war from 1793 through 1815, with one brief interruption. American policy was neutrality, with the Federalists hostile to France, and the Republicans hostile to Britain. The Jay Treaty of 1794 marked the decisive mobilization of the two parties and their supporters in every state. President George Washington, while officially nonpartisan, generally supported the Federalists, and that party made Washington their iconic hero. The First Party System ended during the Era of Good Feelings (1816–1824), as the Federalists shrank to a few isolated strongholds and the Republicans lost unity. In 1824-28, as the Second Party System emerged, the Republican Party split into the Jacksonian faction, which became the modern Democratic Party in the 1830s, and the Henry Clay faction, which was absorbed by Clay’s Whig Party.

7.8.3: Jacksonian Democrats: 1824–1860

Jacksonian democracy is the political movement toward greater democracy for the common man typified by American politician Andrew Jackson.

Learning Objective

Compare and contrast Jacksonian democracy with Jeffersonian democracy

Key Points

• Jackson’s policies followed the era of Jeffersonian democracy which dominated the previous political era.
• Jackson’s supporters began to form the modern Democratic Party; they fought the rival Adams and Anti-Jacksonian factions, which soon emerged as the Whigs.
• During the Jacksonian era, the suffrage was extended to (nearly) all white male adult citizens.

Key Terms

strict constructionism

a particular legal philosophy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts judicial interpretation (the phrase is also commonly used more loosely as a generic term for conservatism among the judiciary)

laissez-faire

an economic environment in which transactions between private parties are free from tariffs, government subsidies, and enforced monopolies, with only enough government regulations sufficient to protect property rights against theft and aggression

Andrew Jackson

Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) was the seventh President of the United States (1829–1837).

Jacksonian democracy is the political movement toward greater democracy for the common man typified by American politician Andrew Jackson and his supporters. Jackson’s policies followed the era of Jeffersonian democracy which dominated the previous political era. The Democratic-Republican Party of the Jeffersonians became factionalized in the 1820s. Jackson’s supporters began to form the modern Democratic Party; they fought the rival Adams and Anti-Jacksonian factions, which soon emerged as the Whigs.

More broadly, the term refers to the period of the Second Party System (mid-1824–1860) when the democratic attitude was the spirit of that era. It can be contrasted with the characteristics of Jeffersonian democracy. Jackson’s equal political policy became known as “Jacksonian Democracy,” subsequent to ending what he termed a “monopoly” of government by elites. Jeffersonians opposed inherited elites but favored educated men while the Jacksonians gave little weight to education. The Whigs were the inheritors of Jeffersonian Democracy in terms of promoting schools and colleges. During the Jacksonian era, the suffrage was extended to (nearly) all white male adult citizens.

In contrast to the Jeffersonian era, Jacksonian democracy promoted the strength of the presidency and executive branch at the expense of Congress, while also seeking to broaden the public’s participation in government. They demanded elected (not appointed) judges and rewrote many state constitutions to reflect the new values. In national terms the Jacksonians favored geographical expansion, justifying it in terms of Manifest Destiny. There was usually a consensus among both Jacksonians and Whigs that battles over slavery should be avoided. The Jacksonian Era lasted roughly from Jackson’s 1828 election until the slavery issue became dominant after 1850 and the American Civil War dramatically reshaped American politics as the Third Party System emerged.

Jacksonian democracy was built on the following general principles:

Expanded Suffrage

The Jacksonians believed that voting rights should be extended to all white men. By 1820, universal white male suffrage was the norm, and by 1850 nearly all requirements to own property or pay taxes had been dropped.

Manifest Destiny

This was the belief that white Americans had a destiny to settle the American West and to expand control from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific and that the West should be settled by yeoman farmers. However, the Free Soil Jacksonians, notably Martin Van Buren, argued for limitations on slavery in the new areas to enable the poor white man to flourish; they split with the main party briefly in 1848. The Whigs generally opposed Manifest Destiny and expansion, saying the nation should build up its cities.

Patronage

Also known as the spoils system, patronage was the policy of placing political supporters into appointed offices. Many Jacksonians held the view that rotating political appointees in and out of office was not only the right but also the duty of winners in political contests. Patronage was theorized to be good because it would encourage political participation by the common man and because it would make a politician more accountable for poor government service by his appointees. Jacksonians also held that long tenure in the civil service was corrupting, so civil servants should be rotated out of office at regular intervals. However, it often led to the hiring of incompetent and sometimes corrupt officials due to the emphasis on party loyalty above any other qualifications.

Strict Constructionism

Like the Jeffersonians who strongly believed in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, Jacksonians initially favored a federal government of limited powers. Jackson said that he would guard against “all encroachments upon the legitimate sphere of State sovereignty”. This is not to say that Jackson was a states’ rights extremist; indeed, the Nullification Crisis would find Jackson fighting against what he perceived as state encroachments on the proper sphere of federal influence. This position was one basis for the Jacksonians’ opposition to the Second Bank of the United States. As the Jacksonians consolidated power, they more often advocated expanding federal power and presidential power in particular.

Laissez-faire Economics

Complementing a strict construction of the Constitution, the Jacksonians generally favored a hands-off approach to the economy, as opposed to the Whig program sponsoring modernization, railroads, banking, and economic growth. The leader was William Leggett of the Locofocos in New York City.

Banking

In particular, the Jacksonians opposed government-granted monopolies to banks, especially the national bank, a central bank known as the Second Bank of the United States. Despite this, Jackson did not actively seek to destroy or fight the Bank, only vetoing the Bank’s recharter and subsequently pulling out federal reserves. The Whigs, who strongly supported the Bank, were led by Daniel Webster and Nicholas Biddle, the bank chairman. Jackson himself was opposed to all banks, because he believed they were devices to cheat common people; he and many followers believed that only gold and silver could be money (.

Jackson and Banking

Democratic cartoon shows Jackson slaying the monster Bank

7.8.4: The Golden Age: 1860–1932

Despite outward indicators of prosperity, the Gilded Age (late 1860s to 1896) was an era characterized by turmoil and political contention.

Learning Objective

Describe major economic and political developments during the “Gilded Age” of American history and identify what led to these developments

Key Points

• The term “The Gilded Age” was coined by writers Mark Twain and Charles Dudley Warner in The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today, which satirized what they believed to be an era of serious social problems obscured by a thin veneer of prosperity.
• The Gilded Age was a time of enormous growth that attracted millions from Europe.
• Gilded Age politics, called the Third Party System, was characterized by intense competition between the two parties, with minor parties coming and going, especially on issues of concern to prohibitionists, labor unions and farmers.
• The Fourth Party System lasted from about 1896 to 1932, and was dominated by the Republican Party; it is generally referred to as the Progressive Era.

Key Terms

Reconstruction

A period in U.S. history from 1865 to 1877, during which the nation tried to resolve the status of the ex-Confederate states, the ex-Confederate leaders, and the Freedmen (ex-slaves) after the American Civil War.

Third Party System

A period in American political history from about 1854 to the mid-1890s that featured profound developments in issues of nationalism, modernization, and race.

In United States history, the Gilded Age was the period following the Civil War, running from the late 1860s to about 1896 when the next era began, the Progressive Era. The term was coined by writers Mark Twain and Charles Dudley Warner in The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today, which satirized what they believed to be an era of serious social problems obscured by a thin veneer of prosperity.

The Gilded Age was a time of enormous growth that attracted millions of European immigrants. Railroads were the major industry, but the factory system, mining, and labor unions also gained in importance . Despite the growth, there was serious cause for concern, which manifested in two major nationwide depressions, known as the Panic of 1873 and the Panic of 1893. Furthermore, most of the growth and prosperity came in the North and West – states that had been part of the Union. States in the South, part of the defeated Confederate States of America, remained economically devastated; their economies became increasingly tied to cotton and tobacco production, which suffered low prices. African Americans in the south experienced the worst setbacks, as they were stripped of political power and voting rights.

Gilded Age

The Breakers, the summer home of Cornelius Vanderbilt II, located in Newport, Rhode Island, United States. It was built in 1893, added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1971, and designated a National Historic Landmark in 1994.

During the 1870s and 1880s, the U.S. economy rose at the fastest rate in its history, with real wages, wealth, gross domestic product (GDP), and capital formation all increasing rapidly. Between 1865 and 1898, the output of wheat increased by 256%, corn by 222%, coal by 800% and miles of railway track by 567%. Thick national networks for transportation and communication were created. The corporation became the dominant form of business organization, and a managerial revolution transformed business operations. By the beginning of the 20^th century, per capita income and industrial production in the United States led the world, with per capita incomes double that of Germany or France, and 50% higher than Britain.

Politics in the Gilded Age

Gilded Age politics, called the Third Party System, were characterized by rampant corruption and intense competition between the two parties (with minor parties coming and going), especially on issues of Prohibitionist, labor unions and farmers. The Democrats and Republicans fought over control of offices as well as major economic issues. The dominant political issues included rights for African Americans, tariff policies and monetary policies. Reformers worked for civil service reform, prohibition and women’s suffrage, while philanthropists built colleges and hospitals, and the many religious denominations exerted a major sway in both politics and everyday life.

Voter turnout was very high and often exceeded 80% or even 90% in some states as the parties were adamant about rallying their loyal supporters. Competition was intense and elections were very close. In the South, lingering resentment over the Civil War meant that most states would vote Democrat. After the end of Reconstruction in 1877, competition in the South took place mainly inside the Democratic Party. Nationwide, voter turnout fell sharply after 1900.

The Third Party System (1854-1890s)

The Third Party System lasted from about 1854 to the mid-1890s, and featured profound developments in issues of nationalism, modernization, and race. It was dominated by the new Republican Party (also known as the Grand Old Party or GOP), which claimed success in saving the Union, abolishing slavery and enfranchising the freedmen, while adopting many Whiggish modernization programs such as national banks, railroads, high tariffs, homesteads, social spending (such as on greater Civil War veteran pension funding), and aid to land grant colleges. While most elections from 1874 through 1892 were extremely close, the opposition Democrats won only the 1884 and 1892 presidential elections. The northern and western states were largely Republican, save for closely balanced New York, Indiana, New Jersey, and Connecticut. After 1874, the Democrats took control of the “Solid South. “

The Fourth Party System (1896-1932)

The Fourth Party System lasted from about 1896 to 1932, and was dominated by the Republican Party, excepting the 1912 split in which Democrats held the White House for eight years. American history texts usually call it the Progressive Era, and it included World War I and the start of the Great Depression. The period featured a transformation from the issues of the Third Party System, instead focusing on domestic issues such as regulation of railroads and large corporations (“trusts”), the money issue (gold versus silver), the protective tariff, the role of labor unions, child labor, the need for a new banking system, corruption in party politics, primary elections, direct election of senators, racial segregation, efficiency in government, women’s suffrage, and control of immigration. Foreign policy centered on the 1898 Spanish-American War, Imperialism, the Mexican Revolution, World War I, and the creation of the League of Nations.

7.8.5: The Modern Era of Political Parties

Modern politics in the United States is a two-party system dominated by the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

Learning Objective

Demonstrate knowledge of the key issues that divide the Democratic and Republican parties in the United States

Key Points

• These two parties have won every United States presidential election since 1852 and have controlled the United States Congress since at least 1856.
• The Democratic Party, since the division of the Republican Party in the election of 1912, has positioned itself as progressive and supporting labor in economic as well as social matters.
• Today, the Republican Party supports an American conservative platform, with further foundations in economic liberalism, fiscal conservatism, and social conservatism.

Key Terms

two-party system

A two-party system is a system where two major political parties dominate voting in nearly all elections at every level of government and, as a result, nearly all elected officials are members of one of the two major parties.

Republican Party

The Republican Party is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States of America.

Democratic Party

The Democratic Party is one of two major political parties in the United States.

Modern politics in the United States is a two-party system dominated by the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. One of these two parties has won every United States presidential election since 1852 and has controlled the United States Congress since at least 1856.

Modern Two-Party System

The 2008 elections, while won by a Democrat, reflect the relatively even divide in the United States between the Republican and Democratic Parties.

The Democratic Party is one of two major political parties in the United States, and is the oldest political party in the world. Since the division of the Republican Party in the election of 1912, it has positioned itself as progressive and supporting labor in economic as well as social matters. The economic philosophy of Franklin D. Roosevelt, which has strongly influenced American liberalism, has shaped much of the party’s agenda since 1932, and Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition controlled the White House until 1968.

In 2004, it was the larger major political party, with 72 million voters (42.6% of 169 million registered) claiming affiliation. The current President of the United States, Barack Obama, is the 15^th Democrat to hold the office, and since the 2006 midterm elections, the Democratic Party has held a majority in the United States Senate.

A 2011 USA Today review of state voter rolls indicates that registered Democrats declined in 25 of the 28 states that register voters by party. Democrats were still the largest political party with more than 42 million voters (compared with 30 million Republicans and 24 million independents). However, in 2011, the number of Democrats shrank 800,000, and from 2008 they were down by 1.7 million, or 3.9%.

The other major contemporary political party in the United States is the Republican Party. It is often referred to as the GOP, which stands for “Grand Old Party,” or “Gallant Old Party”. Founded in 1854 by Northern anti-slavery expansion activists and modernizers, the Republican Party rose to prominence with the election of Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican to campaign on the Northern principles of anti-slavery. The party presided over the American Civil War and Reconstruction but was harried by internal factions and scandals toward the end of the 19^th century. Today, the Republican Party supports an American conservative platform, with foundations in economic liberalism, fiscal conservatism, and social conservatism.

Former President George W. Bush was the 19^th Republican to hold that office. The party’s nominee for President of the United States in the 2012 presidential election is former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Since the 2010 midterm elections, the Republicans have held a majority in the United States House of Representatives.

USA Today’s review of state voter rolls indicates that registered Republicans declined in 21 of the 28 states that register voters by party, and that Republican registrations were down 350,000 in 2011. The number of independents rose in 18 states, increasing by 325,000 in 2011, and was up more than 400,000 from 2008, or 1.7%.

7.9: Party Functions

7.9.1: Hosting Conventions

The major political parties in the U.S. host the Democratic and Republican National Conventions to select candidates and rally supporters.

Learning Objective

Describe the informal aims of the national conventions

Key Points

• The formal purpose of hosting presidential nominating conventions is to select a party’s presidential and vice presidential candidates, to develop a party platform, and to adopt the rules governing the election cycle.
• Presidential nominating conventions are also significant in rallying support for a given party, unifying party views, and showcasing a party’s leadership to a national audience.
• The most prominent presidential nominating conventions include the Democratic National Convention and the Republican National Convention.
• Because of a recent trend of Democratic and Republican presidential nominees being known well in advance of these conventions, the Democratic and Republic National Conventions have steered away from their formal purposes to serve more as a point of party unification.

Key Terms

presidential nominating convention

Convention in which presidential and vice presidential candidates are determined, party platforms are established, and rules governing the election cycle are adopted. The most influential presidential nominating conventions include the Democratic and Republican National Conventions.

platform

A political stance on a broad set of issues, which are called planks.

delegate

A person authorized to act as representative for another; in politics, a party representative allocated to nominate a party candidate.

Political parties in the United States that will be fielding nominees in an upcoming U.S. presidential election are responsible for hosting presidential nominating conventions. The formal purpose of the conventions is to select the party’s candidates for president and vice president. The conventions develop a statement of party principles and goals known as a party platform. Another formal purpose of presidential nominating conventions is to adopt the rules for a given party’s activities, such as the presidential nominating process for the following election cycle.

Nominating conventions also carry significance beyond their formal purposes. Conventions are an opportunity to rally political supporters and reward the party faithful by allowing them to participate asdelegates. Due to the national media presence surrounding presidential nominating conventions, they are also excellent tools to showcase a given party’s leaders and policies to prospective voters.

The two major political parties in the U.S. host the quadrennial Democratic National Convention and Republican National Convention to determine their respective presidential and vice presidential candidates. The Democratic National Committee administers the Democratic National Convention while the Republican National Committee administers the Republican National Convention. In recent years, candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties have been known in advance of these conventions. Subsequently, the more modern focus of the Democratic and Republican National Conventions has been to unify each respective party by having delegates vote on issues that the nominee can incorporate into their presidential campaign. The conventions also generate positive publicity towards each respective party.

Democratic National Convention

Presidential nominating conventions, like the Democratic National Convention, host influential speakers to increase party unity.

Some minor political parties in the U.S. also utilize conventions to select their presidential candidates. Examples of such minor parties include the Green Party, Socialist Party USA, Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, and Reform Party USA.

7.9.2: Selecting Candidates

Election candidates have often been determined before conventions, but are still formally declared as their party’s official candidates at the conventions.

Learning Objective

Describe the roll call method of voting during a convention

Key Points

• The two major parties in the U.S. formally select their candidates during the quadrennial Democratic National Convention and Republic National Convention.
• Presidential and vice presidential candidates are often known well in advance of presidential nominating conventions because of changes in election laws, earlier primaries and caucuses, and the manner in which political campaigns are now run.
• The Democratic and Republican Parties have their own formulas for determining the size of state delegations that will vote for a presidential and vice presidential candidate during presidential nominating conventions.

Key Terms

rolling roll call of the states

an alphabetical calling of the states during a presidential nominating convention to either declare its delegate count or pass

delegate

A person authorized to act as representative for another; in politics, a party representative allocated to nominate a party candidate.

primary

A primary election; a preliminary election to select a political candidate of a political party.

caucus

A meeting, especially a preliminary meeting, of persons belonging to a party, to nominate candidates for public office, or to select delegates to a nominating convention, or to confer regarding measures of party policy; a political primary meeting.

Introduction

The Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee create the rules governing the caucuses and primaries in which the field of presidential nominees is narrowed. These nominees then proceed to the presidential nominating conventions where a candidate will officially be determined.

The presidential candidates of the two major political parties in the United States are formally confirmed during the Democratic National Convention and Republican National Convention. Each party determines its own rules for the format of the convention and how participation is to be apportioned. Generally, each U.S. state and territory is allotted a select number of voting representatives, known individually as delegates and collectively as the delegation. The size of each delegation depends upon the unique formula used by a given political party. Such formulas usually consider the population of a given state, the state’s previous presidential voting patterns, and the number of Congressional representatives or government officials in a state who are members of the party.

2004 Republican National Convention Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidates

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were declared the official presidential and vice presidential candidates at the 2004 Republican National Convention.

Voting Using the Rolling Roll Call

The voting method used during a convention is known as a rolling roll call of the states. The spokespersons of the states are called upon in alphabetical order by state name to announce their delegation count or to pass. After all states have either declared or passed, those states that passed must announce their delegate count. The decision to pass is usually made beforehand to give either the delegation of the presidential or vice presidential candidates’ home state the honor of casting the majority-making vote.

In recent years, presidential nominees have been known well in advance of the Democratic and Republican National Conventions due to changes in election laws, earlier primary elections and caucuses, and the manner in which political campaigns are run. However, the presidential nominating conventions still serve as the official method of selecting presidential candidates.

7.9.3: Organizing Campaigns and Elections

Political parties play key roles in organizing campaigns and elections.

Learning Objective

Name other activities that fall under the auspicies of the national political committees

Key Points

• The Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Republican National Committee (RNC) are the central organizations devoted to campaign and political activity. They establish connections between followers of the Democratic and Republican parties with the respective leadership of each party.
• At the start of the preliminary election season, the DNC and RNC are responsible for establishing the rules for the caucuses and primary elections.
• The DNC and RNC supervise the presidential nominating conventions that officially declare the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. Once a presidential candidate is chosen from each respective party, the Committees provide crucial candidate support and party-building activities.

Key Terms

presidential nominating convention

Convention in which presidential and vice presidential candidates are determined, party platforms are established, and rules governing the election cycle are adopted. The most influential presidential nominating conventions include the Democratic and Republican National Conventions.

caucus

A meeting, especially a preliminary meeting, of persons belonging to a party, to nominate candidates for public office, or to select delegates to a nominating convention, or to confer regarding measures of party policy; a political primary meeting.

primary

A primary election; a preliminary election to select a political candidate of a political party.

In addition to hosting conventions and selecting candidates to run in presidential elections, political parties play key roles in organizing campaigns and elections. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Republican National Committee (RNC), in particular, are the central organizations devoted to campaign and political activity in support of the Democratic and Republican Party candidates. The DNC and RNC are permanent offices maintained by the Democratic and Republican parties to govern the daily operations of each party, as well as the special election and campaign operations conducted every four years. The DNC and RNC establish connections between followers of the Democratic and Republican parties with the respective leadership of each party. Such connections play a vital role in allowing presidential candidates to maintain a base of supporters they can depend upon during elections.

The Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee connect voters with party leadership in a variety of ways. At the start of the preliminary election season, the DNC and RNC are responsible for establishing the rules for the caucuses and primary elections. These caucuses and primaries are usually not run by the DNC and RNC but instead by the state. Aside from the process of nominating a presidential candidate, the DNC and RNC’s roles in selecting candidates to run on the Democratic and Republican Party ticket is minimal.

Later, the DNC and RNC supervise the presidential nominating conventions that officially declare the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. Once a presidential candidate is chosen from each respective party, the Democratic and Republican National Committees provide crucial candidate support and party-building activities. Candidate support activities range from collecting polling data to running ad campaigns. Meanwhile, party-building activities often include voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives. The DNC and RNC also engage in coordinating fundraising and election strategies.

Polling Data

The DNC and RNC collect polling data to produce maps showing where candidates have leads in certain areas. This information is helpful in developing campaign strategies.

7.9.4: Informing the Public

Informing the public by traditional and modern mass media is a goal of the DNC and RNC, who gain supporters by remaining.

Learning Objective

Describe the role the national committees play on behalf of the major political parties

Key Points

• The DNC and RNC utilize traditional mass media press releases and staged events as well as more modern social media sites, like Facebook and Twitter, to express their views and attract supporters.
• Informing the public and affecting what is reported on in the media is of vital importance in attracting voters, gaining campaign donations, and effectively promoting party leaders and causes.
• Political parties engage in spin with journalists and produce and air advertisements to manage the way their party is seen in the media.

Key Terms

Republican National Committee

The national leadership of the Republic Party that is responsible for promoting the Republic political platform and coordinating fundraising and election strategies

Democratic National Committee

The national leadership of the Democratic Party that is responsible for promoting the Democratic political platform and coordinating fundraising and election strategies

spin

To present, describe, or interpret, or to introduce a bias or slant so as to give something a favorable or advantageous appearance.

Public Relations

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Republican National Committee (RNC) provide an important link between the Democratic and Republican leaders and the general public. The DNC and RNC vie for the attention of the public in hopes of attracting voters. using multimedia strategies that encompass both traditional as well as more modern approaches. Traditional mass media approaches include issuing press releases and coordinating staged events; more modern approaches include reaching out to prospective constituents through Facebook pages, Twitter feeds, and YouTube channels.

Both Democratic and Republican parties have developed sophisticated websites that provide extensive information about voting logistics, candidates and officeholders, and issue positions. These party websites also provide a means for direct participation in the DNC or RNC by providing information on volunteer activities and other opportunities to contribute to the Democratic and Republican Parties.

Political parties also play an active role in managing the media. In addition to hosting websites and populating social media, parties engage in spin with journalists and produce and air radio and television advertisements. It is important for parties to interact with the media in order to attract positive attention to their political candidates and remain viable in the public eye. Parties that have a strong media presence are the most effective in attracting volunteers and financial contributors.

Spin

Press conferences are one way in which politicians can engage journalists in spin, or interpreting an issue or event in the favor of their political party.

The role of parties in informing the public can most clearly be seen in the relationship between the DNC and the Obama administration. After his inauguration, Obama transferred his Obama for America organization to the DNC, which renamed it Organizing for America. Under the leadership of the DNC, Organizing for America controls the BarackObama.com domain and website and works closely with the White House New Media Director.

7.9.5: Checking the Power of the Governing Party

The legislative branch can significantly affect the power of the governing party by employing a series of checks and balances.

Learning Objective

Describe the relationship between the political parties and a system of checks and balances

Key Points

• The Democratic and Republican Parties can check the power of the governing executive party by holding the majority of seats in the legislative branch of government, also known as the Congress.
• The system of checks and balances prevents any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. However, this system can also prevent progress when one party is in office and another party occupies the majority of legislative seats.
• The legislative branch can check the power of the governing party by overriding presidential vetoes, starting investigations with the executive branch, ratifying treaties signed by the president, confirming presidential appointments, and having the power to impeach.

Key Terms

divided government

A situation in which one political party controls the White House while another party controls the majority of the Congress

executive branch

The branch of government that oversees the carrying out of the laws, led by the president.

checks and balances

A system for multiple parties wherein each has some control over the actions of each of the others.

legislative branch

The branch of government which is concerned with the making of laws; made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate, collectively known as the Congress

Checking the Power of the Governing Party

The Democratic and Republican Parties can check the power of the governing party by holding seats in the legislative branch of the government. The legislative branch of the United States government is composed of the Senate and House of Representatives. The Senate has the power to consider presidential appointments of judges and executive department heads. It also has the ability to ratify treaties. The House of Representatives has the ability to impeach and the Senate may remove executive and judicial officers. The legislative branch can also check the governing party by starting investigations against the executive branch. The House and Senate may, additionally, override presidential vetoes and have the sole power to declare war.

If one political party holds the executive branch of government then another political party can check the power of the executive branch by holding a majority of seats in the legislative branch . Several examples exist throughout history of this scenario. One such example can be found from the Obama administration in 2010. While the Democratic Party occupied the executive branch, the Republican Party held the majority of seats in the legislative branch. This division of parties between the executive and legislative branches impairs the ability of the president to enact policies, since the legislative branch must first approve these policies. At the same time, the president can veto legislation passed by Congress. The tendency of the Democratic Party to embrace a more active government role in the lives of citizens versus the tendency of the Republican Party to favor limited government intervention in citizens’ lives, highlights the difficulties that arise when a divided government exists.

Congress

The U.S. Congress holds legislative power.

Checks and Balances

While the checks and balances system between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches prevents any one branch from becoming tyrannical, this system has also been criticized for maintaining the status quo in government rather than promoting changes. There is a strong possibility for disagreement and conflict within the legislature and between the branches.

7.9.6: Uniting Competing Factions Within the Party

Democratic and Republican Parties have historically taken ideologically ambiguous positions in order to attract a wide range of supporters.

Learning Objective

Differentiate between the Democratic and Republican parties

Key Points

• The Democratic and Republican Parties unite their diverse members by adopting party platforms that take middle-of-the-road positions on issues, use generic language, and contain special sections for factions and interest groups within parties.
• In recent decades the Democratic and Republican Parties have developed more polarized positions on national issues.
• Party platforms serve as a way to unite competing factions within parties by embracing broad viewpoints that will appeal to a wide audience and by containing special sections for factions and interest groups within a party.

Key Terms

free market economic system

A market where the price of a good or service is, in theory, determined by supply and demand, rather than by governmental regulation

presidential nominating conventions

Conventions in which presidential and vice presidential candidates are determined, party platforms are established, and rules governing the election cycle are adopted; the most influential presidential nominating conventions include the Democratic and Republican National Conventions

platform

A political stance on a broad set of issues, which are called planks.

The two major Democratic and Republican Parties in the United States have historically been ideologically ambiguous in order to accommodate citizens representing a broad spectrum of interests. Instead of adopting polarizing ideological views, the Democratic and Republican Parties stand for the core American values of liberty, democracy, and equal opportunity that appeal to many Americans.

However, some broad differences still exist between the Democratic and Republican Parties. The Democratic Party is most associated with a liberal attitude toward politics that emphasizes a more active government role in regulating the economy, ensuring equality, and providing a social safety net. Meanwhile, the Republican Party tends to favor a more conservative view advocating a free market economic system and limited government intervention in the lives of citizens. Some have even contended that American parties have become more ideologically distinct in the last three decades as party leaders begin to express polarized opinions on national issues.

Even with evidence of increasing polarization between political parties, they still encompass a wide range of constituents with varying viewpoints. Parties unite these disparate viewpoints by developing party platforms that outline party positions on issues and the actions leaders will take to implement them if elected. These platforms frequently adopt middle-of-the-road positions to encompass the interests of a diverse range of supporters. Most of the language used in party platforms is generic to appeal to a wide audience while other sections are narrowly written to appeal to certain factions or interest groups in the party.

Republican National Convention

Platforms created during presidential nominating conventions unite diverse factions within a party by adopting middle-of-the-road positions on issues and addressing special interest groups in some sections.

Platforms are created during presidential nominating conventions where delegates have an opportunity to vote on salient issues. These votes present a majority view on how issues should be handled and how they can be used by the presidential candidate to unite divergent viewpoints under one popular view.

7.9.7: Coordinating and Promoting Party Policy

Democratic and Republican National Committees help coordinate and promote party policies but do not organize the creation of policies.

Learning Objective

Summarize the role the two national committees play in the formation and promotion of policy

Key Points

• The DNC and RNC do not play a key role in creating party policies but are useful in promoting these policies.
• The mass media is an important tool in promoting party goals and policies.
• The planks of party platforms can lead to highly politicized debates between parties that may evolve into policy stances.

Key Terms

plank

A political issue that is of concern to a faction or a party of the people and the political position that is taken on that issue.

platform

A political stance on a broad set of issues, which are called planks.

media

Means and institutions for publishing and broadcasting information.

Coordinating and Promoting Party Policy

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Republican National Committee (RNC) help to coordinate and promote party policies, although they are not the central organizations that develop these policies. These organizations are responsible for developing and promoting party platforms, which express the types of views each party embraces. While the planks of platforms do not all necessarily become policies, they can lead to highly politicized debates between parties that become party policy stances. The DNC and RNC promote party policy in a variety of ways through the mass media.

The DNC and RNC coordinate party policy during the Democratic and Republican National Conventions where party platforms are adopted. These conventions allow delegates to vote on issues that can later be incorporated into a presidential candidate’s campaign. While relatively little of the party platform is adopted as public policy, the platforms often become politicized because they are more ideological than pragmatic. For example, the debate over abortion between the Democratic and Republican parties has resulted in policy stances that either support or ban the practice of abortion.

Meanwhile, party policy is promoted through a variety of interactions between parties and the mass media . The mass media is utilized to reach out to a nationwide audience. Traditional mass media techniques of issuing press releases and staging televised debates are used to generate attention toward a party’s policies. Parties also take advantage of more modern social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. The Democratic and Republican Parties, additionally, maintain sophisticated websites where they can offer comprehensive overviews of various party policies. Television and radio advertisements serve as yet another influential way in which parties can promote their policies.

Media

The DNC and RNC utilize various forms of mass media to promote their party’s policies.

7.10: Party Organization

7.10.1: Party Organization

Political parties are political organizations that typically seek to influence government policy by nominating candidates for office.

Learning Objective

Describe the organization of the Democratic and Republican parties in U.S. politics

Key Points

• Parties participate in electoral campaigns and educational outreach or protest actions. Parties often espouse an expressed ideology or vision bolstered by a written platform with specific goals, forming a coalition among disparate interests.
• The need to win popular support in a republic led to the American invention of political parties in the 1790s. Americans were especially innovative in devising new campaign techniques that linked public opinion with public policy through the party.
• The modern political party system in the United States is a two-party system dominated by the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. These two parties have won every United States presidential election since 1852 and have controlled the United States Congress since at least 1856.

Key Terms

two-party system

A two-party system is a system where two major political parties dominate voting in nearly all elections at every level of government and, as a result, nearly all elected officials are members of one of the two major parties.

political party

A political organization that subscribes to a certain ideology and seeks to attain political power through representation in government.

Example

• The president of the United States, Barack Obama, is the 15th Democrat to hold the office, and since the 2006 midterm elections, the Democratic Party is the majority party for the United States Senate.

Introduction

A political party is a political organization that typically seeks to influence government policy, usually by nominating candidates with aligned political views and trying to seat them in political office. Parties participate in electoral campaigns and educational outreach or protest actions. Parties often espouse an expressed ideology or vision bolstered by a written platform with specific goals, forming a coalition among disparate interests. Throughout most of its history, American politics have been dominated by a two-party system. However, the United States Constitution has always been silent on the issue of political parties; at the time it was signed in 1787, there were no parties in the nation. Indeed, no nation in the world had voter-based political parties. The need to win popular support in a republic led to the American invention of political parties in the 1790s. Americans were especially innovative in devising new campaign techniques that linked public opinion with public policy through the party.

Political scientists and historians have divided the development of America’s two-party system into five eras. The modern two-party system consists of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. In general, since the 1930s the Democratic Party positions itself left of center in American politics, while the Republican Party positions itself as right of center. Several third parties also operate in the United States and from time to time, elect someone to local office.

Modern U.S. Political Party System

The modern political party system in the United States is a two-party system dominated by the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. These two parties have won every United States presidential election since 1852 and have controlled the United States Congress since at least 1856.

The Democratic Party is one of two major political parties in the United States. It is the oldest political party in the world . The Democratic Party, since the division of the Republican Party in the election of 1912, has positioned itself as progressive and supporting labor in economic as well as social matters. The economic philosophy of Franklin D. Roosevelt, which has strongly influenced American liberalism, has shaped much of the party’s agenda since 1932. Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition had controlled the White House until 1968. In 2004, it was the largest political party, with 72 million voters (42.6% of 169 million registered) claiming affiliation. The president of the United States, Barack Obama, is the fifteenth Democrat to hold the office, and since the 2006 midterm elections, the Democratic Party is the majority party for the United States Senate.

Andrew Jackson

Democrats hail Andrew Jackson as the founder of the party.

7.10.2: National Convention

A United States presidential nominating convention is a political convention held every four years in the United States.

Learning Objective

Explain the proceedings of the national convention

Key Points

• The formal purpose of such a convention is to select the party’s nominee for President, as well as to adopt a statement of party principles and goals known as the platform and adopt the rules for the party’s activities, including the presidential nominating process for the next election cycle.
• Generally, usage of “presidential nominating convention” refers to the two major parties’ quadrennial events: the Democratic National Convention and the Republican National Convention.
• From the point of view of the parties, the convention cycle begins with the Call to Convention. Usually issued about 18 months in advance, the Call is an invitation from the national party to the state and territory parties to convene and select a presidential nominee.
• Each party sets its own rules for the participation and format of the convention. Broadly speaking, each U.S. state and territory party is apportioned a select number of voting representatives, individually known as delegates and collectively as the delegation.
• The convention is typically held in a major city selected by the national party organization 18–24 months before the election is to be held. As the two major conventions have grown into large, publicized affairs with significant economic impact, cities today compete vigorously.

Key Terms

party platform

A statement of principles and purpose issued by a political party.

planks

Planks refer to the goals and proposals in the platform of a political party.

presidential nominating convention

Convention in which presidential and vice presidential candidates are determined, party platforms are established, and rules governing the election cycle are adopted. The most influential presidential nominating conventions include the Democratic and Republican National Conventions.

Example

• The selection of individual delegates and their alternates is also governed by the bylaws of each state party, or in some cases by state law. The 2004 Democratic National Convention counted 4,353 delegates and 611 alternates. The 2004 Republican National Convention had 2,509 delegates and 2,344 alternates.

Introduction

A United States presidential nominating convention is a political convention held every four years in the United States by most of the political parties who will be fielding nominees in the upcoming U.S. presidential election. The formal purpose of such a convention is to select the party’s nominee for President, as well as to adopt a statement of party principles and goals known as the platform and adopt the rules for the party’s activities, including the presidential nominating process for the next election cycle . Due to changes in election laws, the primary and caucus calendar, and the manner in which political campaigns are run, conventions since the latter half of the 20^th century have virtually abdicated their original roles, and are today mostly ceremonial affairs.

1876 Democratic National Convention

The 1876 Democratic National Convention at the Merchants Exchange Building in St. Louis, Missouri.

Generally, usage of “presidential nominating convention” refers to the two major parties’ quadrennial events: the Democratic National Convention and the Republican National Convention . Some minor parties also select their nominees by convention, including the Green Party, Socialist Party USA, Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, and Reform Party USA.

Roll Call DNC 2008

Roll call of states during the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

Logistics

From the point of view of the parties, the convention cycle begins with the Call to Convention. Usually issued about 18 months in advance, the Call is an invitation from the national party to the state and territory parties to convene to select a presidential nominee. It also sets out the number of delegates to be awarded to each, as well as the rules for the nomination process.

Each party sets its own rules for the participation and format of the convention. Broadly speaking, each U.S. state and territory party is apportioned a select number of voting representatives, individually known as delegates and collectively as the delegation. Each party uses its own formula for determining the size of each delegation, factoring in such considerations as population, proportion of that state’s Congressional representatives or state government officials who are members of the party, and the state’s voting patterns in previous presidential elections. The selection of individual delegates and their alternates is also governed by the bylaws of each state party, or in some cases by state law. The 2004Democratic National Convention counted 4,353 delegates and 611 alternates. The 2004 Republican National Convention had 2,509 delegates and 2,344 alternates.

The convention is typically held in a major city selected by the national party organization 18–24 months before the election is to be held. As the two major conventions have grown into large, publicized affairs with significant economic impact, cities today compete vigorously to be awarded host responsibilities, citing their meeting venues, lodging facilities, and entertainment as well as offering economic incentives. Historically, Midwestern cities such as Chicago, Illinois—which since 1860 has held 25 Republican and Democratic Conventions combined, more than any other urban center in the USA—have become the favored hosts.

Proceedings

Each convention produces a statement of principles known as its platform, containing goals and proposals known as planks. Relatively little of a party platform is even proposed as public policy. Much of the language is generic, while other sections are narrowly written to appeal to factions or interest groups within the party . Since the 1970s, voting has for the most part been perfunctory; the selection of the major parties’ nominees have rarely been in doubt, so a single ballot has always been sufficient. Each delegation announces its vote tallies, usually accompanied with some boosterism of their state or territory. The delegation may pass, nominally to retally their delegates’ preferences, but often to allow a different delegation to give the leading candidate the honor of casting the majority-making vote.

1976 Republican National Convention

President Gerald Ford, as the Republican nominee, shakes hands with nomination foe Ronald Reagan on the closing night of the 1976 Republican National Convention. Vice-Presidential Candidate Bob Dole is on the far left, then Nancy Reagan, Governor Ronald Reagan is at the center shaking hands with President Gerald Ford, Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller is just to the right of Ford, followed by Susan Ford and First Lady Betty Ford.

The evening’s speeches are reserved for major speeches by notable, respected public figures. The speakers at the 2004 Democratic convention included Ted Kennedy, a forty-year veteran of the United States Senate, and Jimmy Carter, a former Democratic President, while at the Republican convention speakers included Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Governor George Pataki of New York, two of the largest states in the nation.

The final day of the convention usually features the formal acceptance speeches from the nominees for president and vice president. Despite recent controversy maintaining that recent conventions were scripted from beginning to end, and that very little news comes out of the convention, the acceptance speech has always been televised by the networks, because it receives the highest ratings of the convention. In addition, the halls of the convention are packed at this time, with many party loyalists sneaking in. Afterwards, balloons are usually dropped and the delegates celebrate the nomination.

7.10.3: The National Party Organization

American political parties have no formal organization at the national level and mainly raise funds through national committees.

Learning Objective

Explain the history of political party organization and the significance of party committees for each of the major political parties

Key Points

• The modern political party system in the United States is a two-party system dominated by the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.
• Among the two major parties, the Democratic Party generally positions itself as left-of-center, while the Republican Party generally positions itself as right-of-center.
• The two major parties, in particular, have no formal organization at the national level controlling membership, activities, or policy positions.
• Party identification becomes somewhat formalized when a person runs for partisan office. In most states, this means declaring oneself a candidate for the nomination of a particular party and intent to enter that party’s primary election.
• At the federal level, each of the two major parties has a national committee that acts as the hub for fundraising and campaign activities. The most significant of these are the Hill committees, which work to elect candidates to each house of Congress.

Key Terms

hill committees

The Hill committees are the common name for political party committees that work to elect members of their own party to United States Congress (“Hill” refers to Capitol Hill, where the seat of Congress, the Capitol, is located).

two-party system

A two-party system is a system where two major political parties dominate voting in nearly all elections at every level of government and, as a result, nearly all elected officials are members of one of the two major parties.

Introduction

The modern political party system in the United States is a two-party system dominated by the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. These two parties have won every United States presidential election since 1852 and have controlled the United States Congress since at least 1856. Third parties have achieved relatively minor representation at national and state levels. Among the two major parties, the Democratic Party generally positions itself as left-of-center in American politics and supports a modern liberal platform, while the Republican Party generally positions itself as right-of-center and supports a conservative platform.

National Republican Elephant

“The Third-Term Panic” by Thomas Nast, originally published in Harper’s Magazine 7 November 1874.

Democratic Party Logo

Logo of the Democratic Party of the United States. Light blue D inside a darker blue circle.

Many minor or third political parties appear from time to time. They serve as means to advocate policies that the two major political parties eventually adopt. At various times, the Socialist Party, the Farmer-Labor Party and the Populist Party had considerable local strength, and then faded away. Some exceptions exist, like Minnesota’s Farmer–Labor Party merging into the state’s Democratic Party. At present, the Libertarian Party is the most successful third party. New York State has a number of additional third parties that sometimes run their own candidates for office or nominate the nominees of the two main parties. In the District of Columbia, the D.C. Statehood Party has served as a strong third party behind the Democratic Party and Republican Party.

Organization of American political parties

American political parties are more loosely organized than those in other countries. The two major parties, in particular, have no formal organization at the national level that controls membership, activities, or policy positions. Thus, for an American to say that he or she is a member of the Democratic or Republican party is quite different from a Briton stating that he or she is a member of the Conservative or Labour party.

In the United States, one can often become a “member” of a party merely by stating that fact. Such participation does not restrict one’s choices in any way. It also does not give a person any particular rights or obligations within the party, other than possibly allowing that person to vote in that party’s primary elections. A person may choose to attend meetings of one local party committee one day and another party committee the next day. The sole factor that brings one “closer to the action” is the quantity and quality of participation in party activities.

Party Identification

Party identification becomes somewhat formalized when a person runs for partisan office. In most states, this means declaring oneself a candidate for the nomination of a particular party and intent to enter that party’s primary election. A party committee may choose to endorse one or another of those seeking the nomination, but in the end the choice is up to those who choose to vote in the primary.

The result is that American political parties have weak central organizations and little central ideology. A party cannot prevent a person who disagrees with the majority of positions of the party or actively works against the party’s aims from claiming party membership , so long as the voters who choose to vote in the primary elections elect that person. Once in office, an elected official may change parties simply by declaring such intent.

Both parties have stopped being engines for voter mobilization, however. Fewer and fewer Americans identify with one another party, preferring instead to be known as “independent” voters. For example, a 2011 USA Today review of state voter rolls indicates that registered Democrats declined in 25 of 28 states. Democrats were still the largest political party with more than 42 million voters (compared with 30 million Republicans and 24 million independents). But in 2011 Democrats numbers shrank 800,000, and from 2008 they were down by 1.7 million, or 3.9%

Party Committees

At the federal level, each of the two major parties has a national committee that acts as the hub for fundraising and campaign activities. The exact composition of these committees is different for each party, but they are made up primarily of representatives from state parties and affiliated organizations. However, the national committees do not have the power to direct the activities of members of the party .

Political parties

The symbol of the Republican Party in the U.S.

Both parties also have separate campaign committees which work to elect candidates at a specific level. The most significant of these are the Hill committees; the common name for the political party committees that work to elect members of their own party to United States Congress (“Hill” refers to Capitol Hill, where the seat of Congress, the Capitol, is located, ). The four major committees are part of the Democratic and Republican parties and each work to help members of their party get elected to each house.

Aerial View of Capitol Hill

Aerial view of Capitol Hill showing the Capitol, Supreme Court Building, Library of Congress, and congressional office buildings.

7.10.4: State and Local Party Organization

The organization of parties is generally at three different levels: national, state, and local.

Learning Objective

Review the organization of parties at the national, state and local level

Key Points

• State parties consist of state central committees, state conventions and congressional district committees.
• National Committees are the national policy creators of each party. Chairpersons are usually selected by the president of the party in power and the party national committee chooses the chairperson for the other party.
• At the local level, there is a president and a president pro tempore in city councils. Usually the majority party (i.e. Democrat or Republican) has the president in their party. The city is split into districts in which the councilman or councilwoman represents.
• Linkage institutions provide a way for people to get involved in government and the political process.
• Political parties provide many ways for individuals to become involved in the political process, from working to get votes or to actually running for office. They are not the only linkage institutions; others include blogs, non-partisan local governments, and school boards.

Key Terms

city council

A governing body of people elected to oversee management of a city and represent the interests of residents.

chairpersons

National Committees are the national policy creators of each party. Chairpersons are usually selected by the president of the party in power and the party national committee chooses the chairperson for the other party.

linkage institutions

Linkage institutions provide a way for people to get involved in government and the political process.

Example

• Currently, the majority of the overall number of seats held in the state legislatures has been switching between the two parties every few years. As of the U.S. gubernatorial elections of 2010, the Republican party holds an outright majority of approximately 440 with 3,890 seats (53% of total) compared to the Democrat party’s number of 3,450 (47% of total) seats elected on a partisan ballot.

Introduction

The organization of parties is generally at three different levels: national, state, and local. National consists of the quadrennial national convention, the party’s national chairpersons, and the party’s national committee. Next is the state, which consists of state central committees and state conventions, and congressional district committees. Lastly, there is the local level of organizations, which include city and county committees, precinct and ward committees, party activists and volunteers, and party identifiers and voters. Recent trends between the three levels are that they tend to overlap, and more often then not, state and local parties have more influence than the national party around their region, and their decisions tend to override those of the national party .

Tea Party National Rally

Tea Party protesters walk towards the United States Capitol during the Taxpayer March on Washington, September 12, 2009.

The basic structure of a political party would be National Committees, Leadership, National Conventions, States and Localities, and informal groups. National Committees are the national policy creators of each party. Chairpersons are usually selected by the president of the party in power and the party national committee chooses the chairperson for the other party. National conventions are held every four years for nominating presidential candidates. Parties are structured at State and Local levels. Informal groups would be groups like interest groups or the National Federation of Democratic Women.

Both parties also have separate campaign committees which work to elect candidates at a specific level. The most significant of these are the Hill committees, which work to elect candidates to each house of Congress. State parties exist in all fifty states, though their structures differ according to state law, as well as party rules at both the national and the state level.

Political Party Strength in State Governments

Currently, the majority of the overall number of seats held in the state legislatures has been switching between the two parties every few years. As of the U.S. gubernatorial elections of 2010, the Republican party holds an outright majority of approximately 440 with 3,890 seats (53% of total) compared to the Democrat party’s number of 3,450 (47% of total) seats elected on a partisan ballot. Of the 7,382 seats in all of the state legislatures combined, independents and third parties account for only 15 members, not counting the 49 members of the Nebraska Legislature, which is the only legislature in the nation to hold non-partisan elections to determine its members. Due to the results of the 2010 elections, Republicans took control of an additional 19 state legislative chambers, giving them majority control of both chambers in 25 states versus the Democrats’ majority control of both chambers in only 16 states, with 8 states having split or inconclusive control of both chambers (not including Nebraska); previous to the 2010 elections, it was Democrats who controlled both chambers in 27 states versus the Republican party having total control in only 14 states, with eight states divided and Nebraska being nonpartisan.

Local Government in the United States

Local government in the United States is structured in accordance with the laws of the various individual states, territories, and the District of Columbia. Typically each state has at least two separate tiers of local government: counties and municipalities. Some states further have their counties divided into townships. There are several different types of local government at the municipal level, generally reflecting the needs of different levels of population densities; typical examples include the city, town, borough, and village.

Parties in City Councils

Most cities have City Councils. These are sometimes elected officials who meet for a portion of the year on designated days and hours. There is a president and a president pro tempore in city councils. Usually the majority party (i.e. Democrat or Republican) has the president in their party. The city is split into districts in which the councilman or councilwoman represents.

Linkage Institutions

Linkage institutions provide a way for people to get involved in government and the political process. Political parties provide many ways for individuals to become involved in the political process, from working to get votes or to actually running for office. They are not the only linkage institutions; others include blogs, non-partisan local governments, and school boards.

7.10.5: Congressional Campaign Committees

Congressional Campaign Committees exist for both Democrats and Republicans, and work to elect candidates from each party to the House of Representatives.

Learning Objective

Identify the roles and responsibilities of the Congressional Campaign Committees for both major parties

Key Points

• They play a critical role in recruiting candidates, raising funds, and organizing races in districts that are expected to yield politically notable or close elections.
• Of the four congressional campaign committees, the DCCC, with a staff of 25, has the largest in-house research department.
• The position of DCCC committee chair was assumed by Rahm Emanuel after the death of the previous chair, Bob Matsui at the end of the 2004 election cycle. Emanuel led the Democratic Party’s effort to capture the majority in the House of Representatives in the 2006 elections.
• The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) is the Republican Hill committee which works to elect Republicans to the United States House of Representatives.
• It supports the election of Republicans to the House through direct financial contributions to candidates and Republican Party organizations; technical and research assistance to Republican candidates and Party organizations; voter registration, education and turnout programs.

Key Terms

congressional caucus

a group of members of the United States Congress that meets to pursue common legislative objectives

national republican congressional committee

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) is the Republican Hill committee which works to elect Republicans to the United States House of Representatives.

democratic congressional campaign committee

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is the Democratic Hill committee for the United States House of Representatives, working to elect Democrats to that body.

Democratic Party

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is the Democratic Hill committee for the United States House of Representatives, working to elect Democrats to that body. They play a critical role in recruiting candidates, raising funds, and organizing races in districts that are expected to yield politically notable or close elections. The structure of the committee consists, essentially, of the Chairperson, their staff, and other Democratic members of Congress that serve in roles supporting the functions of the committee. The Chairperson of the DCCC is the fourth ranking position among House Democrats, after the Minority Leader, the Minority Whip and the Democratic Caucus Chairperson.

Of the four congressional campaign committees, the DCCC, with a staff of 25, has the largest in-house research department. In a February 2012 profile of the department, Roll Call wrote that “The DCCC’s team of mostly 20-somethings researches opposition targets for eight weeks at a time, scouring news clips and YouTube videos and traveling across the country to comb through public records, all in hopes of finding a good hit. Discoveries go into hundred-page research books on their targets that are used as bait to recruit candidates, leaked to reporters or cited in campaign advertisements and mail pieces.”

The position of DCCC committee chair was assumed by Rahm Emanuel after the death of the previous chair, Bob Matsui at the end of the 2004 election cycle. Emanuel led the Democratic Party’s effort to capture the majority in the House of Representatives in the 2006 elections. After Emanuel’s election as chairman of the Democratic Caucus, Chris Van Hollen became committee chair for the 110^th Congress, and thus for the 2008 elections. He continued through the 2010 elections. For the 2012 election cycle, Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi appointed congressman Steve Israel to serve as the committee’s chair.

Republican Party

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) is the Republican Hill committee which works to elect Republicans to the United States House of Representatives. The NRCC was formed in 1866, when the Republican caucuses of the House and Senate formed a “Congressional Committee”. It supports the election of Republicans to the House through direct financial contributions to candidates and Republican Party organizations; technical and research assistance to Republican candidates and Party organizations; voter registration, education and turnout programs; and other Party-building activities. It is a registered 527 group, and its current slogan is “Building a Lasting Majority.”

The NRCC is governed by its chairman, U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions (TX-32) , and an executive committee composed of Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives. The Chairman is elected by the House Republican Conference after each Congressional election. Republican Leader John Boehner and the seven other elected leaders of the Republican Conference of the House of Representatives serve as ex-officio members of the NRCC’s executive committee.

Pete Sessions

Congressman Pete Sessions, chairman of the NRCC.

7.10.6: The Party in Government

A majority government is a government formed by a governing party that has an absolute majority of seats in the legislature or parliament.

Learning Objective

Discuss how a divided government affects legislation and national policy

Key Points

• In the United States, divided government describes a situation in which one party controls the White House and another party controls one or both houses of the United States Congress.
• Divided government is suggested by some to be an undesirable product of the separation of powers in the United States’ political system.
• In the United States, the constitution is designed to create conflict between the executive and legislative branches of government.
• Despite the perceived problems of divided government, the President and Congress are often able, out of necessity, to establish an effective working relationship.

Key Terms

majority party

the party in a two-party political system that typically holds more than 50% of the seats in the legislature

divided government

A situation in which one political party controls the White House while another party controls the majority of the Congress

majority government

A majority government is a government formed by a governing party that has an absolute majority of seats in the legislature or parliament in a parliamentary system. This is as opposed to a minority government, where even the largest party wins only a plurality of seats and thus must constantly bargain for support from other parties in order to pass legislation and avoid being defeated on motions of no confidence.

Example

• Despite the perceived problems of divided government, the President and Congress are often able, out of necessity, to establish an effective working relationship.

Introduction

A majority government is a government formed by a governing party that has an absolute majority of seats in the legislature or parliament in a parliamentary system. This is as opposed to a minority government, where even the largest party wins only a plurality of seats and thus must constantly bargain for support from other parties in order to pass legislation and avoid being defeated on motions of no confidence. The term “majority government” may also be used for a stable coalition of two or more parties to form an absolute majority. One example of such an electoral coalition is in Australia, where the Liberal and National parties have run as an electoral bloc for decades.

Another example is the current coalition government in the United Kingdom, which is composed of the Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties. The conservatives won the most seats of any single party in the 2010 election, but fell short of an absolute majority. However, by combining with the Liberal Democrats a solid majority in the House of Commons was created. This is the first true coalition government in the UK since World War II.

Divided Government

In the United States, divided government describes a situation in which one party controls the White House and another party controls one or both houses of the United States Congress . Divided government is suggested by some to be an undesirable product of the separation of powers in the United States’ political system. Earlier in the 20^th century, divided government was rare, but since the 1970s it has become increasingly common. Mainly in part due to the Watergate scandal which has popularized the idea that a divided government is a beneficial for the country.

Some conservative and libertarian groups see divided government as beneficial, since it may encourage more policing of those in power by the opposition, as well as limiting spending and the expansion of undesirable laws. In Parliamentary systems such as the United Kingdom, the executive relies on Parliamentary support for its existence. In the United States, however, the constitution is designed to create conflict between the executive and legislative branches of government. Despite the perceived problems of divided government, the President and Congress are often able, out of necessity, to establish an effective working relationship.

Divided Government in the United States

Graphical depiction of the party division of U.S. Congress, 1933-2009.

7.11: Minor Political Parties

7.11.1: The Role of Third Parties

American politics operate as a two-party system, and third party candidates do not play a major role in elections.

Learning Objective

Describe how and why third parties form, their key successes, and hurdles to still further success

Key Points

• In the U.S., “third party” refers to any party other than the major two, which are the Democratic and Republican parties at present.
• Third parties have sometimes launched large campaigns and have won public offices, but have not obtained significant or consistent representation in the federal government.
• Barriers to third party success include a winner-take-all election format, ballot access laws, debate rules, and the vast resources of the two major parties.

Key Terms

two-party system

A two-party system is a system where two major political parties dominate voting in nearly all elections at every level of government and, as a result, nearly all elected officials are members of one of the two major parties.

ballot access laws

Statutes governing whether a candidate will be listed on a state election ballot, which may require fees or signed petitions.

third party

A political party in opposition to the main parties in a two-party system.

Example

• Ross Perot’s 1992 candidacy for president as a member of the Independent Party is the last time a third party candidate gained significant traction. Due in part to an agreement by the two major party candidates to allow him to appear in televised debates, Perot received 19% of the popular vote that year.

American politics operate on a two-party system, meaning that two major political parties dominate voting in most elections and consequently dominate elected offices. In modern United States elections, the two major parties are the Democratic and Republican parties. These parties are associated with liberal and conservative views respectively, and nearly all elected officials are affiliated with one of the two. Campaign endorsements, funding, and resources are allocated to candidates on the basis of nomination by one of these two parties.

Although the American political structure has consistently been a two-party system, third parties occasionally influence elections, and third party candidates sometimes obtain elected positions. “Third party” technically refers to the third largest party in a two-party system, but in the U.S. it generally refers to any party running in an election other than the major two. Many third parties have gained some traction throughout American history — at one point, the Socialist Party held 600 mayoral offices, and Theodore Roosevelt obtained a signifiant number of votes in his presidential bid as the Progressive Party candidate in 1912. Today, the largest three “third parties” as measured by the number of registered voters affiliated with them are the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, and the Constitution Party. None of them hold a substantial number of public offices.

There are numerous logistical reasons third parties have not been more successful in the U.S. (as they have been in other democratic countries), including the country’s election structure, ballot rules, and debate rules. American elections are structured as “winner-take-all” votes — in other words, regardless of the margin of victory, the candidate that wins the popular vote attains office while the runner-up does not gain representation. This system is in contrast to proportional representation systems, in which parties are allocated representation based on the proportion of the popular vote they receive. With regards to ballot access, candidates for major elections, such as presidential elections, must meet state-determined criteria to be included on election ballots. Ballot access laws often mandate that candidates pay large fees or collect a large number of signatures to be listed, which often restricts the ability of third party candidates to be put on the ballot. Lastly, since the onset of televised presidential debates in the 1960s, with only a couple of exceptions, third party candidates have been barred from participation. This policy limits their ability to publicize their views and gain a following among the electorate.

While many electoral policies in the U.S. stack the odds against third party success, perhaps the greatest barrier to third party candidates is the vast amount of resources that major parties hold. The two major parties have shifted names, platforms, and constituencies over time, but they have always served as gatekeepers to financial and human resources. Moreover, throughout the past few decades, major party politicians have been able to neutralize third party threats by adopting or discrediting the views of third party candidates. Both major parties are at risk of losing voters if third party campaigns gain traction, so they have both tended to act in ways that promote the two party system.

Ross Perot

Ross Perot is the last third party presidential candidate to gain a substantial number of votes in the general election.

7.11.2: Ideological Third Parties and Splinter Parties

Third party politicians tend to be more ideological than Republicans or Democrats because they do not have to play to the American middle.

Learning Objective

Describe the largest and most significant third parties in American electoral politics

Key Points

• American elections are held between two main political candidates, one a Democrat and one a Republican.
• Third parties are any party other than the Democratic and Republican parties.
• Third parties tend to be much more ideological than their counterparts from the Democratic or Republican parties.

Key Terms

third party

A political party in opposition to the main parties in a two-party system.

two-party system

When two major political parties dominate in most elections and consequently dominate elected office

America’s democratic system is predominantly a two party system. This means that two major political parties dominate in most elections and consequently dominate elected office. Currently, the two major American parties are the Democratic and Republican parties, although the top two parties change over time. A third party is any party that supports a candidate for election other than the two major political parties; at the current moment, a third party would be any party other than the Democratic and Republican parties. Though third parties represent a very small fraction of Americans participating in politics, they do influence elections by drawing votes away from either of the two main parties. Third parties tend to be more ideological and extremist than the Democrats or Republicans. Since third party candidates do not have a legitimate chance of winning national election given the structure of the current system, most third parties do not tend to try to pursue moderate voters and instead stay close to their ideological roots.

The three main third parties are the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, and the Constitution Party . All have over 100,000 registered voters. However, even as these parties are the largest of the third parties, they represent only a fraction of American voters and are more ideologically oriented than Democrats or Republicans. The Libertarian Party supports laissez-faire policies, small government, and is characterized by being socially liberal and fiscally conservative. The Green Party is a progressive party that emphasizes eco-socialism. The Constitution Party is a socially and fiscally conservative party backed by the religious right.

Third Party Candidates

Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate, is accused of “stealing” votes away from Al Gore, a Democrat, in the 2000 election.

Beyond the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution Parties, third parties in American politics tend even farther towards the fringe, emphasizing ideology and avoiding speaking to a broad base. An example of a small right-wing third party would be the America First Party. The AFP is characterized as paleoconservative because they are socially and fiscally conservative. The AFP seeks to enact a smaller government by eliminating federal programs, such as the Department of Education. The AFP further seeks to cut taxes and allow for more robust integration of church and state.

An example of an extreme left wing party is the Peace and Freedom Party. The PFP was created in 1968 as a way to protest participation in the Vietnam War. Today, the PFP advocates to protect the environment. It seeks to advance personal liberties and universal, high quality and free access to education and health care. The PFP seeks to enact a more socialist economy.

Some third parties are organized entirely around one issue, rather than seeking to enact a broad, fringe ideology. For example, the United States Marijuana Party seeks to end the war on drugs and legalize marijuana. Though it is unlikely that anyone from the United States Marijuana Party will ever be elected to national office, they seek to raise attention to the issues that they find important and put these issues on the national stage.

7.11.3: The Impact of Minor Parties

Third-party candidates exert influence by focusing the election on particular issues and taking votes away from major candidates.

Learning Objective

Summarize the place of third parties in American political life

Key Points

• Third-party candidates rarely win election in American campaigns.
• Third-party candidates can shift national attention to particular issues.
• Third-party candidates can take votes away from major political party candidates, influencing the outcome of elections.

Key Term

third party

A political party in opposition to the main parties in a two-party system.

Example

• During the 2000 election, Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader took votes away from Democrat Al Gore, a situation that some people felt contributed to the victory of Republican George W. Bush

Third parties face many obstacles in American politics. They are usually not even allowed on ballots for due to lack of popular support and signatures to warrant a place under local laws. The problem feeds upon itself as the marginality of third parties means that they are not well known enough to attract national attention, and therefore unable to raise the funds that could promote their politics and make them well known. Numerically, third parties have won very few elected positions. Since 1877, there have been 31 U.S. senators, 111 U.S. representatives, and 22 governors that were not affiliated with a major political party.

However, third parties do play an important role in national politics. Third parties usually organize and mobilize around a single issue or position, putting pressure on candidates from major political parties to address these issues. For example, segregationist American Independent Party candidate George Wallace gained 13.5% of the popular vote in the 1968 election. In response, the Republican Party adopted a “Southern Strategy” to win the support of conservative Democrats in the South who opposed the new Civil Rights movement.

Although it is unlikely that a third party candidate will ever garner a plurality of the vote, they can influence the election by taking votes away from a major party candidate. This was at issue during the 2000 election when Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader took votes away from Democrat Al Gore, a situation that some felt contributed to the victory of Republican George W. Bush .

Third Party Candidates

Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate, is accused of “stealing” votes away from Al Gore, a Democrat, in the 2000 election.

7.12: Modern Political Parties

7.12.1: Red States vs. Blue States

The terms “red state” (Republican-voting) and “blue state” (Democratic-voting) were standardized during the 2000 US presidential election.

Learning Objective

Compare and contrast red states with blue states

Key Points

• Since 2000, red states are states that vote predominately Republican during an election while blue states are states that vote predominately Democratic during an election.
• Prior to the 2000 presidential election, different media outlet employed divergent color schemes to display states’ party preferences.
• The confusion surrounding the outcome of the 2000 presidential election created conformity around the current understanding of red and blue states even though there was no coordinated media effort to standardize the colors and neither party’s national committee has formally endorsed either color.
• The red state-blue state designation has been criticized for not accurately predicting the outcomes of all elections, for ignoring closely divided states, and for not representing the outcomes of state and local elections accurately.

Key Terms

blue state

A state of the United States voting Democratic in a given election, or tending to vote Democratic in general.

red state

A state of the United States voting Republican in a given election, or tending to vote Republican in general.

electoral college

A body of electors empowered to elect someone to a particular office

During the 2000 US presidential election, the term “red states” was coined to mean those states whose residents primarily vote for the Republican Party and “blue states” as those states whose residents primarily vote for the Democratic Party . The terms have been expanded since 2000 to differentiate between conservative-leaning states, depicted in red, and liberal-leaning states, depicted in blue.

Red States and Blue States

News media frequently display maps in blue, red, and purple to indicate primarily Democratic-voting states, Republican-voting states, and middle ground states.

The association of states with colors to indicate their party voting preferences was not a new phenomenon prior to the 2000 presidential election. In fact, the advent of color television encouraged many television news reporters to depict state voting preferences through color-coded electoral maps. The 2000 presidential election, however, was the first time that red became the standardized color for the Republican Party and blue became the standardized color for the Democratic Party. Previously, color schemes differed across networks. For instance, in the 1980 presidential election NBC used blue for predominately Democratic-voting states and red for predominately Republican-voting states while ABC employed the opposite color scheme. Other networks alternated red and blue between the Democratic and Republican Parties every four years.

The 2000 presidential election proved significant in standardizing red and blue states with the Republican and Democratic Parties, respectively, because of the confusion surrounding the results of the election. Major media outlets started conforming to the same color scheme because the electoral map was continually in view and conformity created easy viewer comprehension. The association of blue with Democrats and red with Republicans is now part of the lexicon of American journalism and has informally been used by each party. Interestingly, though, there was no coordinated media effort to designate Democratic states blue and Republican states red on the 2000 election night and neither party’s national committee has officially accepted the red and blue color designations.

Despite the nearly nationwide acceptance of Republican red states and Democratic blue states, the paradigm has come under criticism. Some argue that assigning partisanship to states is only useful in understanding voting preferences in the Electoral College. The Republican and Democratic Parties within a given state may have platforms that depart from national party platforms. Such a situation can lead a state to favor one party in state and local elections and another party in presidential elections. The designation of states as either being red or blue also ignores those states that are closely divided between Democratic and Republican candidates. Another criticism of the red state-blue state paradigm is that it has not been entirely predictive of how states will vote. For example, in the 2008 presidential election Democratic candidate Barack Obama captured the majority vote in many red states that had not voted Democratic in many years, such as North Carolina, Indiana, and Virginia.

7.12.2: Party Realignments, Dealignments, and Tipping

Realignment refers to national elections in which there are sharp changes in issues that produce new structures that lasts for decades.

Learning Objective

Compare and contrast realignment, dealignment and tipping point

Key Points

• Realignment means the coming to power for several decades of a new coalition, replacing an old dominant coalition of the other party.
• Political realignments can be sudden (1–4 years) or can take place more gradually (5–20 years).
• The central holding of realignment theory, first developed in the political scientist V. O. Key, Jr.’s 1955 article, “A Theory of Critical Elections,” is that American elections, parties and policymaking routinely shift in swift, dramatic sweeps.
• Dealignment is a trend or process whereby a large portion of the electorate abandons its previous partisan affiliation, without developing a new one to replace it.
• Many scholars argue that the trends in elections in the United States over the last several decades are best characterized as dealignment.
• A tipping point is a point in time when a group —or a large number of group members— rapidly and dramatically changes its behavior by widely adopting a previously rare practice.

Key Terms

Tipping point

A tipping point is a point in time when a group —or a large number of group members— rapidly and dramatically changes its behavior by widely adopting a previously rare practice.

Realignment

Realignment means the coming to power for several decades of a new coalition, replacing an old dominant coalition of the other party.

Dealignment

Dealignment is a trend or process whereby a large portion of the electorate abandons its previous partisan affiliation, without developing a new one to replace it.

Example

• A great example of realignment came at the end of George W. Bush’s presidency. In the 2008 elections, the Democrats expanded their majorities in the Congress, and won the Presidency decisively. This was due to the momentum carried over from the Democrats’ 2006 successes, as well as the continued unpopularity of President George W. Bush, whose administration was now faced with a financial crisis and economic recession. Some people believe that 2008 is possibly a realigning election with a long-lasting impact, just as the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt was in 1932 and the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 were. President Obama was reelected in the 2012 election as well, becoming only the third Democrat to win a majority of the popular vote more than once while losing only two states that he had won in 2008.

Introduction

Realigning election are terms from political science and political history describing a dramatic change in the political system. Scholars frequently apply the term to American elections and occasionally to other countries. Usually it means the coming to power for several decades of a new coalition, replacing an old dominant coalition of the other party as in 1896 when the GOP became dominant, or 1932 when the Democrats became dominant. More specifically, it refers to American national elections in which there are sharp changes in issues, party leaders, the regional and demographic bases of power of the two parties, and structure or rules of the political system (such as voter eligibility or financing), resulting in a new political power structure that lasts for decades.

Political realignments can be sudden (1–4 years) or can take place more gradually (5–20 years). Political scientists and historians often disagree about which elections are realignments and what defines a realignment, and even whether realignments occur. The terms themselves are somewhat arbitrary, however, and usage among political scientists and historians does vary.

Realignment

The central holding of realignment theory, first developed in the political scientist V. O. Key, Jr.’s 1955 article, “A Theory of Critical Elections,” is that American elections, parties and policymaking routinely shift in swift, dramatic sweeps. V. O. Key Jr. concluded that systematic patterns are identifiable in American national elections such that cycles occur on a regular schedule: once every 36-years or so. This period of roughly 30 years fits with the notion that these cycles are closely linked to generational change. For social scientists, this point is important, since it helps to provide an objective sociological basis for the theory. Tipping refers to the end of an era and the crystallization of another.

A great example of realignment came at the end of George W. Bush’s presidency. In the 2008 elections, the Democrats expanded their majorities in the Congress, and won the Presidency decisively. This was due to the momentum carried over from the Democrats’ 2006 successes, as well as the continued unpopularity of President George W. Bush, whose administration was now faced with a financial crisis and economic recession. Some people believe that 2008 is possibly a realigning election with a long-lasting impact, just as the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt was in 1932 and the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 were. President Obama was reelected in the 2012 election as well, becoming only the third Democrat to win a majority of the popular vote more than once while losing only two states that he had won in 2008.

Dealignment

A central component of realignment is the change in behavior of voting groups. Realignment means the switching of voter preference from one party to another, in contrast to dealignment ­ where a voter group abandons a party to become independent or nonvoting. Dealignment, in short, is a trend or process whereby a large portion of the electorate abandons its previous partisan affiliation, without developing a new one to replace it.

Furthermore, dealignment refers to a decline by voters to their political party; that is a decrease in party loyalty and voters be less attached to their party. This dealignment shows that short term factors might play a larger role than usual in whether a candidate receives a vote from someone of his party. Several factors can be attributed to partisan dealignment, such as a greater political awareness and socialisation, intensive mass media coverage and decline of deference; disillusionment both with parties and politicians, and most importantly, the poor performance of government. Many scholars argue that the trends in elections in the United States over the last several decades are best characterized as dealignment.

Tipping

Tipping refers to the end of an era and the crystallization of another. More specifically, tipping point is a point in time when a group —or a large number of group members— rapidly and dramatically changes its behavior by widely adopting a previously rare practice. The phrase was first used in sociology by Morton Grodzins when he adopted the phrase from physics where it referred to the adding a small amount of weight to a balanced object until the additional weight caused the object to suddenly and completely topple, or tip. Grodzins studied integrating American neighborhoods in the early 1960s. He discovered that most of the white families remained in the neighborhood as long as the comparative number of black families remained very small. But, at a certain point, when “one too many” black families arrived, the remaining white families would move out en masse in a process known as white flight. He called that moment the “tipping point”.

Obama Campaign 2008

Some people believe that 2008 is possibly a realigning election with a long-lasting impact, just as the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt was in 1932 and the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 were. President Obama was reelected in the 2012 election as well, becoming only the third Democrat to win a majority of the popular vote more than once while losing only two states that he had won in 2008.

7.12.3: The Rise of Independents

In politics, an Independent or nonpartisan politician is an individual not affiliated to any political party.

Learning Objective

Describe independent voters in U.S. politics and the history of independents elected to national, regional and local offices

Key Points

• An Independent or nonpartisan politician is an individual not affiliated to any political party. Independents may hold a centrist viewpoint between those of major political parties.
• Historically, George Washington was the only president elected as an Independent, as he was not formally affiliated with any party during his two terms.
• There have been several Independents elected to the United States Senate throughout history. Examples include David Davis of Illinois (a former Republican) in the nineteenth century, and Harry F. Byrd, Jr. of Virginia (who had been elected to his first term as a Democrat) in the 20th century.
• In August 2008, there were 12 people who held offices as Independents in state legislatures. There were four state senators, one from Kentucky, one from Oregon, one from Tennessee, and one from New Mexico.

Key Terms

Whig Party

It is a party that was prevalent in the Jacksonian era of democracy.

independent

A candidate or voter not affiliated with any political party, a free thinker, free of a party platform.

Background

In politics, an independent or nonpartisan politician is an individual not affiliated to any political party. Independents may hold a centrist viewpoint between those of major political parties. Sometimes, they hold a viewpoint more extreme than any major party, or they may have a viewpoint based on issues that they do not feel that any major party addresses. Other Independent politicians may be associated with a political party, were former members of it, or have views that align with it but choose not to stand under its label.

Historically, George Washington was the only president elected as an Independent, as he was not formally affiliated with any party during his two terms. John Tyler was expelled from the Whig Party in September 1841 and remained effectively an Independent for the remainder of his presidency, later returning to the Democrats. He briefly sought re-election in 1844 as a National Democrat, but he withdrew, as he feared to split the Democratic vote. Recent prominent Independent candidates for president of the United States include John Anderson in 1980, Ross Perot in 1992, and Ralph Nader in the 2004 and 2008 elections. In 2008, Independent Presidential candidate, Ralph Nader formed Independent parties in New Mexico, Delaware, and elsewhere to gain ballot access in several states. This strategy has been pursued by several Independent candidates for Federal races, including Joe Lieberman (Connecticut for Lieberman), since in some states it is easier to gain ballot access by creating a new political party than to gather signatures for a nominating petition.

George Washington

First President of the United States

Independents in Congress

There have been several Independents elected to the United States Senate throughout history. Notable examples include David Davis of Illinois (a former Republican) in the nineteenth century, and Harry F. Byrd, Jr. of Virginia (who had been elected to his first term as a Democrat) in the twentieth century. Some officials have been elected as members of a party but became an Independent while in office (without being elected as such), such as Wayne Morse of Oregon or Virgil Goode of Virginia. Nebraska senator George W. Norris was elected for four terms as a Republican before changing to an Independent after the Republicans lost their majority in Congress in 1930. Norris won re-election as an Independent in 1936, but later lost his final re-election attempt to Republican Kenneth S. Wherry in 1942. Vermont senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party to become an Independent in 2001.

Independents in State and Local Offices

In August 2008, there were 12 people who held offices as Independents in state legislatures. There were four state senators, one from Kentucky, one from Oregon, one from Tennessee, and one from New Mexico. The representatives came from the states of Louisiana (two), Maine (two), Vermont (two), and Virginia (two). In the 2008 general elections, Wisconsin State Assemblyman Jeffrey Wood left the Republican Party and won reelection as an Independent. After the 2008 primary election, New Mexico State Senator Joseph Carraro left the Republican Party and registered as an Independent. He did not run for reelection.

In November 2005, Manny Diaz was elected Mayor of Miami, Florida as an Independent. On June 19, 2007, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg switched his party affiliation from Republican to Independent. Oscar Goodman, Mayor of Las Vegas, Nevada switched his affiliation to Independent from Democrat in December 2009.

6.2: Forming Public Opinion

6.2.1: Forming Political Values

Learning Objective

Explain the agents of socialization that inform the individual’s political values

Key Points

• In childhood, political socialization and the formation of political values revolves around a burgeoning awareness of living in a certain place, being a part of a certain political system, and recognizing political or government leaders.
• The most influential years for the formation of political values is young adulthood, when people are most open to new ideas and encounter new opportunities for political engagement in college and the workplace.
• The agents a child surrounds him/herself with during childhood are crucial to the child’s development of future voting behaviors.
• The formation of political values occurs through political socialization. The most important agents of this socialization include family, school, peers, church, and the media.

Key Terms

political socialization

The “developmental processes by which children and adolescents acquire political cognition, attitudes, and behaviors. ” It refers to a learning process by which political norms and behavior are transmitted from one generation to another.

political equality

a system in which all people have the same rights and freedoms to participate in government and its institutions

Political Socialization

Political socialization is a concept concerning the “study of the developmental processes by which children of all ages (12 to 30) and adolescents acquire political cognition, attitudes, and behaviors”. It refers to a learning process by which norms and behavior acceptable to a well running political system are transmitted from one generation to another. It is through the performance of this function that individuals are inducted into the political culture and their orientations towards political objects are formed.

Agents of Socialization

The following agents of Socialization influence to different degrees an individual’s political opinions:

• Family
• Media
• Peers
• Education
• Religion
• Faith
• Race
• Gender
• Age
• Geography

These factors and many others that people are introduced to as they grow up will affect their political views throughout the rest of their lives. Political beliefs are often formed during childhood, as parents pass down their ideologies to their children and so on.

Factors

The agents a child surrounds him/herself with during childhood are crucial to the child’s development of future voting behaviors. Some of these agents include:

Family: Glass (1986) recognizes family as a primary influence in the development of a child’s political orientation, mainly due to constant relationship between parents and child, detailed in the table Family as a Primary Influence below.

Schools: Most influential of all agents, after the family, due to the child’s extended exposure to a variety of political beliefs, such as friends and teachers, both respected sources of information for students.Mass Media: Becker (1975) argue that the media functions as a medium of political information to adolescents and young children.

Religion: Religious tradition can have a strong effect on someone’s political views. For example, Protestants tend to be more conservative (in countries where Protestants are not great majority).

Political Parties: Scholars such as Campbell (1960) note that political parties have very little direct influence on a child due to a contrast of social factors such as age, context, power, etc.

Agents of Political Socialization

1. Family – Most important shaper of basic attitudes Teaches basic political values & loyalty to particular political party
2. Schools – Teach patriotism and American mythology Early grades build on and reinforce positive learning
3. Peers – Limited in effect because of self-selection Peer group in youth affects mostly “lifestyle issues”
4. Mass Media – Effect difficult to measure but substantial Promotes cynicism about government Agenda Setting – Telling us what to think about Framing – Tells us what to think about what is presented
5. Political leaders and institutions
6. Churches and Religion Religious right and religious left

Senior Citizen Involvement

People who have not participated in politics much throughout their life may participate more in retirement.

Pledging Allegiance

Children learn political values through political socialization. This can occur through rituals, such as the recitation of the pledge of allegiance at the beginning of each school day.

Student Protesters

Student activists in the 1960s protested against US involvement in the Vietnam War. Some activists developed more favorable attitudes toward government as they matured, had families, and became homeowners.

6.2.2: Models of Political Socialization

Learning Objective

Describe how political socialization occurs.

Key Points

• Political socialization refers to a process of political learning in which norms and beliefs about the political process are passed on from one generation to another.
• Political socialization is primarily a one-way process, in which agents of socialization (such as family or peers) pass on political values to subjects. Subjects are usually young people and are mostly passive in this political learning.
• In the United States, young people are socialized to accept specific American values. This includes acceptance of democracy, rule of law, respect for authorities, and the capitalist system.
• People are not always socialized to accept the standard rules and norms of a society. Sometimes, political socialization can pass on norms that are very different from the status quo.

Key Term

political socialization

The “developmental processes by which children and adolescents acquire political cognition, attitudes, and behaviors. ” It refers to a learning process by which political norms and behavior are transmitted from one generation to another.

Psychological theories of self development have been broadened by sociologists who explicitly study the role of society and social interaction in self development. Charles Cooley and George Mead both contributed significantly to the sociological understanding of the development of self. Lawrence Kohlberg and Carol Gilligan developed their ideas further, researching how our sense of morality develops. Gilligan added the dimension of gender differences to Kohlberg’s theory.

How do we get from being newborns to being humans with “selves? ” Mead believed that there is a specific path of development that all people go through. During the preparatory stage, children are only capable of imitation: they have no ability to imagine how others see things. They copy the actions of people with whom they regularly interact, such as their mothers and fathers. This is followed by the play stage, during which children begin to take on the role that one other person might have. Thus, children might try on a parent’s point of view by acting out “grownup” behavior, like playing “dress up” and acting out the “mom” role, or talking on a toy telephone the way they see their father do.

During the game stage, children learn to consider several roles at the same time and how those roles interact with each other. They learn to understand interactions involving different people with a variety of purposes. For example, a child at this is likely to be aware of the different responsibilities of people in a restaurant who together make for a smooth dining experience (someone seats you, another takes your order, someone else cooks the food, while yet another clears away dirty dishes).

Finally, children develop, understand, and learn the idea of the generalized other, the common behavioral expectations of general society. By this stage of development, an individual is able to imagine how he or she is viewed by one or many others—and thus, from a sociological perspective, to have a “self” (Mead 1934; Mead 1964).

Moral development is an important part of the socialization process. The term refers to the way people learn what society considered to be “good” and “bad,” which is important for a smoothly functioning society. Moral development prevents people from acting on unchecked urges, instead considering what is right for society and good for others. Lawrence Kohlberg (1927–1987) was interested in how people learn to decide what is right and what is wrong. To understand this topic, he developed a theory of moral development that includes three levels: preconventional, conventional, and postconventional.

In the preconventional stage, young children, who lack a higher level of cognitive ability, experience the world around them only through their senses. It isn’t until the teen years that the conventional theory develops, when youngsters become increasingly aware of others’ feelings and take those into consideration when determining what’s “good” and “bad. ” The final stage, called postconventional, is when people begin to think of morality in abstract terms, such as Americans believing that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. At this stage, people also recognize that legality and morality do not always match up evenly (Kohlberg 1981). When hundreds of thousands of Egyptians turned out in 2011 to protest government corruption, they were using postconventional morality. They understood that although their government was legal, it was not morally correct.

Another sociologist, Carol Gilligan (1936–), recognized that Kohlberg’s theory might show gender bias since his research was only conducted on male subjects. Would females study subjects have responded differently? Would a female social scientist notice different patterns when analyzing the research? To answer the first question, she set out to study differences between how boys and girls developed morality. Gilligan’s research demonstrated that boys and girls do, in fact, have different understandings of morality. Boys tend to have a justice perspective, placing emphasis on rules and laws. Girls, on the other hand, have a care and responsibility perspective; they consider people’s reasons behind behavior that seems morally wrong.

Gilligan also recognized that Kohlberg’s theory rested on the assumption that the justice perspective was the right, or better, perspective. Gilligan, in contrast, theorized that neither perspective was “better”: the two norms of justice served different purposes. Ultimately, she explained that boys are socialized for a work environment where rules make operations run smoothly, while girls are socialized for a home environment where flexibility allows for harmony in caretaking and nurturing (Gilligan 1982; Gilligan 1990).

Accepting Political Legitimacy

In the 2000 election, most Americans quickly accepted the legitimacy of the Supreme Court’s decision. Teaching people to accept the “rules of the game,” as in this situation, is an important function of political socialization.

Latin Kings Socialization

Political socialization does not always mean people are being socialized to accept mainstream political views. The gang “The Latin Kings” (insignia shown) socializes members to violence.

Teaching Younger Generations

Political socialization involves one generation passing on political values and norms to the next generation.

6.2.3: From Political Values to Ideology

Learning Objective

Differentiate between the political ideologies of liberals, conservatives, and moderates and discuss how they relate to American political values

Key Points

• Political values are shared convictions about what is important in a society. Individualism and egalitarianism tend to be the two predominant political values in the United States.
• Some of the most important political values in the United States emphasize individual effort, the importance of the rule of law, patriotism, political tolerance, and an acceptance of capitalist economic values.
• While core political values exist, not all Americans agree on the scope and purpose of government, and consequently, not all Americans believe in the same political ideology.
• Political ideologies describe the scope and purpose of government. Conservatives believe in limited government intervention in the affairs of citizens, whereas liberalism believes in more government intervention, and moderates fall somewhere in between.

Key Terms

political tolerance

A fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one’s own.

political ideology

A political ideology is a certain ethical set of ideals that explains how society should work, and offers some political and cultural blueprint for a certain social order. It focuses on type of government and economy.

rule of law

The doctrine that no individual is above the law and that everyone must answer to it.

What Are American Political Values?

Values represent a society’s shared convictions about what is just and good. Most often, Americans claim to be committed to the core values of individualism and egalitarianism. Core American political values are vested in what is often called the American creed. The creed, which was composed by New York State Commissioner of Education Henry Sterling Chapin in 1918, refers to the belief that the United States government is “by the people, for the people, whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed. ” The nation consists of sovereign states united as “a perfect Union” based on “the principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity. “

American exceptionalism is the view that America’s successful development as a nation has contributed to its special place in the world. It is the conviction that the country’s vast frontier has offered boundless and equal opportunities for individuals to achieve their goals. Americans feel strongly that their nation is destined to serve as an example to other countries. They believe that the political and economic systems that have evolved in this country are perfectly suited in principle to permit both individualism and egalitarianism.

Additionally, the American creed also includes patriotism: the love of one’s country and respect for its symbols and principles. The events of 9/11 ignited Americans’ patriotic values, resulting in many public displays of support for the country, its democratic form of government, and authority figures in public-service jobs, such as police and firefighters.

Another core American value is political tolerance, the willingness to allow groups with different ideologies to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, such as free speech. While many people strongly support the ideal of tolerance, they often are unwilling to extend political freedoms to groups they dislike. People acknowledge the constitutional right of racist groups, such as skinheads, to demonstrate in public, but will go to great lengths to prevent them from doing so. Democratic political values are among the cornerstones of the American creed.

Americans believe in the rule of law which explains the idea that government is based on a body of law, agreed on by the governed, and is applied equally and justly. The Constitution is the foundation for the rule of law. The American creed also encompasses the public’s high degree of respect for the American system of government and the structure of its political institutions .

Capitalist economic values are also a part of American values. Capitalist economic systems emphasize the need for a free-enterprise system that allows for open business competition, private ownership of property, and limited government intervention in business affairs. Underlying these capitalist values is the belief that, through hard work and perseverance, anyone can be financially successful. The emphasis on the lone, powerful person implies a distrust of collective action and of power structures such as big government, big business, or big labor. The public is leery of a few large companies having too much concentrated power. The emergence of the Tea Party, a visible grassroots conservative movement that gained momentum during the 2010 midterm elections, illustrates how some Americans become mobilized in opposition to the “tax and spend” policies of big government.

Translating Political Values into Political Ideologies

While there are various components to fundamental American political values, not all Americans agree on which exactly the most important values should be . People believe that, when making policies, certain values should be emphasized and others deemphasized. People then choose a political ideology that most closely matches their values. These ideologies capture what they believe the scope and purpose of government should be, as well as the balance between individual freedom and collective equality.

Generally, peoples’ values about the scope and purpose of government can be translated into three main political ideologies: liberals, conservatives, and moderates. People who value change and a greater emphasis on collective equality tend to relate to the ideology of liberalism. Liberals support more government intervention to promote economic equality, and believe the government should have more of a say in peoples’ lives.

Contrastingly, people who value tradition and the status quo will relate more to conservatism. Conservatives favor less government intervention (like the Tea Party), and more individual freedom in economic activities (which can subsequently mean a belief in less collective equality). Moderates hold an ideology somewhere in between liberalism and conservatism.

Political Ideology Trends

As this chart illustrates, not all Americans agree on which should be the predominant political values and ideologies. Also in this chart, it is evident that people align with different ideologies at different points in time.

Equal Justice under Law

The inscription on the front of the United States Supreme Court building reads, “equal justice under law. ” This phrase emphasizes the centrality of the rule of law in American political values.

6.2.4: Socioeconomic and Racial Demographics

Learning Objective

Describe the ways in which race, gender, socioeconomic status, and geographical region influence how people are politically socialized.

Key Points

• Different groups are socialized to more or less participation, and to different types of participation. People are socialized to these different political values based on where they live, their gender, their race or ethnicity, or their socioeconomic status.
• Wealthier and more highly educated people are exposed to more avenues for political socialization; in particular, since schools are a key agent of political socialization, highly educated people tend to be very active in politics.
• Political socialization also differs depending on where people live. For example, typically people are conservative in the South and Midwest, and align against the more liberal east and west coasts. Urban voters tend to be socialized to be more liberal, and rural voters more conservative.
• Typically, women’s political learning and formation of political values has been different than men’s. Traits associated with political leadership have more often been attributed as “male” values, leading to fewer women in visible political leadership roles.

Key Terms

socioeconomic status

Socioeconomic status (SES) is a combined economic and sociological measurement of a person’s work experience and of an individual’s or family’s economic and social position in relation to others, based on income, education, and occupation.

political socialization

The “developmental processes by which children and adolescents acquire political cognition, attitudes, and behaviors. ” It refers to a learning process by which political norms and behavior are transmitted from one generation to another.

red-state blue-state divide

The Red State-Blue State Divide is a geographical division of the United States into states in which the majority of people voted for the Republican candidate and states in which the majority voted for the Democratic candidate.

Group Differences in Political Socialization

Political learning and socialization experiences can differ vastly for people depending on the groups with which they associate, such as those based on gender and racial and ethnic background. Certain groups are socialized to a more active role in politics, while others are marginalized.

Political Socialization and Socioeconomic Status

Socioeconomic status is determined by people’s levels of education, income, and occupation. Wealthier and more highly educated people tend to have more opportunities to be socialized to political values. Consequently, they tend to have more defined political opinions, vote more often, participate more in political activities, and donate more money to causes than poorer or less educated people. Oftentimes, they have been raised by parents who are of the same socioeconomic status, who socialize them to believe in the importance of political participation.

Education has the strongest impact on participation, as it socializes people to the political system. Schools are important agents for political socialization, and as a result, educated people develop the skills that allow them to follow and understand events through the mass media. They are likely to form opinions about political issues and engage in discussions. Schools also prepare people to deal with the bureaucratic aspects of participation, such as registering to vote or organizing a petition drive.

Political Socialization and Race

People are attracted to groups with similar views. Generally, groups who have experienced historical discrimination or poverty are attracted to more liberal social doctrine. African Americans overwhelmingly identify with the Democratic party, and Latinos also identify with the Democratic party. Asian Americans are more likely to identify with the Republican party. Racial and ethnic groups, like other groups, socialize the members of the group towards different values in politics.

Black and white Americans are about equal in how much time and effort they devote to activities other than voting. However, they differ in the types of activities in which they have been socialized to participate in. Whites are more likely to contact public officials and join political organizations. Black citizens are active in election campaigns and social movements. Latinos tend to participate in other forms of political activity with less frequency than either white or black citizens. Cultural factors contribute to the lower levels of Asian American and Pacific Islander voting; for example, some are recent immigrants who still maintain strong ties to their ethnic culture. These groups have not experienced as much political socialization as other groups.

Political Socialization and Geographical Region

People are also socialized to accept different political values, ideologies, and parties based on the region of the country in which they grew up or currently live. For example, the southern United States is characterized as more conservative, against organized labor, and typically having less voter turnout. The conservative, agrarian midwestern states tend to vote with these Southern states, in alliance against the more liberal, urban voters on the east and west coasts.

Political Values by Geographic Region

This map of the different party strength in the 2004 Presidential Election (red states voted Republican and blue states voted Democrat) demonstrates the relationship between political socialization and geography.

This red-state blue-state divide can be more accurately explained by looking at urban and rural voting. People who live in large cities tend to vote Democratic, while rural Americans are more likely to vote Republican. County-by-county and district-by-district maps reveal that the “true” nature of geographical division, ideologically, is between urban areas/inner suburbs and suburbs/rural areas. For example, in the 2008 elections, even in “solidly blue” states, the majority of voters in most rural counties voted for Republican John McCain, with some exceptions. In “solidly red” states, a majority of voters in most urban counties voted for Democrat Barack Obama. An even more detailed precinct-by-precinct breakdown demonstrates that in many cases, large cities voted for Obama, but their suburbs were divided.

Political Socialization and Gender

There are significant differences in the way that males and females are socialized to politics. Historically, men have occupied a more central position in American political culture than women. This tradition was institutionalized at the time of the founding, when women did not receive the right to vote in the Constitution. While strides have been made over the past century to achieve political equality between the sexes, differences in sex-role socialization still exist. Traits associated with political leadership, such as being powerful and showing authority, are more often associated with males than females. Girls have fewer opportunities to observe women taking political action, especially as few females hold the highly visible positions, such as member of Congress and cabinet secretary, that are covered by mass media. This is starting to change as women such as Madeleine Albright and now Hillary Clinton attract media attention in their roles as secretary of state or as Nancy Pelosi did as Speaker of the House of Representatives . Despite these developments, women are still socialized to supporting political roles, such as volunteers in political campaigns, rather than leading roles, such as higher-level elected officials. The result is that fewer women than men seek careers in public office beyond the local level.

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is one of an increasing number of women who has achieved a highly visible political leadership role.

6.2.5: Family, Peers, Church, and School

Learning Objective

Locate the differences across the factors of political socialization

Key Points

• The family is a powerful agent of political socialization, as the hierarchical structure of the family and the child’s desire to please his or her parents encourage conformity to the parents’ political values. In particular, children will often identify with the parents’ political party.
• Schools are a crucial agent of political socialization, as they teach the knowledge necessary for political participation. Students learn civics, history, geography, and how the political system works.
• US schools socialize students to American values, such as cooperation, fair competition, and respect for authorities. Schools also provide opportunities for students to learn national pride and citizenship (for example, through rituals like saying the Pledge of Allegiance).
• Peer groups can be influential to political socialization, as young people often adopt the same patterns of behaviors and beliefs as the groups they associate with.
• Churches socialize people to accept certain political values, and also teach values such as respect for authority.

Key Terms

latent

Existing or present, but concealed.

peers

A group of people who are linked by common interests, equal social position, and similar age.

agent

An active power or cause; that which has the power to produce an effect.

Family

Family is the first agent of socialization. Mothers and fathers, siblings and grandparents, plus members of an extended family, all teach a child what he or she needs to know. For example, they show the child how to use objects (such as clothes, computers, eating utensils, books, bikes); how to relate to others (some as “family,” others as “friends,” still others as “strangers” or “teachers” or “neighbors”); and how the world works (what is “real” and what is “imagined”). As you are aware, either from your own experience as a child or your role in helping to raise one, socialization involves teaching and learning about an unending array of objects and ideas.

Family Participation in Politics

Members of the Kennedy family have been prominently involved in politics for over a century, illustrating how the desire to participate in politics can be passed on generationally. Family is an important agent of political socialization.

School

Most American children spend about seven hours a day, 180 days a year, in school, which makes it hard to deny the importance school has on their socialization (U.S. Department of Education 2004). Students are not only in school to study math, reading, science, and other subjects—the manifest function of this system. Schools also serve a latent function in society by socializing children into behaviors like teamwork, following a schedule, and using textbooks.School and classroom rituals, led by teachers serving as role models and leaders, regularly reinforce what society expects from children. Sociologists describe this aspect of schools as the hidden curriculum, the informal teaching done by schools.

Peer Group

A peer group is made up of people who are similar in age and social status and who share interests. Peer group socialization begins in the earliest years, such as when kids on a playground teach younger children the norms about taking turns or the rules of a game or how to shoot a basket. As children grow into teenagers, this process continues. Peer groups are important to adolescents in a new way, as they begin to develop an identity separate from their parents and exert independence. Additionally, peer groups provide their own opportunities for socialization since kids usually engage in different types of activities with their peers than they do with their families. Peer groups provide adolescents’ first major socialization experience outside the realm of their families. Interestingly, studies have shown that although friendships rank high in adolescents’ priorities, this is balanced by parental influence.

Importance of Peer Groups

Spending time with peers, such as participating in organized sports, can be an important source of political socialization for young adults.

Religion and Church

While some religions may tend toward being an informal institution, this section focuses on practices related to formal institutions. Religion is an important avenue of socialization for many people. The United States is full of synagogues, temples, churches, mosques, and similar religious communities where people gather to worship and learn. Like other institutions, these places teach participants how to interact with the religion’s material culture (like a mezuzah, a prayer rug, or a communion wafer). For some people, important ceremonies related to family structure—like marriage and birth—are connected to religious celebrations. Many of these institutions uphold gender norms and contribute to their enforcement through socialization. From ceremonial rites of passage that reinforce the family unit, to power dynamics which reinforce gender roles, religion fosters a shared set of socialized values that are passed on through society.

6.2.6: The Mass Media

Learning Objective

Explain the different ways that the mass media forms public opinion

Key Points

• Mass media frame the details of the story.
• Mass media communicate the social desirability of certain ideas.
• Mass media sets the news agenda, which shapes the public’s views on what is newsworthy and important.
• Increasing scandal coverage, as well as profit-motivated sensationalist media coverage, has resulted in young people holding more negative, distrustful views of government than previous generations.

Key Terms

framing

the construction and presentation of a fact or issue “framed” from a particular perspective

mass media

The mass media are media technologies like broadcast media and print media that are designed to reach a large audience by mass communication.

Mass media effects on public opinion

Media can have an important effect on public opinion in several ways.

1. Setting the news agenda, which shapes the public’s views on what is newsworthy and important
2. Framing the details of a story
3. Communicating the social desirability of certain kinds of ideas

The formation of public opinion starts with agenda setting by major media outlets throughout the world. This agenda setting dictates what is newsworthy and how and when it will be reported. The media agenda is set by a variety of different environmental and newswork factors that determines which stories will be newsworthy.

Another key component in the formation of public opinion is framing. Framing is when a story or piece of news is portrayed in a particular way and is meant to sway the consumers attitude one way or the other. Most political issues are heavily framed in order to persuade voters to vote for a particular candidate. For example, if Candidate X once voted on a bill that raised income taxes on the middle class, a framing headline would read “Candidate X Doesn’t Care About the Middle Class”. This puts Candidate X in a negative frame to the news reader.

Social desirability is another key component to the formation of public opinion. Social desirability is the idea that people in general will form their opinions based on what they believe is the popular opinion. Based on media agenda setting and media framing, most often a particular opinion gets repeated throughout various news mediums and social networking sites, until it creates a false vision where the perceived truth is actually very far away from the actual truth.

Public opinion can be influenced by public relations and the political media. Additionally, mass media utilizes a wide variety of advertising techniques to get their message out and change the minds of people. Since the 1950s, television has been the main medium for molding public opinion, though the internet is becoming increasingly important in this realm.

News Media

Increasing exposure to news media has both a positive and negative effects on the formation of political values in young people.

6.2.7: Political Leaders and Opinion Makers

Learning Objective

Compare and contrast monomorphic and polymorphic opinion leadership

Key Points

• Opinion leaders interpret and disseminate political messages for the average person, to help him or her understand complex political issues.
• Opinion leaders sometimes have more influence than the media, primarily because opinion leaders are seen as trustworthy and non-purposive. People are more inclined to accept a political message from someone they know, rather than the media, who they feel may be attempting to manipulate them.
• Political pundits, public officials, celebrities, and media personalities can all serve as opinion leaders.
• Some argue that the opinion of the elites in society should matter the most. The average American should not and does not have much say in public opinion; rather, elite opinion counts the most.

Key Terms

pundit

A self-professed expert in a particular field, especially as called upon to provide comments or opinions in the media; a commentator, a critic.

opinion leader

The agent who is an active media user and who interprets the meaning of media messages or content for lower-end media users. Typically the opinion leader is held in high esteem by those who accept his or her opinions.

Opinion Leaders

Opinion leadership is a concept that arises out of the theory of two-step flow of communication propounded by Paul Lazarsfeld and Elihu Katz Significant developers of the theory have been Robert K. Merton, C. Wright Mills and Bernard Berelson. This theory is one of several models that try to explain the diffusion of innovations, ideas, or commercial products.

The opinion leader is the agent who is an active media user and who interprets the meaning of media messages or content for lower-end media users. Typically the opinion leader is held in high esteem by those who accept his or her opinions. Merton distinguishes two types of opinion leadership: monomorphic and polymorphic.

Typically, opinion leadership is viewed as a monomorphic, domain-specific measure of individual differences, that is, a person that is an opinion leader in one field may be a follower in another field . An example of a monomorphic opinion leader in the field of computer technology, might be a neighborhood computer service technician. The technician has access to far more information on this topic than the average consumer and has the requisite background to understand the information, though the same person might be a follower at another field (for example sports) and ask others for advice. In contrast, polymorphic opinion leaders are able to influence others in a broad range of domains. Variants of polymorphic opinion leadership include market mavenism, personality strength and generalized opinion leadership. So far, there is little consensus as to the degree these concept operationalize the same or simply related constructs .

What makes an opinion leader?

One or more of these factors make noteworthy opinion leaders:

• expression of values
• professional competence
• nature of social network.

Opinion leaders are individuals who obtain more media coverage than others and are especially educated on a certain issue. They seek the acceptance of others and are especially motivated to enhance their social status. In the jargon of public relations, they are called thought leaders.

Example

In a strategic attempt to engage the public in environmental issues and his nonprofit, The Climate Project, Al Gore utilized the concept of opinion leaders. Gore found opinion leaders by recruiting individuals who were educated on environmental issues and saw themselves as influential in their community and amongst their friends and family. From there, he trained the opinion leaders on the information he wanted them to spread and enabled them to influence their communities. By using opinion leaders, Gore was able to educate and influence many Americans to take notice of climate change and change their actions.

Fox News

News stations, such as Fox News, provide opportunities for viewers to hear from opinion leaders.

Opinion Leaders

Opinion leaders, such as Stephen Colbert, often shape public opinion. People are inclined to follow opinion leaders because of their knowledge and experience.

Celebrities as Opinion Leaders

George Clooney is an example of a celebrity opinion leader. His advocacy for issues in Africa and the Sudan has made him an opinion leader for many people.

6.2.8: Major Life and Political Events

Learning Objective

Explain how parents, social groups and major life events are sources for political socialization

Key Points

• The life cycle is a key component to political socialization: throughout time, people grow more attached and socialized to particular political values.
• Certain events during a person’s life, such as buying a home or having children, can impact the formation of political values.
• When a generation experiences a major political event together, such as the Great Depression, a political generation can emerge. This political generation will have political values distinct from other political generations.
• The primary political generations in American politics include the Depression Era/GI generation, the silent generation, the baby boom generation, generation X, and the millennial generation/generation Y.
• Conflict usually exists between the younger and older political generations, as the younger generations are more open to new and changing ideas.

Key Terms

life cycle

The developmental history of an individual or group in society; the course of stages through which a human passes from birth until death.

political generation

A group of individuals, similar in age, who share a general set of political socialization experiences.

Sources of Political Socialization

Parents appear to be a primary source of political socialization and partisanship. Much of the theoretical basis for this hypothesis emerged from the fields of child psychology and social learning, which studied the ways in which children are socialized and values inculcated in them. Studies of political partisanship have found that partisanship is strongest when both parents have the same political loyalties, these loyalties are strong, both parents have similarly strong party loyalties, and parental partisanship accords with socio-economic status (for example, the wealthy are Republicans or the poor are Labour supporters).

Social groups are another source of partisanship. Friends, relatives, and neighbors often have the same partisan loyalties and strengths as one’s parents. The more homogeneous the social group, the more likely the individual will be to develop strong partisan loyalties. When social group homogeneousness is low, the individual is likely to be less strongly socialized into partisan politics and more likely to seek a different party loyalty (whether by disengaging from partisanship or switching partisan loyalties).

Political socialization takes place throughout the course of a person’s life. However, certain major life and political events can interrupt the normal progression of political socialization, causing a person to change his or her opinion and accept other political values and ideologies.

Initially, studies indicated that the most important factor in forming political values was the life cycle. That is, a person’s attachment to a specific political ideology naturally grew stronger over time, as weak socialization became strong and strong socialization became stronger. Additionally, theorists suggested that older voters favored certain policy preferences (such as strong government pensions and old-age health insurance) which led them to favor one party over another.

Impact of Major Life Events

Later studies have shown that the initial strong effect of the life cycle variable was mitigated by generational effects. Party identification seemed strongly affected by certain formative generational events, such as the Civil War, the Great Depression or the social upheaval of the 1960s. Several studies concluded that generational effects (major life events) were distinct from life cycle effects, and that both were significant factors in creating (or not creating) partisanship.

Conceding that major “shocks” such as the Great Depression could realign or dealign partisanship, some scholars reasoned that a series of smaller shocks over time could also dramatically influence the direction and strength of partisanship. Many scholars became convinced that partisanship was not bedrock, but shifting sand. Important childhood events, such as becoming aware of a presidential campaign, as well as events in adulthood (such as recessions, war, or shifting racial policies) could also affect one’s level of partisanship.

September 11, 2001

Major historical or political events, such as September 11th, can impact the political socialization and the formation of political values for an entire generation.

6.2.9: Political Knowledge

Learning Objective

Discuss the relationship between political knowledge and public opinion

Key Points

• While agents of socialization like family, peers, church, and school are important in developing political values, how much people know, factually, about their political system and leaders is also important in the formation of political values.
• The formation of public opinion assumes that Americans are knowledgable enough to make a sound judgement; however, statistics indicate many Americans are ignorant on basic facets of American political life.
• Some argue that Americans are not well-informed about politics as a result of rational ignorance, where it is believed that the costs of gaining enough political knowledge to be informed outweighs the benefits.

Key Terms

political socialization

The “developmental processes by which children and adolescents acquire political cognition, attitudes, and behaviors.” It refers to a learning process by which political norms and behavior are transmitted from one generation to another.

rational ignorance

The belief that the cost of educating oneself on an issue exceeds the potential benefit that the knowledge would provide.

Forming Opinions through Knowledge

While it is known that agents of political socialization (such as family, peers, church, and school) and major life and political events impact political values and public opinion, some argue that political knowledge plays a large role as well.

In this view, public opinion is formed and shaped when people investigate and research politics, and are consequently able to form their own opinions. How much people know about their government and their leaders, where they receive their information, the quality and impartiality of the sources they used, all impact the formation of their political values and opinions .

Political Knowledge

Some people are that political values are formed as a result of political knowledge. Researching two political candidates, as illustrated in this flyer, help increase political knowledge.

Forming Opinions without Knowledge

The formation of public opinion assumes that Americans know enough about political issues to shape opinions based on political knowledge. However, certain statistics demonstrate that many Americans lack this basic knowledge about politics. Many people cannot identify important political figures or are misinformed about important political issues, such as how much foreign aid the United States donates or what is actually written in the Constitution.

This type of voter ignorance is due to the fact that, oftentimes, the cost of investigating political issues and forming opinions outweighs the benefits. This theory, called “rational ignorance,” effects the quality of decisions made by large numbers of people and can be seen in general elections, where the probability of any one vote changing the outcome is very small.

6.3: Measuring Public Opinion

6.3.1: Constructing Public Opinion Surveys

An opinion poll is a survey of public opinion from a particular sample, and is designed to represent the opinions of a population.

Learning Objective

Discuss how public opinions surveys are designed and executed

Key Points

• There are several ways of administering a survey, such as telephone, mail, online surveys, personal in-home surveys, personal mail or street intercept survey, and hybrids of the above.
• A survey typically consists of a number of questions the respondent answers in a set format. There are open-ended and closed-ended questions. An open-ended question asks the respondent to form their own answer, while closed-ended questions have the respondent choose an answer from a given option.
• The most important aspects of a survey include identifying and selecting potential sample members, contacting individuals and collecting data from those who are hard to reach, evaluating and testing questions, and selecting the mode for posing questions and collecting responses.

Key Terms

Self-Selection Bias

Although individuals chosen to participate in surveys are often randomly sampled, errors due to non-response may exist. Some prospective respondents may simply be less likely to respond to polls generally, they may not be interested in the subject, or they may be unreachable for a variety of reasons.

Opinion Poll

An opinion poll, sometimes simply referred to as a “poll,” is a survey of public opinion from a particular sample. Opinion polls are usually designed to represent the opinions of a population by conducting a series of questions and then extrapolating generalities in ratio or within confidence intervals.

An opinion poll, sometimes simply referred to as a “poll,” is a survey of public opinion from a particular sample . Opinion polls are usually designed to represent the opinions of a population by conducting a series of questions and then extrapolating generalities in ratio or within confidence intervals.

Voter Poll

Voter polling questionnaire on display at the Smithsonian Institution

Modes of Data Collection

There are several ways of administering a survey. The choice between administration modes is influenced by: 1) cost, 2) coverage of target population, 3) flexibility of asking questions, 4) respondents’ willingness to participate, and 5) response accuracy. Different methods create mode effects that change how respondents answer. The most common modes of administration are:

• Telephone
• Mail
• Online surveys
• Personal in-home surveys
• Personal mall or street intercept surveys
• Hybrids of the above.

Response Formats

Usually, a survey consists of a number of questions the respondent answers in a set format. A distinction is made between open-ended and closed-ended questions. An open-ended question asks the respondent to formulate his or her own answer, while closed-ended questions have the respondent choose an answer from a given number of options. The response options for a closed-ended question should be exhaustive and mutually exclusive. The four types of response scales for closed-ended questions are:

• Dichotomous: The respondent has two options.
• Nominal-polytomous: The respondent has more than two unordered options.
• Ordinal-polytomous: The respondent has more than two ordered options.
• (Bounded) Continuous: The respondent is presented with a continuous scale.

A respondent’s answer to an open-ended question can be coded into a response scale afterwards or analyzed using more qualitative methods.

Survey Methodology

The most important aspects of a survey include:

• Identifying and selecting potential sample members.
• Contacting individuals and collecting data from those who are hard to reach (or reluctant to respond).
• Evaluating and testing questions.
• Selecting the mode for posing questions and collecting responses.
• Training and supervising interviewers.
• Checking data files for accuracy and internal consistency.
• Adjusting survey estimates to correct for identified errors.

Advantages

• They are relatively easy to administer.
• Can be developed in less time compared with other data-collection methods.
• Can be cost-effective.
• Few “experts” are required to develop a survey, which may well increase the reliability of the survey data.
• If conducted remotely, can reduce or obviate geographical dependence.
• Useful in describing the characteristics of a large population assuming the sampling is valid.
• Can be administered remotely via the Web, mail, e-mail, telephone, etc.
• Efficient at collecting information from a large number of respondents.
• Statistical techniques can be applied to the survey data to determine validity, reliability, and statistical significance, even when analyzing multiple variables.
• Many questions can be asked about a given topic, giving considerable flexibility to the analysis.
• A wide range of information can be collected (e.g., attitudes, values, beliefs, and behavior).
• Because they are standardized, they are relatively free from several types of errors.

Disadvantages

The reliability of survey data may depend on the following:

• Respondents’ motivation, honesty, memory, and ability to respond:
• Structured surveys, particularly those with closed-ended questions, may have low validity when researching effective variables.
• Self-selection bias: Although the individuals chosen to participate in surveys are often randomly sampled, errors due to non-responses may exist. Some prospective respondents may simply be less likely to respond to polls generally, not interested in the subject, or may be unreachable for many reasons. For example, polls or surveys that are conducted by calling a random sample of publicly available telephone numbers will not include the responses of people with unlisted telephone numbers, cell phone numbers, who are unable to answer the phone, and who do not answer calls from unknown/unfamiliar telephone numbers.
• Question design: Survey question answer-choices could lead to vague data sets because, at times, they are relative only to a personal abstract notion concerning “strength of choice”. For instance, the choice “moderately agree” may mean different things to different subjects and anyone interpreting the data for correlation. Even “yes” or “no” answers are problematic because subjects may for instance put “no” if the choice “only once” is not available.

Non-response Reduction

The following ways have been recommended for reducing non-response in telephone and face-to-face surveys:

• Advance letter: A short letter sent in advance to inform the sampled respondents about the upcoming survey.
• Training: The interviewers are thoroughly trained in how to ask respondents questions, work with computers and make schedules for callbacks to respondents who were not reached.
• Short introduction: The interviewer gives the basic information on him/herself and the survey.
• Respondent-friendly survey questionnaire: Questions must be clear, non-offensive, and easy to respond to.

6.3.2: Early Public Opinion Research and Polling

The first known example of an opinion poll was an 1824 local straw poll by The Harrisburg Pennsylvanian for the Jackson Adams race.

Learning Objective

Identify the historical origins of public opinion research in the United States

Key Points

• As The Harrisburg Pennsylvanian correctly predicted a Jackson win, such straw votes gradually became more popular, but they remained local, usually city-wide phenomena, until the early 1900s.
• The method The Literary Digest used to correctly predict the victories of Warren Harding in 1920, Calvin Coolidge in 1924, Herbert Hoover in 1929, and Franklin Roosevelt in 1932 was mailing out millions of postcards and simply counting the returns.
• Gallup was able to correctly predict the Roosevelt-Landon race by using a sample that was small, however, representative of the general population, while the Digest’s mistake was using a large but skewed sample.

Key Terms

Literary Digest

The Literary Digest was an influential general interest weekly magazine published by Funk & Wagnalls. When the Digest conducted their 1936 election using an inaccurate sample causing them to predict the wrong winner, they lost all credibility and the Digest itself soon went out of business.

The Harrisburg Pennsylvanian

The Harrisburg Pennsylvanian was the publication that conducted the first example of an opinion poll during the Jackson-Adams presidential race.

George Gallup

George Gallup conducted a small but scientific survey that correctly predicted a landslide victory for Roosevelt in the Roosevelt-Landon race, thus establishing the Gallup Poll.

The first known example of an opinion poll was a local straw poll conducted by The Harrisburg Pennsylvanian in 1824, showing Andrew Jackson leading John Quincy Adams by 335 votes to 169 in the contest for the United States Presidency. Since Jackson won the popular vote in the full election, such straw votes gradually became more popular, but they remained local, usually city-wide, phenomena.

In 1916, the Literary Digest embarked on a national survey, partly as a circulation-raising exercise, and correctly predicted Woodrow Wilson’s election as president . Mailing out millions of postcards and simply counting the returns, the Digest correctly predicted the victories of Warren Harding in 1920, Calvin Coolidge in 1924, Herbert Hoover in 1929, and Franklin Roosevelt in 1932.

The Literary Digest

The Literary Digest conducted the first national poll.

In 1936, its 2.3 million “voters” constituted a huge sample; however, they were generally more affluent Americans who tended to have Republican sympathies. The Literary Digest was ignorant of this new bias. The week before Election Day, it reported that Alf Landon was far more popular than Roosevelt . At the same time, George Gallup conducted a far smaller, but more scientifically based survey, in which he polled a demographically representative sample. Gallup correctly predicted Roosevelt’s landslide victory. The Literary Digest soon went out of business, while polling started to take off.

George Gallup

George H. Gallup was the founder of the Gallup Poll.

Elmo Roper was another American pioneer in political forecasting using scientific polls. He predicted the reelection of President Franklin D. Roosevelt three times, in 1936, 1940, and 1944. Louis Harris had been in the field of public opinion since 1947 when he joined the Elmo Roper firm, then later became partner.

Gallup launched a subsidiary in the United Kingdom, where it almost alone correctly predicted Labour’s victory in the 1945 general election. This contrasted with virtually all other commentators, who expected a victory for the Conservative Party led by Winston Churchill.

By the 1950s, various types of polling had spread to most democracies.

6.3.3: The Gallup Organization

Gallup Inc. was founded in 1958, when George Gallup grouped all of his polling operations into one organization.

Learning Objective

Locate the historical origins and significance of the Gallup Organization for public opinion research in the United States

Key Points

• To ensure his independence and objectivity, Dr. Gallup resolved that he would undertake no polling that was paid for or sponsored in any way by special interest groups such as the Republican and Democratic parties, a commitment that Gallup upholds to this day.
• Gallup Polls are often referenced in the mass media as a reliable and objective measurement of public opinion. Historically, the Gallup Poll has measured the public’s attitudes concerning virtually every political, social, and economic issue of the day.
• Gallup Polls are best known for their accuracy in predicting the outcome of United States presidential elections.

Key Terms

The Gallup Organization

Gallup Inc. was founded in 1958, when George Gallup grouped all of his polling operations into one organization. Today, Gallup, Inc. is primarily a research-based, performance-management consulting company.

Gallup Poll

The Gallup Poll is the division of Gallup that regularly conducts public opinion polls in more than 140 countries around the world. Gallup Polls are often referenced in the mass media as a reliable and objective measurement of public opinion.

The Gallup Organization

Founded by George Gallup , Gallup, Inc. is primarily a research-based, performance-management consulting company. Some of Gallup’s key practice areas are – employee engagement, customer engagement, and well-being. Gallup has more than 40 offices in 27 countries. World headquarters are in Washington, D.C. Operational headquarters are in Omaha, Nebraska.

Gallup currently has four divisions: Gallup Poll, Gallup Consulting, Gallup University, and Gallup Press.

History

Gallup Inc. was founded in 1958, when George Gallup grouped all of his polling operations into one organization. After Gallup’s death in 1984, The Gallup Organization was sold to Selection Research, Incorporated (SRI) of Lincoln, Nebraska in 1988. George Gallup founded the American Institute of Public Opinion, the precursor of The Gallup Organization, in Princeton, New Jersey, in 1935. He wished to objectively determine the opinions held by the general public. To ensure his independence and objectivity, Dr. Gallup resolved that he would undertake no polling that was paid for or sponsored in any way by special interest groups such as the Republican and Democratic parties, a commitment that Gallup upholds to this day.

George Gallup

George H. Gallup was the founder of the Gallup Poll.

In 1936 Gallup successfully predicted that Franklin Roosevelt would defeat Alfred Landon for the U.S. presidency; this event quickly popularized the company. In 1938 Dr. Gallup and Gallup Vice President David Ogilvy began conducting market research for advertising companies and the film industry. In 1958 the modern Gallup Organization was formed from a merger of several polling organizations. Since then, Gallup has seen huge expansion into several other areas.

Gallup died on November 21, 2011.

Gallup Poll

The Gallup Poll is the division of Gallup that regularly conducts public opinion polls in more than 140 countries around the world. Gallup Polls are often referenced in the mass media as a reliable and objective measurement of public opinion. Gallup Poll results, analyses, and videos are published daily on Gallup.com in the form of data-driven news.

Historically, the Gallup Poll has measured and tracked the public’s attitudes concerning virtually every political, social, and economic issue of the day, including highly sensitive or controversial subjects. In 2005, Gallup began its World Poll, which continually surveys citizens in more than 140 countries, representing 95% of the world’s adult population. General and regional-specific questions, developed in collaboration with the world’s leading behavioral economists, are organized into powerful indexes and topic areas that correlate with real-world outcomes.

Gallup Polls are best known for their accuracy in predicting the outcome of United States presidential elections. Notable exceptions include the 1948 Thomas Dewey-Harry S. Truman election, where nearly all pollsters predicted a Dewey victory. The Gallup Poll also inaccurately projected a slim victory by Gerald Ford in 1976, where he lost to Jimmy Carter by a small margin. For the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Gallup was rated 17^th out of 23 polling organizations in terms of the precision of its pre-election polls relative to the final results.

In 2008, Gallup interviewed no fewer than 1,000 U.S. adults each day, providing the most watched daily tracking poll of the race between John McCain and Barack Obama.Gallup also conducts 1,000 interviews per day, 350 days out of the year, among both landline and cell phones across the U.S. for its health and well-being survey.

6.3.4: The National Election Studies

The American National Election Studies (ANES) is the leading academically run national survey of voters in the United States.

Learning Objective

Identify the purpose of national election studies

Key Points

• The consistency of the studies, as in asking the same questions repeatedly over time, makes it very useful for academic research. As a result, it is frequently cited in works of political science.
• Though the ANES was formally established by a National Science Foundation grant in 1977, the data are a continuation of studies going back to 1948.
• The American Voter‘ concluded that most voters cast their ballots primarily on the basis of partisan identification and that independent voters are actually the least involved in and attentive to politics.

Key Terms

The American Voter

The American Voter (1960) a seminal study of voting behavior in the United States, authored by Angus Campbell, Philip Converse, Warren Miller, and Donald Stokes, colleagues at the University of Michigan.

National Election Studies

The American National Election Studies is the leading academically-run national survey of voters in the United States, conducted before and after every presidential election.

The American National Election Studies (ANES) is the leading academically-run national survey of voters in the United States, conducted before and after every presidential election. Though the ANES was formally established by a National Science Foundation grant in 1977, the data are a continuation of studies going back to 1948. The study has been based at the University of Michigan since its origin and, since 2005, has been run in partnership with Stanford University. Its principal investigators for the first four years of the partnership were Arthur Lupia and Jon Krosnick. Its current principal investigators are Vincent Hutchings, Gary Segura, and Simon Jackman.

The consistency of the studies, which includes asking the same questions repeatedly over time, makes it very useful for academic research. As a result it is frequently cited in works of political science. Early ANES data were the basis for The American Voter a seminal study of voting behavior in the United States, by Angus Campbell, Philip Converse, Warren Miller, and Donald Stokes, colleagues at the University of Michigan. Based on one of the first comprehensive studies of election survey data (what eventually became the National Election Studies), came the conclusion that most voters cast their ballots primarily on the basis of partisan identification (which is often simply inherited from their parents), and that independent voters are actually the least involved in and attentive to politics.

The American Voter

An image of the publication that was influenced by early ANES data.

Today ANES data are used by numerous scholars, students, and journalists. It is widely considered the “gold standard” of election studies.

The ANES also has a long history of innovation. In 2006, it opened the ANES Online Commons, becoming the first large-scale academic survey to allow interested scholars and survey professionals to propose questions for future ANES surveys.

6.3.5: Types of Polls

The main types of polls are: opinion, benchmark, bushfire, entrance, exit, deliberative opinion, tracking, and the straw poll.

Learning Objective

Compare and contrast the different types of polls utilized to measure public opinion

Key Points

• Benchmark polls, brushfire polls and tracking polls are used by political campaigns to gauge interest in a candidate’s office bid, the success of his/her messaging, and his/her weekly standing. Tracking polls may also be used by news organizations to inform their own reports of the campaign.
• A push poll is an interactive marketing technique, most commonly employed during political campaigning, in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a legitimate poll.
• A straw poll, or straw vote, is a poll with nonbinding results. In meetings subject to rules of order, impromptu straw polls often are taken to see if there is enough support for an idea to devote more meeting time to it, and for the attendees to see who is on which side of a question.

Key Terms

Entrance Poll

An entrance poll is taken directly before voters cast their votes; the voter is unlikely change his/her mind after the poll, typically making the margin of error lower than that of an opinion poll.

Tracking Poll

A tracking poll is a poll repeated at intervals generally averaged over a trailing window.

Exit Poll

An exit poll is taken immediately after the voters have exited the polling stations. Pollsters conduct exit polls to gain an early indication as to how an election has turned out.

Types of Polls

There are nine main types of polls :

Poling Station

A polling place in New Jersey during the United States presidential election, 2008

• An opinion poll is a survey of public opinion from a particular sample. Opinion polls are usually designed to represent the opinions of a population by asking a series of questions and then extrapolating generalities from responses in ratio or within confidence intervals.
• A benchmark poll is generally the first poll taken in a campaign. It is often taken before a candidate announces his or her bid for office, but sometimes it occurs immediately following the announcement, allowing some opportunity to raise funds. This poll is generally a short and simple survey of likely voters.
• Brushfire polls are polls taken during the period between the benchmark and tracking polls. The number of brushfire polls taken by a campaign is determined by how competitive the race is and how much money the campaign has to spend. These polls usually focus on likely voters and the length of the survey varies on the number of messages being tested.
• A tracking poll is a poll repeated at intervals generally averaged over a trailing window. A weekly tracking poll uses the data from the past week and discards older data.
• An entrance poll is a poll that is taken before voters cast their votes. It is akin to an opinion poll in the sense that it asks who the voter plans to vote for and other similar questions. The possibility that the prospective voter might change his or her mind after the poll is very small compared to that of an opinion poll; therefore, the margin of error of an entrance poll is expected to be lower than that of an opinion poll.
• An exit poll is taken immediately after the voters have exited the polling stations. Pollsters —usually private companies working for newspapers or broadcasters—conduct exit polls to gain an early indication as to how an election has turned out, since in many elections the actual result may take hours or even days to count. Exit polls have historically and throughout the world been used as a check against and rough indicator of the degree of election fraud. Like all opinion polls, exit polls by nature do include a margin of error. A famous example of exit poll error occurred in the 1992 UK General Election, when two exit polls predicted a hung parliament. Widespread criticism of exit polling has occurred in cases, especially in the United States, where exit-poll results have appeared and/or have provided a basis for projecting winners before all real polls have closed, thereby possibly influencing election results
• The deliberative opinion poll is a form of opinion poll that incorporates the principles of deliberative democracy. In the deliberative opinion poll, a statistically representative sample of a community is gathered to discuss an issue in conditions that further deliberation. The group is then polled, and the results of the poll and the actual deliberation can be used both as a recommending force and, in certain circumstances, to replace a vote. Rather than simply determining existing public opinion, a deliberative poll aims to understand what public opinion would be if the public were well-informed and had carefully discussed a particular issue. Citizens are invited by modern random sampling techniques to participate; a large enough sampling group will provide a relatively accurate representation of public opinion.
• A push poll is an interactive marketing technique, most commonly employed during political campaigning, in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll. In a push poll, large numbers of respondents are contacted and little or no effort is made to collect and analyze response data. Instead, the push poll is a form of telemarketing-based propaganda masquerading as a poll and is generally viewed as a form of negative campaigning. This tactic is commonly considered to undermine the democratic process since false or misleading information is often provided about candidates. Push polling has been condemned by the American Association of Political Consultants and the American Association for Public Opinion Research. The term is also used in a broader sense to refer to legitimate polls that aim to test political messages, some of which may be negative. In all such polls, the pollster asks leading or suggestive questions that “push” the interviewee towards adopting an unfavorable response towards the political candidate.
• A straw poll or straw vote is a poll with nonbinding results. Straw polls provide dialogue among movements within large groups. In meetings subject to rules of order, impromptu straw polls often are taken to see if there is enough support for an idea to devote more meeting time to it, and (when not a secret ballot) for the attendees to see who is on which side of a question.

6.3.6: Conducting Polls

Steps to conduct a poll effectively including identifying a sample, evaluating poll questions, and selecting a question and response mode.

Learning Objective

Describe the various methods taken by pollsters to conduct surveys

Key Points

• A questionnaire is a series of questions asked to individuals to obtain statistically useful information about a given topic. When properly constructed and responsibly administered, questionnaires become a vital instrument for polling a population.
• Inappropriate questions, incorrect ordering of questions, incorrect scaling, or bad questionnaire format can make the survey valueless, as it may not accurately reflect the views and opinions of the participants.
• According to the three stage theory, or the sandwich theory, initial questions should be screening and rapport questions. The second stage should concern the product specific questions. In the last stage demographic questions are asked.

Key Terms

Stratified Sampling

Stratified sampling is a method of probability sampling such that sub-populations within an overall population are identified and included in the sample selected in a balanced way.

Open-Ended Question

An open-ended question asks the respondent to formulate his/her own answer.

Closed-Ended Question

A closed-ended question asks the respondent to pick an answer from a given number of options.

Conducting Polls

Generally, in order to conduct a poll, the survey methodologist must do the following :

Questionnaire

This is an example of a questionnaire.

• Identify and select potential sample members
• Contact sampled individuals and collect data from those who are difficult to reach
• Evaluate and test questions
• Select the mode for posing questions and collecting responses
• Train and supervise interviewers
• Check data files for accuracy and internal consistency
• Adjust survey estimates to correct for identified errors

Survey samples can be broadly divided into two types: probability samples and non-probability samples. Stratified sampling is a method of probability sampling such that sub-populations within an overall population are identified and included in the sample.

Usually, a poll consists of a number of questions that the respondent answers in a set format. A distinction is made between open-ended and closed-ended questions. An open-ended question asks the respondent to formulate his or her own answer; a closed-ended question asks the respondent to pick an answer from a given number of options. The response options for a closed-ended question should be exhaustive and mutually exclusive. Four types of response scales for closed-ended questions are as follows:

• Dichotomous: the respondent has two options
• Nominal-polytomous: the respondent has more than two unordered options
• Ordinal-polytomous: the respondent has more than two ordered options
• (bounded) Continuous: the respondent is presented with a continuous scale

A respondent’s answer to an open-ended question can be coded into a response scale or analyzed using more qualitative methods.

A questionnaire is a series of questions asked to individuals to obtain statistically useful information about a given topic. When properly constructed and responsibly administered, questionnaires become a vital instrument for polling a population.

Adequate questionnaire construction is critical to the success of a poll. Inappropriate questions, incorrect ordering of questions, incorrect scaling, or bad questionnaire format can make the survey valueless, as it may not accurately reflect the views and opinions of the participants. Pretesting among a smaller subset of target respondents is useful method of checking a questionnaire and making sure it accurately captures the intended information.

Questionnaire construction issues

The topics should fit the respondents’ frame of reference. Their background may affect their interpretation of the questions. Respondents should have enough information or expertise to answer the questions truthfully.

The type of scale, index, or typology to be used is determined. The level of measurement used determines what can be concluded from the data. If the response option is yes/no then you will only know how many, or what percent, of your sample answered yes/no. You cannot, however, conclude what the average respondent answered.

The types of questions (closed, multiple-choice, open) should fit the statistical data analysis techniques available and the goals of the poll. Questions and prepared responses should be unbiased and neutral as to intended outcome. The order or “natural” grouping of questions is often relevant. Prior previous questions may bias later questions. Also, the wording should be kept simple: no technical or specialized vocabulary. The meaning should be clear. Ambiguous words, equivocal sentence structures and negatives may cause misunderstanding, possibly invalidating questionnaire results. Care should be taken to ask one question at a time. The list of possible responses should be collectively exhaustive. Respondents should not find themselves without category that fits them. Additionally, possible responses should be mutually exclusive; categories should not overlap. Writing style should be conversational, concise, accurate and appropriate to the target audience. “Loaded” questions evoke emotional responses and may skew results.

Many respondents will not answer personal or intimate questions. For this reason, questions about age, income, marital status, etc., are generally placed at the end of the survey. Thus, if the respondent refuses to answer these questions, the research questions will have already been answered.

Presentation of the questions on the page (or computer screen) and the use of graphics may affect a respondent’s interest or distract from the questions.

Finally, questionnaires can be administered by research staff, by volunteers or self-administered by the respondents. Clear, detailed instructions are needed in either case, matching the needs of each audience.

Question sequence

Some further considerations about questionnaires are the following.

Questions should flow logically from one to the next, from the more general to the more specific, from the least sensitive to the most sensitive, from factual and behavioral questions to attitudinal and opinion questions, from unaided to aided questions.

Finally, according to the three stage theory, or the sandwich theory, initial questions should be screening and rapport questions. The second stage should concern the product specific questions. In the last stage demographic questions are asked.

6.3.7: Analyzing Data

A very important tool in data analysis is the margin of error because it indicates how closely the results of the survey reflect reality.

Learning Objective

Discuss how data is broken down and subject to analysis after conducting surveys

Key Points

• The margin of error is usually defined as the “radius” of a confidence interval for a particular statistic from a survey.
• The confidence level, the sample design for a survey, and in particular its sample size, determine the magnitude of the margin of error. A larger sample size produces a smaller margin of error, all else remaining equal.
• The margin of error for a particular sampling method is essentially the same regardless of whether the population of interest is the size of a school, city, state, or country, as long as the sampling fraction is less than 5%.

Key Terms

margin of error

expression of the lack of precision in the results obtained from a sample

Finite Population Correction

The “finite population correction” (FPC) is used to adjust the margin of error to account for the added precision gained by sampling a larger percentage of the population.

margin of error

The margin of error is a statistic that expresses the amount of random sampling error in a survey’s results.

The margin of error is a statistic used to analyze data. It expresses the amount of random sampling error in a survey’s results. The larger the margin of error, the less faith one should have that the poll’s reported results are close to the “true” figures—the figures for the whole population .

Margin of Error

This normal distribution curve illustrates the points of various margin of errors.

Explanation

The margin of error is usually defined as the “radius” of a confidence interval for a particular statistic from a survey. When a single, global margin of error is reported for a survey, it refers to the maximum margin of error for all reported percentages using the full sample from the survey. If the statistic is a percentage, this maximum margin of error can be calculated as the radius of the confidence interval for a reported percentage of 50%.

The margin of error can be described as an “absolute” quantity. For example, if the true value is 50 percentage points, and the statistic has a confidence interval radius of 5 percentage points, then we say the margin of error is 5 percentage points.

However, the margin of error can also be expressed as a “relative” quantity. For example, suppose the true value is 50 people and the statistic has a confidence interval radius of 5 people. If we use the “relative” definition, then we express this absolute margin of error as a percent of the true value. Therefore, the absolute margin of error is 5 people, but the “percent relative” margin of error is 10% (because 5 people are ten percent of 50 people).

The margin of error can be defined for any desired confidence level, but usually a level of 90%, 95%, or 99% is chosen. This level is the probability that a margin of error around the reported percentage would include the “true” percentage. The confidence level, the sample design for a survey, and in particular its sample size, determines the magnitude of the margin of error. A larger sample size produces a smaller margin of error, all else remaining equal.

If the exact confidence intervals are used the margin of error takes into account both sampling error and non-sampling error. If an approximate confidence interval is used then the margin of error may only take random sampling error into account. It does not represent other potential sources of error or bias such as a non-representative sample-design, poorly phrased questions, people lying or refusing to respond, the exclusion of people who could not be contacted, or miscounts and miscalculations.

Basic Concept

Polls typically involve taking a sample from a certain population. In the case of the Newsweek 2004 Presidential Election poll, the population of interest was the population of people who would vote. Sampling theory provides methods for calculating the probability that the poll results differ from reality by more than a certain amount simply due to chance. For example, if the poll reports 47% for Kerry, his support could actually be as high as 50% or as low as 44%. The more people that are sampled, the more confident pollsters can be that the “true” percentage is close to the observed percentage. The margin of error is a measure of how close the results are likely to be.

Effect of Population Size

The margin of error for a particular sampling method is essentially the same regardless of whether the population of interest is the size of a school, city, state, or country, as long as the sampling fraction is less than 5%.

In cases where the sampling fraction exceeds 5%, analysts can adjust the margin of error using a “finite population correction” (FPC) to account for the added precision gained by sampling a larger percentage of the population.

The FPC, factored into the calculation of the margin of error, has the effect of narrowing the margin of error. It holds that the FPC approaches zero as the sample size approaches the population size, which has the effect of eliminating the margin of error entirely.

Comparing Percentages

The terms “statistical tie” and “statistical dead heat” are sometimes used to describe reported percentages that differ by less than a margin of error, but these terms can be misleading. For one thing, the margin of error as generally calculated is applicable to an individual percentage and not the difference between percentages. The difference between two percentage estimates may not be statistically significant even when they differ by more than the reported margin of error. The survey results also usually provide strong information even when there is not a statistically significant difference.

6.3.8: Sampling Techniques

Sampling is concerned with choosing a subset of individuals from a statistical population to estimate characteristics of a whole population.

Learning Objective

Compare and contrast the different sampling techniques used for opinion polls

Key Points

• Probability-proportional-to-size (PPS) is sampling in which the selection probability for each element is set to be proportional to its size measure, up to 1. This approach can improve accuracy by concentrating a sample on large elements that have the greatest impact on population estimates.
• Maintaining the randomness in a sample is very important to each sampling technique to ensure that the findings are representative of the population in general.
• Panel sampling is the method of selecting a group of participants through a random sampling method and then asking that group for the same information again several times over a period of time. This longitudinal sampling-method allows for estimates of changes in the population.

Key Terms

Systematic Sampling

Systematic sampling relies on arranging the target population according to some ordering scheme, a random start, and then selecting elements at regular intervals through that ordered list.

Simple Random Sampling

A simple random sampling (SRS) is a sample of a given size in which all such subsets of the frame are given an equal probability to be chosen.

Stratified Sampling

Stratified sampling is a method of probability sampling such that sub-populations within an overall population are identified and included in the sample selected in a balanced way.

Sampling Techniques

In statistics and survey methodology, sampling is concerned with the selection of a subset of individuals from within a statistical population to estimate characteristics of the whole population . The three main advantages of sampling are that the cost is lower, data collection is faster, and the accuracy and quality of the data can be easily improved.

Normal Distribution Curve

The normal distribution curve can help indicate if the results of a survey are significant and what the margin of error may be.

Simple Random Sampling

In a simple random sample (SRS) of a given size, all such subsets of the frame are given an equal probability. Each element has an equal probability of selection. Furthermore, any given pair of elements has the same chance of selection as any other pair. This minimizes bias and simplifies analysis of results. In particular, the variance between individual results within the sample is a good indicator of variance in the overall population, which makes it relatively easy to estimate the accuracy of results.

However, SRS can be vulnerable to sampling error because the randomness of the selection may result in a sample that doesn’t reflect the makeup of the population.

Systematic Sampling

Systematic sampling relies on arranging the target population according to some ordering scheme, a random start, and then selecting elements at regular intervals through that ordered list. As long as the starting point is randomized, systematic sampling is a type of probability sampling. It is easy to implement and the stratification can make it efficient, if the variable by which the list is ordered is correlated with the variable of interest.

However, if periodicity is present and the period is a multiple or factor of the interval used, the sample is especially likely to be unrepresentative of the overall population, decreasing its accuracy. Another drawback of systematic sampling is that even in scenarios where it is more accurate than SRS, its theoretical properties make it difficult to quantify that accuracy. As described above, systematic sampling is an EPS method, because all elements have the same probability of selection.

Stratified Sampling

Where the population embraces many distinct categories, the frame can be organized by these categories into separate “strata. ” Each stratum is then sampled as an independent sub-population, out of which individual elements can be randomly selected. In this way, researchers can draw inferences about specific subgroups that may be lost in a more generalized random sample. Additionally, since each stratum is treated as an independent population, different sampling approaches can be applied to different strata, potentially enabling researchers to use the approach best suited for each identified subgroup. Stratified sampling can increase the cost and complicate the research design.

Probability-Proportional-to-Size Sampling

Probability-proportional-to-size (PPS) is sampling in which the selection probability for each element is set to be proportional to its size measure, up to a maximum of 1.The PPS approach can improve accuracy for a given sample size by concentrating the sample on large elements that have the greatest impact on population estimates. PPS sampling is commonly used for surveys of businesses, where element size varies greatly and auxiliary information is often available.

Cluster Sampling

Sometimes it is more cost-effective to select respondents in groups (“clusters”). Sampling is often clustered by geography or by time periods. Clustering can reduce travel and administrative costs. It also means that one does not need a sampling frame listing all elements in the target population. Instead, clusters can be chosen from a cluster-level frame, with an element-level frame created only for the selected clusters.

Cluster sampling generally increases the variability of sample estimates above that of simple random sampling, depending on how the clusters differ between themselves, as compared with the within-cluster variation.

Quota Sampling

In quota sampling, the population is first segmented into mutually exclusive subgroups, just as in stratified sampling. Then judgment is used to select the subjects or units from each segment based on a specified proportion. For example, an interviewer may be told to sample 200 females and 300 males between the age of 45 and 60. In quota sampling the selection of the sample is non-random. The problem is that these samples may be biased because not everyone gets a chance of selection.

Accidental Sampling

Accidental sampling (or grab, convenience, or opportunity sampling) is a type of non-probability sampling which involves the sample being drawn from that part of the population which is close to hand. The researcher cannot scientifically make generalizations about the total population from this sample because it would not be representative enough.

Panel Sampling

Panel sampling is the method of first selecting a group of participants through a random sampling method and then asking that group for the same information again several times over a period of time. This longitudinal sampling-method allows estimates of changes in the population.

6.3.9: The Importance of Accuracy

Polling organization will lose credibility if they publish inaccurate results.

Learning Objective

Discuss the importance of maintaining accuracy when conducting measuring public opinion

Key Points

• Relevance of the survey information, quality of the data, and overcoming personal bias are integral to polling accuracy.
• The quality of the accurate and timely results must be assessed prior to release. If errors in the results occur they should be directly corrected and the public should be informed as soon as possible.
• When social scientists speak of good research the focus is on how the research is done rather than on whether the results of the research are consistent with personal biases or preconceptions.

Key Term

Literary Digest

The Literary Digest was an influential general interest weekly magazine published by Funk & Wagnalls. When the Digest conducted their 1936 election using an inaccurate sample causing them to predict the wrong winner, they lost all credibility and the Digest itself soon went out of business.

The importance of accuracy may be illustrated through the example of the Literary Digest Roosevelt-Landon presidential election poll. After correctly predicting the victories of Warren Harding in 1920, Calvin Coolidge in 1924, Herbert Hoover in 1929, and Franklin Roosevelt in 1932, the Literary Digest had established itself as a well-known and well-respected publication. One reason for their previous successes was the use of a very large sample population.

The Literary Digest

The Literary Digest conducted the first national poll.

In 1936, the Digest conducted their presidential poll with 2.3 million voters, a huge sample size. However, the sample turned out to be an inaccurate representation of the general population as those polled were generally more affluent Americans who tended to have Republican sympathies. The Literary Digest was ignorant of this new bias. The week before Election Day, it reported that Alf Landon was far more popular than Roosevelt. At the same time, George Gallup conducted a far smaller, but more scientifically based survey, in which he polled a more demographically representative sample. Gallup correctly predicted Roosevelt’s landslide victory. The Literary Digest lost its reputation for accuracy and the trust of the readers and soon went out of business.

Maintaining Polling Accuracy

Relevance of the survey information, quality of the data, and overcoming personal bias are integral to polling accuracy.

When releasing information, data and official statistics should be relevant to the needs of users as well as both public and private sector decision makers. The quality of results must be assessed prior to release. If errors in the results occur before or after the data revision, they should be corrected and users should be informed as quickly as possible. Finally, when social scientists speak of “good research,” the focus is on how the research is done–whether the research is methodologically sound–rather than on whether the results of the research are consistent with personal biases or preconceptions.

Glenn Firebaugh summarizes the principles for good research in his book Seven Rules for Social Research. He states that “there should be the possibility of surprise in social research. ” In other words, it is imperative that the researchers look past their preconceived notions or desires to conduct a study that reflects whatever the reality may be. Additionally, good research will “look for differences that make a difference” and “build in reality checks. ” Researchers are also advised to replicate their polls, that is, “to see if identical analyses yield similar results for different samples of people. ” The next two rules urge researchers to “compare like with like” and to “study change;” these two rules are especially important when researchers want to estimate the effect of one variable on another. The final rule, “let method be the servant, not the master,” reminds researchers that methods are the means, not the end, of social research; it is critical from the outset to fit the research design to the research issue, rather than the other way around.

6.3.10: The Problems with Polls

Problems with polls typically stem either from issues with the methodology that bias the sample or the responses that cause the bias.

Learning Objective

Identify some of the common problems with conducting opinion polls

Key Points

• It is well established that the wording of the questions, the order in which they are asked, and the number and form of alternative answers offered can influence results of polls.
• Coverage bias is another source of error involving the use of samples that are not representative of the population due to the polling methodology.
• Self-selection bias arises in any situation in which individuals select themselves into a group, causing a biased sample with non-probability sampling.

Key Term

Literary Digest

The Literary Digest was an influential general interest weekly magazine published by Funk & Wagnalls. When the Digest conducted their 1936 election using an inaccurate sample causing them to predict the wrong winner, they lost all credibility and the Digest itself soon went out of business.

Potential for Inaccuracy

In practice, pollsters need to balance the cost of a large sample with the reduction in sampling error. A sample size of around 500 – 1,000 is a typical compromise for political polls . Another way to reduce the margin of error is to rely on poll averages. This method is based on the assumption that the procedure and sample size is similar enough between many different polls to justify creating a polling average.

Venn Diagram: A Subset B

This Venn diagram illustrates the sample population within the larger, general population.

Another source of error stems from faulty demographic models by pollsters who weigh their samples by particular variables such as party identification in an election. For example, one could assume that the breakdown of the US population by party identification has not changed since the previous presidential election. As a result, one would underestimate a victory or a defeat of a particular party candidate that saw a surge or decline in its party registration relative to the previous presidential election cycle.

Theories on Erroneous Polling Results

A number of theories and mechanisms have been offered to explain erroneous polling results. Some of these reflect errors on the part of the pollsters; many of them are statistical in nature. Others blame the respondents for not giving candid answers (the controversial Bradley effect & Shy Tory Factor).

Non-response Bias

Since some people do not answer calls from strangers or refuse to answer the poll, poll samples may not be representative samples from a population due to a non-response bias. Because of this selection bias, the characteristics of those who agree to be interviewed may be markedly different from those who decline. That is, the actual sample is a biased version of the universe the pollster wants to analyze. In these cases, bias introduces new errors, in addition to errors caused by sample size. Error due to bias does not become smaller with larger sample sizes–taking a larger sample size simply repeats the same mistake on a larger scale.

Response Bias

Surveys may be affected by response bias, where the answers given by respondents do not reflect their true beliefs. This may be deliberately engineered by unscrupulous pollsters in order to generate a certain result or please their clients, but more often is a result of the detailed wording or ordering of questions. Respondents may deliberately try to manipulate the outcome of a poll by advocating a more extreme position than they actually hold in order to boost their side of the argument or give rapid and ill-considered answers in order to hasten the end of their questioning. Respondents may also feel under social pressure not to give an unpopular answer. In American political parlance, this phenomenon is often referred to as the Bradley effect. If the results of surveys are widely publicized this effect may be magnified in a phenomenon commonly referred to as the spiral of silence.

Wording of Questions

It is well established that the wording of the questions, the order in which they are asked, and the number and form of alternative answers offered can influence results of polls. For instance, the public is more likely to indicate support for a person who is described by the operator as one of the “leading candidates. “

A common technique to control for this bias is to rotate the order in which questions are asked. Many pollsters also split-sample in that one of two different versions of a question are presented to half the respondents.

Coverage Bias

Another source of error is the use of samples that are not representative of the population as a consequence of the polling methodology. For example, telephone sampling has a built-in error because in many times and places, those with telephones have generally been richer than those without.

Selection Bias

Selection bias occurs when some units have a differing probability of selection that is unaccounted for by the researcher. For example, some households have multiple phone numbers making them more likely to be selected in a telephone survey than households with only one phone number.

In statistics, self-selection bias arises in any situation in which individuals select themselves into a group, causing a biased sample with non-probability sampling. It is commonly used to describe situations where the characteristics of the people which cause them to select themselves in the group create abnormal or undesirable conditions in the group.

There may be a purposeful intent on the part of respondents leading to self-selection bias whereas other types of selection bias may arise more inadvertently, possibly as the result of mistakes by those designing any given study.

6.3.11: Telephone and Internet Polling

Internet and telephone polls are very useful as they are much cheaper than most other polls and are able to reach a wide population.

Learning Objective

Identify the advantages and disadvantages of telephone and internet polling

Key Points

• Probability samples of internet polls are highly affected by problems of non-coverage. Not all members of the general population have Internet. In addition, online survey invitations are distributed using e-mail, but there are no e-mail directories of the general population.
• Online survey may be affected by non-response as response rates are generally low and vary extremely. Some may refuse participation, terminate surveys during the process, or not answer certain questions.
• Telephone interviewers encourage sample persons to respond, leading to higher response rates and interviewers may increase comprehension of questions by answering respondents’ questions.
• There are some disadvantages to telephone polling such as interviewer bias, the fact it cannot be used for non-audio information, and it is unreliable for consumer surveys in rural areas where telephone density is low.

Key Terms

Telephone Polling

Telephone polling is also fairly cost efficient, depending on local call charge structure, which makes it good for large national (or international) sampling frames.

Internet Polls

Internet polls are becoming an essential research tool for a variety of research fields, including marketing and official statistics research. Web polls are faster, simpler, and cheaper than many other polling methods.

Internet polls

Online polls are becoming an essential research tool for a variety of research fields, including marketing and official statistics research.

Advantages of Internet Surveys

Web polls are faster, simpler, and cheaper than many other polling methods. However, lower costs are not so straightforward in practice, as they are strongly interconnected to errors. Because response rate comparisons to other survey modes are usually not favorable for online surveys, efforts to achieve a higher response rate may substantially increase costs. Additionally, the entire data collection period is significantly shortened, as all data can be collected and processed in typically little more than a month.

Interaction between the respondent and the questionnaire is also more dynamic compared to e-mail or paper surveys. Online surveys are also less intrusive, and they suffer less from social desirability effects. Questions with long lists of answer choices can be used to provide immediate coding of answers to certain questions that are usually asked in an open-ended fashion in paper questionnaires. Finally, online surveys can be tailored to the situation (the questionnaire may be preloaded with already available information).

_{Methodological Issues of Online Surveys}

Sampling

The difference between probability samples (where the inclusion probabilities for all units of the target population is known in advance) and non-probability samples (which often require less time and effort but generally do not support statistical inference) is crucial. Probability samples are highly affected by problems of non-coverage (not all members of the general population have Internet access) and frame problems (online survey invitations are most conveniently distributed using e-mail, but there are no e-mail directories of the general population that might be used as a sampling frame). Because coverage and frame problems can significantly impact data quality, they should be adequately reported when disseminating the research results.

Invitations to Online Surveys

Due to the lack of sampling frames, many online survey invitations are published in the form of an URL link on web sites or in other media, which leads to sample selection bias that is out of research control and to non-probability samples. Traditional solicitation modes, such as telephone or mail invitations to web surveys, can help overcoming probability sampling issues in online surveys. However, such approaches are faced with problems of dramatically higher costs and questionable effectiveness.

Non-response

Online survey response rates are generally low and also vary extremely. In addition to refusing participation, terminating surveying during the process, or not answering certain questions, several other non-response patterns can be observed in online surveys, such as lurking respondents and a combination of partial and item non-response. Response rates can be increased by offering monetary or some other type of incentive to the respondents, by contacting respondents several times, and by keeping the questionnaire difficulty as low as possible.

Questionnaire Design

The use of design features should be limited to the extent necessary for respondents to understand questions or to stimulate the response. The features should not affect their response as that would mean lower validity and reliability of data.

It is important that uncontrolled variations in how a questionnaire appears are minimized. Web-based survey methods make the construction and delivery of questionnaire instruments relatively easy, but what is difficult to ensure is that everyone sees the questionnaire as its designer intended it to be. This problem can arise due to the variability of software and hardware used by respondents.

Telephone Polling

An important aspect of telephone polling is the use of interviewers. Interviewers encourage sample persons to respond, leading to higher response rates and interviewers may increase comprehension of questions by answering respondents’ questions.

Telephone polling is also fairly cost efficient, depending on local call charge structure, which makes it good for large national (or international) sampling frames .

However, there are some disadvantages to telephone polling. For instance, there is some potential for interviewer bias (e.g. some people may be more willing to discuss a sensitive issue with a female interviewer than with a male one), telephone polling cannot be used for non-audio information (graphics, demonstrations, taste/smell samples), and it is unreliable for consumer surveys in rural areas where telephone density is low .

Number of fixed telephone lines globally

This chart shows the numbers of fixed telephone lines from 1997 to 2007.

There are three main types of telephone polling: traditional telephone interviews, computer assisted telephone dialing, and computer assisted telephone interviewing ( CATI ).

5.2: The Civil Rights Movement

5.2.1: Separate But Equal

Learning Objective

Discuss the reasoning behind the separate of “Separate but Equal” before the Civil Rights Movement

Key Points

• Under this doctrine, services, facilities and public accommodations were allowed to be separated by race, on the condition that the quality of each group’s public facilities was to remain equal.
• Although the Constitutional doctrine required equality, the facilities and social services offered to African-Americans were almost always of lower quality than those offered to white Americans.
• The doctrine of “separate but equal” was legitimized in the 1896 Supreme Court case, Plessy v. Ferguson.

Key Term

Reconstruction

A period in U.S. history from 1865 to 1877, during which the nation tried to resolve the status of the ex-Confederate states, the ex-Confederate leaders, and the Freedmen (ex-slaves) after the American Civil War.

Separate but equal was a legal doctrine in American constitutional law that justified systems of segregation. Under this doctrine, services, facilities and public accommodations were allowed to be separated by race on the condition that the quality of each group’s public facilities was to remain equal.

Segregation

A store catering to “whites only” under the separate but equal doctrine.

After the end of Reconstruction in 1877, former slave-holding states enacted various laws to undermine the equal treatment of African Americans, although the 14^th Amendment, as well as federal Civil Rights laws enacted after the Civil War, were meant to guarantee such treatment. Southern states contended that the requirement of equality could be met in a manner that kept the races separate. Furthermore, the state and federal courts tended to reject the pleas by African Americans that their 14^th Amendment rights had been violated, arguing that the 14^th amendment applied only to federal, not state, citizenship.

The doctrine of “separate but equal” was legitimized in the 1896 Supreme Court case, Plessy v. Ferguson. Homer Plessy, who was of mixed ancestry, claimed that his constitutional rights had been violated when he was forced to move to a “colored’s only car” while riding a train. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court ruling “[required] railway companies carrying passengers in their coaches in that State to provide equal, but separate, accommodations for the white and colored races…,” establishing the actual term “separate but equal” in the process. After this ruling, not only was “separate but equal” applied to railroad cars, but also schools, voting rights and drinking fountains. Segregated schools were created for students, as long as they followed “separate but equal”.

Although the Constitutional doctrine required equality, the facilities and social services offered to African-Americans were almost always of lower quality than those offered to white Americans. For example, many African-American schools received less public funding per student than nearby white schools. In Texas, the state established a state-funded law school for white students without any law school for black students.

The repeal of such laws establishing racial segregation, generally known as Jim Crow laws, was a key focus of the Civil Rights Movement prior to 1954. The doctrine of “separate but equal” was eventually overturned by the Linda Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court Case in 1954.

5.2.2: Brown v. Board of Education and School Integration

Learning Objective

Summarize the phenomena of de jure and de facto segregation in the United States during the mid-1900s and the significance of the Brown v. Board of Education decision for the Civil Rights Movement

Key Points

• Brown v. Board of Education overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896 which allowed state-sponsored segregation.
• The plaintiffs argued that systematic racial segregation, while masquerading as providing separate but equal treatment of both white and black Americans, instead perpetuated inferior accommodations, services, and treatment for black Americans.
• The key holding of the Court was that, even if segregated black and white schools were of equal quality in facilities and teachers, segregation by itself was socially and psychologically harmful to black students and therefore unconstitutional.

Key Term

de jure

By right, in accordance with the law, legally.

Brown v. Board of Education was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court declared that state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students were unconstitutional. The decision overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896 that allowed state-sponsored segregation. Handed down on May 17, 1954, the Court’s unanimous (9–0) decision stated that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. ” As a result, de jure racial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This ruling paved the way for further racial integration and was a major victory of the civil rights movement.

In 1951, a class action suit was filed against the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The plaintiffs were 13 Topeka parents who, on behalf of their 20 children, called for the school district to reverse its policy of racial segregation. The plaintiffs argued that systematic racial segregation, while seeming to provide separate but equal treatment of both white and black Americans, instead perpetuated inferior accommodations, services, and treatment for black Americans. The lead plaintiff was Oliver L. Brown, whose daughter Linda had to walk six blocks to her school bus stop to ride to Monroe Elementary, her segregated black school one mile away, while Sumner Elementary, a white school, was only seven blocks from her house.

The District Court ruled in favor of the Board of Education, citing the U.S. Supreme Court precedent set in Plessy v. Ferguson, and the case moved to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Earl Warren convened a meeting of the justices and presented to them with the argument that the only reason to sustain segregation was an honest belief in the inferiority of African-American citizens. Warren further submitted that the Court must overrule Plessy to maintain its legitimacy as an institution of liberty, and it must do so unanimously to avoid massive southern resistance. Warren drafted the basic opinion and kept circulating and revising it until the opinion was endorsed by all the members of the Court.

Eventually, the key decision of the Court was that even if segregated black and white schools were of equal quality in facilities and teachers, segregation by itself was socially and psychologically harmful to black students and, therefore, unconstitutional. This aspect was vital because the question was not whether the schools were “equal,” which under Plessy they nominally should have been, but whether the doctrine of separate was constitutional.

The Warren Court

The members of the Warren Court that unanimously agreed on Brown v. Board of Education.

5.2.3: Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Movement

Learning Objective

Differentiate between the legal strategies and “direct action” approaches used to challenge racial discrimination

Key Points

• Characteristics of the Jim Crow system included racial segregation, voter disenfranchisement, economic exploitation, and organized violence against the black community.
• After the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954, civil rights organization broadened their strategy to emphasize “direct action”—primarily boycotts, sit-ins, Freedom Rides, marches and similar tactics that relied on mass mobilization, nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience.
• Key events in the Civil Rights Movement included: the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the desegregation of Little Rock Central High School, student sit-ins, Freedom Rides, voter registration drives, and the March on Washington.

Key Terms

desegregation

the act or process of ending the separation of two groups, usually referring to race

disenfranchisement

Explicit or implicit revocation of, or failure to grant the right to vote, to a person or group of people.

The African American Civil Rights Movement refers to the social movements in the United States aimed at outlawing racial discrimination against black Americans and restoring voting rights to them. The Civil Rights Movement generally lasted from 1955 to 1968 and was particularly focused in the American South.

After the period of Reconstruction, the American South maintained an entrenched system of overt, state-sanctioned racial discrimination and oppression. Characteristics of this system, also known as “Jim Crow,” included racial segregation, voter disenfranchisement, economic exploitation, and organized violence against the black community. African Americans and other racial minorities resisted this regime in numerous ways and sought better opportunities through lawsuits, new organizations (such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), political redress, and labor organizing.

After the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954, civil rights organization broadened their strategy to emphasize “direct action”—primarily boycotts, sit-ins, Freedom Rides, marches and similar tactics that relied on mass mobilization, nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience. This mass action approach typified the movement from 1960 to 1968. Churches, local grassroots organizations, fraternal societies, and black-owned businesses mobilized volunteers to participate in broad-based actions. This was a more direct and potentially more rapid means of orchestrating change than the traditional approach of mounting court challenges.

Key events in the Civil Rights Movement included: the Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955-1956), which began when Rosa Parks, a NAACP secretary, was arrested when she refused to cede her public bus seat to a white passenger; the desegregation of Little Rock Central High School (1957); the Selma to Montgomery marches, also known as Bloody Sunday and the two marches that followed, were marches and protests held in 1965 that marked the political and emotional peak of the American civil rights movement which sought to secure voting rights for African-Americans. All three were attempts to march from Selma to Montgomery where the Alabama capitol is located. The student sit-ins protesting segregated lunch counters (1960); the Freedom Rides (1961) in which activists attempted to integrate bus terminals, restrooms, and water fountains; voter registration drives; and the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom (1963), in which civil rights leader, Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his famous “I Have a Dream” speech.

The March on Washington

The March on Washington, a key event in the U.S. Civil Rights Movement.

5.2.4: The Civil Rights Acts

Learning Objective

Compare and contrast the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act

Key Points

• President John F. Kennedy called for the passage of the bill, though it was President Lyndon Johnson who would sign the bill into law after Kennedy’s assassination.
• The Civil Rights Act of 1964 emulated the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which established equal treatment in public accommodations.
• The Voting Rights Act of 1965 outlawed discriminatory voting practices responsible for the widespread disenfranchisement of African-Americans.

Key Terms

civil rights

legal or moral entitlements which are expressly enumerated in the U.S. Constitution and are considered to be unquestionable, deserved by all people under all circumstances, especially without regard to race, creed, religion, sexual orientation, gender and disabilities

Civil Rights Act of 1964

a landmark piece of legislation outlawing major forms of discrimination against women as well as minorities.

Attorney General

the head of the United States Department of Justice; concerned with legal affairs as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States government.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a landmark piece of United States legislation outlawing major forms of discrimination against women as well as racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities. It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial discrimination in schools, at the workplace, and by facilities that served the general public.

In a civil rights speech on June 11, 1963, President John F. Kennedy called for passage of the bill, which he said would “give all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public – hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments,” as well as “greater protection for the right to vote. ” Emulating the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which established equal treatment in public accommodations, Kennedy’s civil rights bill included provisions to ban discrimination in public accommodations. It also enabled the U.S. Attorney General to join in lawsuits against state governments which operated segregated school systems. After Kennedy’s assassination in November 1963, President Lyndon Johnson utilized his experience in legislative politics to garner support for the bill, which was passed in July 1964.

President John F. Kennedy

President John F. Kennedy, who called for the passage of a civil rights bill.

The Civil Rights Act was followed by the Voting Rights Act, signed into law by President Johnson in 1965. The Voting Rights Act outlawed discriminatory voting practices that had been responsible for the widespread disenfranchisement of African-Americans. Specifically, the Act outlawed the practice of requiring otherwise qualified voters to pass literary tests to register to vote. This was a principal means by which Southern states had prevented African-Americans from exercising the franchise.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark piece of national legislation in the United States that prohibits discrimination in voting. Echoing the language of the 15th Amendment, the Act prohibits states and local governments from imposing any “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure … to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color. ” Specifically, Congress intended the Act to outlaw the practice of requiring otherwise qualified voters to pass literacy tests in order to register to vote, a principal means by which Southern states had prevented African Americans from exercising the franchise. The Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, who had earlier signed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law.

The Act established extensive federal oversight of elections administration, providing that states and local governments with a history of discriminatory voting practices could not implement any change affecting voting without first obtaining the approval of the Department of Justice, a process known as preclearance. The Act allowed “poll watchers” to ensure state compliance with federal legislation. It also eliminated literacy tests as a precondition for voting, effectively removing barriers to African American voter registration. These enforcement provisions applied to states and political subdivisions (mostly in the South) that had used a “device” to limit voting and in which less than 50 percent of the population was registered to vote in 1964. The Act has been renewed and amended by Congress four times, the most recent being a 25-year extension signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2006.

5.2.5: Continuing Challenges in Race Relations in the U.S.

Learning Objective

Explain why racial profiling remains controversial

Key Points

• Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or national origin into consideration in order to benefit underrepresented groups in areas of employment, education, and business.
• Opponents emphasize that affirmative action is counterproductive, as choosing people based on their social group instead of solely their qualifications has the effect of devaluing their accomplishments.
• Racial profiling refers to the use of an individual’s race or ethnicity by law enforcement personnel as a key factor in deciding whether to engage in enforcement.
• After Richard Nixon’s inauguration in 1969, he appointed Vice President Agnew to lead a task force, which worked with local leaders—both white and black—to determine how to integrate local schools.
• Supporters of affirmative action often cite their goals as bridging inequalities in employment and pay; increasing access to education; enriching state, institutional, and professional leadership with the full spectrum of society; and redressing apparent past wrongs, harms, or hindrances.

Key Term

reverse discrimination

The policy or practice of discriminating against members of a designated group which has in the past unfairly received preferential treatment in social, legal, educational, or employment situations, with the intention of benefiting one or more other groups (such as racial, disabled, or gender groups) that have previously been discriminated against.

Continuing Challenges

Background

Though much progress has been made in establishing racial equality since the time of the Civil Rights Movement, there still exist numerous challenges in this area. Two issues relating to race that remain controversial are the debates surrounding affirmative action and racial profiling.

Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or national origin into consideration in order to benefit underrepresented groups in areas of employment, education, and business. In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed Executive order 11246, affirming the Federal Government’s commitment “to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a positive, continuing program in each executive department and agency. “

President Lyndon B. Johnson

Lyndon B. Johnson, who successfully utilized negative political advertising in the famous “Daisy ad” during the 1964 election

After Richard Nixon’s inauguration in 1969, he appointed Vice President Agnew to lead a task force, which worked with local leaders—both white and black—to determine how to integrate local schools. Agnew had little interest in the work, and Labor Secretary George Shultz did most of it. Federal aid was available, and a meeting with President Nixon was a possible reward for compliant committees. By September 1970, fewer than ten percent of black children were attending segregated schools. By 1971, however, tensions over desegregation surfaced in Northern cities, with angry protests over the busing of children to schools outside their neighborhood to achieve racial balance. Nixon opposed busing personally but enforced court orders requiring its use.

Richard Nixon, 37th President of the United States

Richard Nixon was elected president in 1968, and resigned in 1974 amidst the Watergate scandal. His presidency included foreign policy achievements, most notably improved relations with China.

In addition to desegregating public schools, Nixon implemented the Philadelphia Plan in 1970—the first significant federal affirmative action program. He also endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment after it passed both houses of Congress in 1972 and went to the states for ratification. Nixon had campaigned as an ERA supporter in 1968. However, feminists criticized him for doing little to help the ERA or their cause after his election even though he appointed more women to administration positions than Lyndon Johnson had.

Racial Profiling

Racial profiling refers to the use of an individual’s race or ethnicity by law enforcement personnel as a key factor in deciding whether to engage in enforcement (e.g. make a traffic stop or arrest). The practice is controversial and illegal in many jurisdictions. Racial profiling is challenged at a federal level by both the 4^th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right to be safe from search and seizure without a warrant (which is to be issued “upon probable cause”); and the 14^th Amendment, which requires that all citizens be treated equally under the law. Nonetheless, racial profiling is sometimes practiced in African-American, Hispanic, and Muslim communities within the U.S.

Today’s Controversy of Affirmative Action

The controversy surrounding affirmative action’s effectiveness is based on the idea of class inequality. Opponents of racial affirmative action argues that the program actually benefits middle and upper class African Americans and Hispanic Americans at the expense of lower-income European Americans and Asian Americans. This argument supports the idea of solely class-based affirmative action. America’s poor is disproportionately made up of people of color, so class-based affirmative action would disproportionately help people of color. This would eliminate the need for race-based affirmative action as well as reducing any disproportionate benefits for middle and upper class people of color.

Supporters of affirmative action often cite their goals as

• bridging inequalities in employment and pay;
• increasing access to education;
• enriching state, institutional, and professional leadership with the full spectrum of society;
• redressing apparent past wrongs, harms, or hindrances.

Opponents emphasize that affirmative action is counterproductive. They believe that choosing people based on their social group instead of solely their qualifications has the effect of devaluing their accomplishments; opponents also claim that affirmative action is a form of “reverse discrimination” and may increase racial tension.

5.3: Women’s Rights

5.3.1: The Women’s Rights Movement

The women’s rights movement refers to political struggles to achieve rights claimed for women and girls of many societies worldwide.

Learning Objective

Compare and contrast the first and second waves of feminism in the United States

Key Points

• Second-wave feminism is a period of feminist activity that broadened the debate to a wide range of issues: sexuality, family, the workplace, reproductive rights, de facto inequalities, and official legal inequalities.
• The second wave of feminism in North America came as a delayed reaction against the renewed domesticity of women after World War II: the late 1940s post-war boom, which was an era characterized by unprecedented economic growth, a baby boom, and the move to family-oriented suburbs.
• In 1963, Betty Friedan wrote the bestselling book “The Feminine Mystique” in which she explicitly objected to the mainstream media image of women, stating that placing women at home limited their possibilities, and wasted talent and potential.
• The changing of social attitudes towards women is usually considered the greatest success of the women’s movement.

Key Terms

Roe v. Wade

Roe v. Wade (1973) is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion; the Court ruled 7-2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman’s decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state’s two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women’s health. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the trimesters of pregnancy.

Betty Friedan

In 1963, Betty Friedan wrote the bestselling book “The Feminine Mystique” in which she explicitly objected to the mainstream media image of women, stating that placing women at home limited their possibilities, and wasted talent and potential.

Second-Wave Feminism

Second-wave feminism is a period in the history of feminism in America that broadened the debate to a wide range of issues: sexuality, family, the workplace, reproductive rights, de facto inequalities, and official legal inequalities.

Example

• By the early 1980s, it was largely perceived that women had met their goals and succeeded in changing social attitudes towards gender roles, repealing oppressive laws that were based on sex, integrating “boys’ clubs” such as military academies, the United States Armed Forces, NASA, single-sex colleges, men’s clubs, and the Supreme Court, and by accomplishing the goal of making gender discrimination illegal.

Introduction

Second-wave feminism is a period of feminist activity. In the United States, second-wave feminism, initially called the Women’s Liberation Movement , began during the early 1960s and lasted through the late 1990s. It was a worldwide movement that was strong in Europe and parts of Asia, such as Turkey and Israel, where it began in the 1980s, and it began at other times in other countries.

Women’s Liberation March

Women’s Liberation march from Farrugut Square to Layfette park

Whereas first-wave feminism focused mainly on suffrage and overturning legal obstacles to gender equality (i.e. voting rights, property rights), second-wave feminism broadened the debate to a wide range of issues: sexuality, family, the workplace, reproductive rights, de facto inequalities, and official legal inequalities. At a time when mainstream women were making job gains in professions, the military, the media, and sports in large part because of second-wave feminist advocacy, second-wave feminism also focused on a battle against violence with proposals for marital rape laws, establishment of rape crisis and battered women’s shelters, and changes in custody and divorce law. Its major effort was trying to get the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) added to the United States Constitution, an effort in which they were defeated by anti-feminists led by Phyllis Schlafly, who argued against the ERA, saying women would be drafted into the military.

Historical Precedents

Starting in the late 18th century, and throughout the 19th century, rights, as a concept and claim, gained increasing political, social and philosophical importance in Europe. Movements emerged which demanded freedom of religion, the abolition of slavery, rights for women, rights for those who did not own property and universal suffrage. In the late 18th century the question of women’s rights became central to political debates in both France and Britain. At the time some of the greatest thinkers of the Enlightenment, who defended democratic principles of equality and challenged notions that a privileged few should rule over the vast majority of the population, believed that these principles should be applied only to their own gender and their own race.

Overview

The second wave of feminism in North America came as a delayed reaction against the renewed domesticity of women after World War II: the late 1940s post-war boom, which was an era characterized by an unprecedented economic growth, a baby boom, a move to family-oriented suburbs, and the ideal of companionate marriages. This life was clearly illustrated by the media of the time; for example, television shows such as “Father Knows Best” and “Leave It to Beaver” idealized domesticity.

In 1960, the Food and Drug Administration approved the combined oral contraceptive pill, which was made available in 1961. This made it easier for women to have careers without having to leave due to unexpectedly becoming pregnant. The administration of President Kennedy made women’s rights a key issue of the New Frontier, and named women (such as Esther Peterson) to many high-ranking posts in his administration.

In 1963 Betty Friedan (), influenced by Simone De Beauvoir’s book “The Second Sex,” wrote the bestselling book “The Feminine Mystique” in which she explicitly objected to the mainstream media image of women, stating that placing women at home limited their possibilities, and wasted talent and potential. The perfect nuclear family image depicted and strongly marketed at the time, she wrote, did not reflect happiness and was rather degrading for women. This book is widely credited with having begun second-wave feminism.

Betty Friedan (1960)

Betty Friedan, American feminist and writer, wrote the best selling book “The Feminist Mystique. ” This book is widely credited with having begun second-wave feminism in the United States.

Achievements

Among the most significant legal victories of the movement after the formation of the National Organization of Women (NOW) were: a 1967 Executive Order extending full Affirmative Action rights to women, Title IX and the Women’s Educational Equity Act (1972 and 1974, respectively, educational equality), Title X (1970, health and family planning), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (1974), the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, the outlaw of marital rape, the legalization of no-fault divorce, a 1975 law requiring U.S. Military Academies to admit women, and many Supreme Court cases, perhaps most notably Reed v. Reed of 1971 and Roe v. Wade of 1973 . However, the changing of social attitudes towards women is usually considered the greatest success of the women’s movement.

U.S. Public Opinion about Roe v. Wade

Graph showing public support for Roe v. Wade over the years

By the early 1980s, it was largely perceived that women had met their goals and succeeded in changing social attitudes towards gender roles, repealing oppressive laws that were based on sex, integrating “boys’ clubs” such as military academies, the United States Armed Forces, NASA, single-sex colleges, men’s clubs, and the Supreme Court, and by accomplishing the goal of making gender discrimination illegal. However, the movement did fail, in 1982, in adding the Equal Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution, coming up three states short of ratification.

5.3.2: Gender Discrimination

Gender discrimination refers to prejudice or discrimination based on gender, as well as conditions that foster stereotypes of gender roles.

Learning Objective

Illustrate cases of gender discrimination and stereotypes

Key Points

• Sexist attitudes are frequently based on beliefs in traditional stereotypes of gender roles, and is thus built into many societal institutions.
• Many of the stereotypes that result in gender discrimination are not only descriptive, but also prescriptive beliefs about how men and women “should” behave.
• Occupational sexism refers to discriminatory practices, statements, or actions based on a person’s gender which occur in a place of employment.
• Violence against women, including sexual assault, domestic violence, and sexual slavery, remains a serious problem around the world.

Key Terms

objectification

The process or manifestation of objectifying (something).

Gender Role

a set of social and behavioral norms that are generally considered appropriate for either a man or a woman in a social or interpersonal relationship.

stereotype threat

the experience of anxiety or concern in a situation where a person has the potential to confirm a negative stereotype about their social group.

Gender discrimination, also known as sexism, refers to prejudice or discrimination based on sex and/or gender, as well as conditions or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on gender. Sexist mindsets are frequently based on beliefs in traditional stereotypes of gender roles, and is thus built into many societal institutions.

Gender Stereotypes

Gender stereotypes are widely held beliefs about the characteristics and behavior of women and men. Many of the stereotypes that result in gender discrimination are not only descriptive, but also prescriptive beliefs about how men and women “should” behave. For example, women who are considered to be too assertive or men who lack physical strength are often criticized and historically faced societal backlash. They can also facilitate or impede intellectual performance, such as the stereotype threat that lower women’s performance on mathematics tests, due to the stereotype that women have inferior quantitative skills compared to men’s, or when the same stereotype leads men to assess their own task ability higher than women performing at the same level.

Gender stereotypes

A poster depicting gender stereotypes about women drivers from the 1950s

Examples of Gender Discrimination

There are several prominent ways in which gender discrimination continues to play a role in modern society. Occupational sexism refers to discriminatory practices, statements, and/or actions based on a person’s gender which occur in a place of employment. Wage discrimination, the “glass ceiling” (in which gender is perceived to be a barrier to professional advancement), and sexual harassment in the workplace are all examples of occupational sexism. Violence against women, including sexual assault, domestic violence, and sexual slavery, remains a serious problem around the world. Many also argue that the objectification of women, such as in pornography, also constitutes a form of gender discrimination.

5.3.3: The Women’s Suffrage Movement

The Women’s Suffrage Movement refers to social movements around the world dedicated to achieving voting rights for women.

Learning Objective

Discuss the historical events that culminated with women’s suffrage in America

Key Points

• Within the United States, the first major call for women’s suffrage took place in 1848 at the Seneca Falls Convention.
• World War I provided the final push for women’s suffrage in America, as President Wilson’s stance that the war was being fought for democracy was countered by those who felt women’s disenfranchisement prevented America from being a true democracy.
• In 1919, the Senate passed the Nineteenth Amendment, giving women the right to vote, though the amendment would not be fully ratified until 1920.
• Through a constitutional amendment, reformers pursued state-by-state campaigns to build support for, or to win, residence-based state suffrage. Towns, counties, states, and territories granted suffrage, in full or in part, throughout the 19th and early 20th century.

Key Terms

Progressive Era

a period of social activism and political reform in the United States that flourished from the 1890s to the 1920s.

suffrage

To have the right to vote by citizens of a particular state.

Prohibition

A law prohibiting the manufacture or sale of alcohol.

Background

The Women’s Suffrage Movement refers to social movements around the world dedicated to achieving voting rights for women. Within the United States, the first major call for women’s suffrage took place in 1848 at the Seneca Falls Convention. After the Civil War agitation for the cause resumed. In 1869, the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution which gave black men the right to vote, split the movement. Campaigners such as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton refused to endorse the amendment, as it did not give women the right to vote. Others, such as Lucy Stone and Julia Ward Howe, argued that if black men were enfranchised, it would help women achieve their goal.

The conflict caused two organizations to emerge, the National Woman Suffrage Association, which campaigned for women’s suffrage at a federal level and for married women to be given property rights.  As well as the American Woman Suffrage Organization, which aimed to secure women’s suffrage through state legislation. After 1900, the groups made a new argument to the effect that women’s superior characteristics, especially purity, made their votes essential to promoting the reforms of the Progressive Era, particularly Prohibition, and exposing political corruption .

Women’s Suffrage

Supporters of women’s suffrage at a political rally

Women’s Suffrage in America

World War I provided the final push for women’s suffrage in America. When President Woodrow Wilson announced that the war was being fought for democracy, supporters of women’s suffrage protested that disenfranchising women prevented the United States from being a true democracy. In 1918, after years of opposition, Wilson changed his position to advocate for women’s suffrage as a war measure.

In June 1919, the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution, giving women the right to vote, was brought before the Senate, and after a long discussion it was passed, with 56 ayes and 25 nays. It would take until August 1920 for enough state legislatures to ratify the amendment, thus making it the law throughout the United States.

In addition to their strategy to obtain full suffrage through a constitutional amendment, reformers pursued state-by-state campaigns to build support for, or to win, residence-based state suffrage. Towns, counties, states, and territories granted suffrage, in full or in part, throughout the 19^th and early 20^th century. As women received the right to vote, they began running for, and being elected to, public office. They gained positions as school board members, county clerks, state legislators, judges, and eventually as Members of Congress.

5.3.4: The Feminist Movement

The feminist movement refers to a series of campaigns for cultural, political, economic, and social equality for women.

Learning Objective

Compare and contrast the three waves of feminism in the United States and their historical achievements

Key Points

• The history of feminist movements has been divided into three “waves” by feminist scholars.
• The first wave focused on women’s suffrage; the second wave (early 1960s to the late 1980s) was concerned with cultural and political inequalities. The third wave, (starting in the 1990s) criticizes definitions of femininity that generalize the experiences of upper-middle-class white women.
• As a whole, the feminist movement affected change in Western society, including women’s suffrage, the right to initiate divorce proceedings and “no fault” divorce, the right of women to make individual decisions regarding pregnancy, and the right to own property.
• Other important advances in the women’s movement include the founding of the National Organization for Women, as well as the development of legislation prohibiting sexual harassment or discrimination based on gender.
• While women have made strides, they still fall behind men in important measures. They are still underrepresented in Congress, and overrepresented in what have traditionally been considered “women’s” professions (such as teachers or secretaries).
• In recent times, many American women have accomplished “firsts” in the 2000s. For instance, Nancy Pelosi became the first woman to serve as Speaker of the House. 

Key Terms

feminist movement

The feminist movement refers to a series of campaigns for reforms on issues. such as reproductive rights, domestic violence, maternity leave, equal pay, women’s suffrage, sexual harassment, and sexual violence.

National Organization for Women

The largest feminist organization in the United States. It was founded in 1966 and has 500,000 contributing members. The six core issues that NOW addresses are abortion rights/reproductive issues, violence against women, constitutional equality, promoting diversity/ending racism, lesbian rights, and economic justice.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

A federal law enforcement agency that enforces laws against workplace discrimination. The EEOC investigates discrimination complaints based on an individual’s race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, disability, genetic information, and retaliation for opposing a discriminatory practice.

The Feminist Movement

The feminist movement (also known as the women’s movement or women’s liberation) refers to a series of campaigns for reforms on issues, such as women’s suffrage, reproductive rights, domestic violence, maternity leave, equal pay in the workplace, maternity leave, sexual harassment, and sexual violence. The movement’s priorities vary among nations and communities.

Women constitute a majority of the population and of the electorate in the United States, but they have never spoken with a unified voice for civil rights, nor have they received the same degree of protection as racial and ethnic minorities.

History of the Movement

The history of feminist movements has been divided into three “waves” by feminist scholars. The first wave refers to the feminist movement of the nineteenth through early twentieth centuries, which focused mainly on women’s suffrage .

Feminist Suffrage Parade in New York City, May 6, 1912.

First-wave feminists marching for women’s suffrage. The first wave of women’s feminism focused on suffrage, while subsequent feminist efforts have expanded to focus on equal pay, reproductive rights, sexual harassment, and others.

The second wave, generally taking place from the early 1960s to the late 1980s, was concerned with cultural and political inequalities, which feminists perceived as being inextricably linked. The movement encouraged women to understand aspects of their own personal lives as deeply politicized and reflective of a sexist structure of power.

The third wave, starting in the 1990s, rose in response to the perceived failures of the second wave feminism. It seeks to challenge or avoid what it deems the second wave’s “essentialist” definitions of femininity, which often assumed a universal female identity and over-emphasized the experiences of upper-middle-class white women.

One of the most important organizations that formed out of the women’s rights movement is the National Organization for Women (NOW). Established in 1966 and currently the largest feminist organization in the United States, NOW works to secure political, professional, and educational equality for women. In 1972, NOW and other women activist groups fought to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the Constitution, which affirmed that women and men have equal rights under the law. Although passage failed, the women’s rights movement has made significant inroads in reproductive rights, sexual harassment law, pay discrimination, and equality of women’s sports programs in schools.

In 1980, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission defined sexual harassment as unwelcome sexual advances or sexual conduct, verbal or physical, that interferes with a person’s performance or creates a hostile working environment. Such discrimination on the basis of sex is barred in the workplace by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and in colleges and universities that receive federal funds by Title IX. In a series of decisions, the Supreme Court has ruled that employers are responsible for maintaining a harassment-free workplace. Legislation such as this has helped to protect the rights of women in the workplace and at schools. The proposed ERA did have unintended consequences. For example, stay-at-home women did not agreed necessarily with women who worked steady schedules.

The Status of Women in the United States

As a whole, the feminist movement has brought changes to U.S. society, including women’s suffrage, the right to initiate divorce proceedings and “no fault” divorce, the right of women to make individual decisions regarding pregnancy (including access to contraceptives and abortion), and the right to own property. It has also led to increased employment opportunities for women at more equitable wages, as well as broad access to university educations. The feminist movement also helped to transform family structures as a result of these increased rights, in that gender roles and the division of labor within households have gradually become more flexible.

Marxist Feminism

Rosemary Hennessy and Chrys Ingraham say that materialist feminisms grew out of Western Marxist thought and have inspired a number of different (but overlapping) movements, all of which are involved in a critique of capitalism and are focussed on ideology’s relationship to women. Marxist feminism argues that capitalism is the root cause of women’s oppression, and that discrimination against women in domestic life and employment is an effect of capitalist ideologies. Socialist feminism distinguishes itself from Marxist feminism by arguing that women’s liberation can only be achieved by working to end both the economic and cultural sources of women’s oppression. Anarcha-feminists believe that class struggle and anarchy against the state.

Despite this, many American women achieved many political firsts in the 2000s. In 2007, Nancy Pelosi became the first female Speaker of the House of Representatives. In 2008, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton became the first woman to win a presidential primary, winning the New Hampshire Democratic primary . In 2008, Alaska governor Sarah Palin became the first woman nominated for Vice President by the Republican Party. In 2009 and 2010, respectively, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were confirmed as Supreme Court Associate Justices, making them the third and fourth female justices.

Hillary Rodham Clinton

While women still fall behind men in many important measures, important exceptions exist. For example, Hillary Clinton became the first woman to become the presumptive nominee of a major political party.

5.3.5: Women in the Workplace

Women’s participation in the workforce has been a relatively recent phenomenon and is still associated with many continuing challenges.

Learning Objective

Identify the barriers for equal participation of women in the workplace

Key Points

• Particular barriers to equal participation in the workplace included a lack of access to educational opportunities; restrictions women entering or studying a field; discrimination within a field; and the expectation that mothers should be the primary childcare providers.
• Beginning in the 1970s, women began attending colleges and graduate schools in large numbers and entering professions like law, medicine, and business.
• Challenges that remain for women in the workplace include the gender pay gap, the “glass ceiling”, sexual harassment, and network discrimination.

Key Terms

sexual harassment

intimidation, bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors.

sexism

or gender discrimination is prejudice or discrimination based on a person’s sex or gender. Extreme sexism may foster sexual harassment, rape and other forms of violence.

Women’s participation in the workforce has been a relatively recent phenomenon. Until modern times, legal and cultural practices, combined with the inertia of longstanding religious and educational conventions, restricted women’s entry and participation in the workforce.

Particular barriers to equal participation in the workplace included a lack of access to educational opportunities; prohibitions or restrictions on members of a particular gender entering a field or studying a field; discrimination within fields, including wage, management, and prestige hierarchies; and the expectation that mothers, rather than fathers, should be the primary childcare providers.

Within the United States, World War I and World War II provided many new opportunities for women to participate in the workplace, including jobs as secretaries, salespeople, factory workers. Beginning in the 1970s, women began attending colleges and graduate schools in large numbers and entering professions like law, medicine, and business. Many scholars attribute this trend to the advent of the birth control pill, which allowed women to postpone pregnancy and marriage and focus instead on their education and careers. This transformation of women’s expectations had a profound effect on their conception of their own identity and still continues on today.

Challenges that remain for women in the workplace include the gender pay gap, the difference between women’s and men’s earnings due to lifestyle choices and explicit discrimination; the “glass ceiling”, which prevents women from reaching the upper echelons within their companies; sexism and sexual harassment; and network discrimination, wherein recruiters for high-status jobs are generally men who hire other men.

Gender pay gap

A chart depicting women’s earnings in different industries as a percentage of men’s earnings

5.3.6: Women in American Politics

In recent decades, women have served in more political posts and organizations, but they remain underrepresented in comparison to men.

Learning Objective

Analyze the role that women play in American politics, especially the involvement of African-American women in grassroots activism and institutional politics

Key Points

• As of January 2011, 35 women have served as governors of U.S. states, with six women currently serving.
• There are currently 17 female members of the Senate, 12 Democrats and 5 Republicans.
• The first woman to serve as a justice in the U.S. Supreme Court was Sandra Day O’Connor, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981.
• African-American women have been involved in American political issues and advocating for the community since the American Civil War era through organizations, clubs, community-based social services, and advocacy.
• African-American women have been underrepresented in politics within the United States, but numbers still increase. The Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University states currently 13 African-American women serve in the 112th Congress, with 239 state legislators serving nationwide.

Key Terms

misogyny

Hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women.

U.S. Cabinet

The most senior appointed officers of the executive branch of the federal government of the United States, who are generally the heads of the federal executive departments.

Background

As women campaigned for and eventually received the right to vote, they began running for, and being elected to, public office. They gained positions as school board members, county clerks, state legislators, judges and, eventually, shortly before ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, as members of Congress. In recent decades, women have been increasingly involved in American politics, serving as mayors, governors, state legislators, members of Congress, members of the U.S. Cabinet, and Supreme Court justices.

As of January 2011, 35 women have served as governors of U.S. states, with six women currently serving. The first elected female governor was Nellie Tayloe Ross of Wyoming, who was sworn in on November 4, 1925. The first female governor elected without being the wife or widow of a past state governor was Ella T. Grasso of Connecticut, sworn in on January 8, 1975.

Women in the Government Posts

The first woman elected to Congress was Jeannette Rankin, a Republican from Montana who took office in 1917. Women have been elected to the House of Representatives from 44 of the 50 states. Thirty-nine women have served altogether in the Senate, with Hattie Caraway of Arkansas became the first woman to win election to that legislative body in 1932. There are currently 17 female members of the Senate, 12 Democrats and 5 Republicans.

Twenty-five women have served as U.S. Cabinet officials. The first woman to hold a Cabinet position was Frances Perkins, who was appointed Secretary of Labor by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933. Other prominent female Cabinet members include: Janet Reno, who served as the first female attorney general under President Bill Clinton; Madeline Albright, who served as the first female secretary of state under President Clinton; Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State under President George W. Bush; and Hillary Rodham Clinton, former First Lady, Senator from New York, Secretary of State under Barack Obama, and the first woman to be nominated for president by a major American political party.

Hillary Rodham Clinton

While women still fall behind men in many important measures, important exceptions exist. For example, Hillary Clinton became the first woman to be nominated for president by a major American political party

The first woman to serve as a justice in the U.S. Supreme Court was Sandra Day O’Connor, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. Three women serve in the current Supreme Court: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appointed by President Clinton; Sonia Sotomayor, appointed by President Obama; and Elena Kagan, also appointed by President Obama.

African American women in politics

African-American women have been involved in American political issues and advocating for the community since the American Civil War era through organizations, clubs, community-based social services, and advocacy. Issues that deal with identity, racism, and sexism have been important to African-American women in the political dialogue.

Though women obtained the right to vote in the United States in 1920, many women of color still ran into obstacles. Some faced tests that required them to interpret the Constitution in order to vote. Others were threatened with physical violence, false charges, and other extreme danger to prevent voting. Due to these tactics and others that marginalized people of color, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was put into place. It outlawed any discriminatory acts to prevent people from voting.

Women and Black Power

Despite the fact that elements of the Black Power Movement had some views centered on misogyny, African-American women quickly found a voice in the movement. Women held leadership positions, ran community-based programs, and fought misogyny. Other women also contributed to the grass-roots movement through community service. “In the age of rights, antipoverty, and power campaigns, black women in community-based and often women-centered organizations, like their female counterparts in nationally known organizations, harnessed and engendered Black Power through their speech and iconography as participants of tenant councils, welfare rights groups, and a black female religious order.”

Political Representation

African-American women have been underrepresented in politics within the United States, but numbers continue to increase. According to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University, currently 13 African-American women serve in the 112^th Congress, with 239 state legislators serving nationwide . The paths to public office for women in the African-American community have differed from men and other groups, such as women’s organizations, rallies, and fundraisers.

Shirley Chisholm

Shirley Chisholm was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives representing New York’s twelfth Congressional District for seven terms from 1969 to 1983.

A number of organizations supporting African-American women have historically played an important role in politics. The National Association of Colored Women, founded in 1896 by Josephine St. Pierre Ruffin and Mary Church Terrell, is one of the oldest political groups created for and by African-American women. Among its objectives were equal rights, eliminating lynching, and defeating Jim Crow laws. Another organization, the National Council of Negro Women, was founded in 1935 by civil rights activist Mary McLeod Bethune and was more involved in African-American politics with the aim to improve the quality of life for African-American women and families.

5.4: Civil Rights of Other Specific Groups

5.4.1: Civil Rights of Latinos

Policies regarding immigration, language, and voting are modern-day civil rights issues that affect Latinos living in the United States.

Learning Objective

Identify the recent trends in voting among Latinos in the United States and the civil rights issues that affect them

Key Points

• Since the mid-1960’s, Latinos have become the largest immigrant group to the United States.
• Immigration policy remains a highly controversial issue in U.S. politics, with proposals ranging from building a wall along the U.S./Mexican border to limit immigration, to granting legal status to all foreign-born Latinos currently working in the United States.
• Many Latinos living in the U.S. arguably face civil rights violations, such as policies that limit Latino voting and economic participation.

Key Terms

redistricting

the process of drawing boundaries for United States electoral areas, often in response to population changes determined by the results of the decennial census

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965

Immigration legislation that removed yearly, numerical quotas based on the immigrant’s country of origin and implemented a system of ranking potential immigrants based on skills and family relationships.

Latino

A term used in the U.S. to describe people of Latin American descent or origin.

Example

• Voting redistricting laws that serve to limit the political power of Latino voting blocs are examples of contemporary civil rights controversy affecting Latinos.

Introduction

“Latino” is a term used primarily in the United States to designate people of Latin American heritage or descent. Often, the term is treated as a synonym for Hispanic, although the latter only includes persons of Spanish-speaking origin. Latino is generally used more broadly to include non-Spanish speaking persons of Latin American descent, such as Brazilians. The U.S. Census considers Latino persons to share an ethnic group, not a race. Therefore, on the census individuals of any race can indicate that they are Hispanic or Latino.

Civil Rights and Immigration

The United States has long been a nation with a large immigrant population, but immigration policies have varied throughout the country’s history. In the earliest years, the largest immigrant group to North America consisted of European men. Immigration (not including the arrival of African and Caribbean slaves) proceeded at a relatively low rate until the mid-19^th century. By the mid-1800’s, poor economic conditions in some European nations and a surge in industrial opportunities in the U.S. contributed to a dramatic rise in the number of immigrants entering the U.S. The wave of immigration in the latter half of the 1800’s was dominated by the Irish and Germans, although other European ethnicities arrived in significant numbers. By the early 1900’s, vast numbers of immigrants were still arriving, but the demographics had changed. Increasingly large numbers of southern and eastern Europeans were arriving in the eastern United States, while many Chinese and Japanese immigrants were arriving on the West Coast. In response, the U.S. government passed immigration quota laws in the 1920’s which restricted the number of people who could enter the U.S. from any given country. In effect, the policy changes restricted immigration from southern and eastern Europe, Asia, and Central and South America.

The immigration policies of the 1920’s stood until the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Cellar Act. By the 1960’s, immigration was seen as a civil rights issue. Critics of existing policy included President John F. Kennedy, who considered immigration quotas to be at odds with democratic principles. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. It removed national-origin quotas from immigration law. Instead, potential immigrants would be ranked based on skills, education, and family relationships. The Hart-Cellar Act opened the borders to populations that had been largely excluded from entry to the U.S. in earlier years, thus shifting the demographics of the country. Prior to 1965 the majority of immigrants in the U.S. were of European descent, but in the subsequent decades Latinos came to make up a majority of new immigrants .

The American Public by Ancestry, 2000

Especially in the southwest United States, people of Latino origin make up a significant proportion of United States residents.

Since the Civil Rights Era legislation that made Latino immigration possible, debates about immigration law have remained controversial. In particular, immigration from Mexico has surged since the late-1980’s. People of Mexican origin are now the largest foreign-born group in the United States. While many Mexican and Latino immigrants enter the country legally, particularly through family reunification policies, a substantial number do not have legal-immigrant status — an estimated 700,000 new immigrants per year. Some politicians have sought legislation to curb the flow of immigration from Latin America, including a proposals for increased deportation, building a wall along the U.S./Mexican border, and harsher enforcement of existing laws. Many other politicians and voters instead seek to facilitate the acquisition of legal citizenship for current residents.

Contemporary immigration policy is widely considered to be a civil rights issue that disproportionately affects Latinos. Enforcement and labor policies often violate the rights that are afforded to U.S. citizens. For example, many Latino immigrants are employed in unregulated workplaces, where employers do not pay minimum wage and do not abide by health and safety regulations. Children of immigrants may be denied access to education or coerced into labor that violates child labor laws. Moreover, for fear of deportation or prosecution, immigrants without legal status do not have legal recourse when they are victims of crimes or exploitation. Current policy proposals aimed at reducing these rights violations include legislation to grant legal status to all children born in the U.S. as well as proposals for foreign worker programs that would grant legal status to foreign born laborers. These proposals are highly controversial among the U.S. electorate and politicians.

Language

Because the majority of foreign-born Latinos in the United States speak Spanish as a primary language, and many second-generation continue to speak Spanish in their households, controversies surrounding language are sometimes considered to be civil rights issues affecting Latinos. In recent decades, politicians have repeatedly proposed provisions to make English the official language of the U.S. These proposals have never passed — the U.S. does not have an official language. But, if such propositions were to become law, it would make it substantially more difficult for Spanish-speaking Americans to vote, attend school, and participate in other civic rights and duties. In many cases, critiques of proposals to make English the country’s official language accuse bill sponsors of attempting to disenfranchise Latinos — that is, of trying to reduce their political and economic power.

Voting

Proposals to change voting laws in recent years have also been met by criticism that they would prevent American Latinos from participating in the country’s governance. In some states, redistricting, or the process of redrawing voting precinct boundaries, has divided voters to either segregate Latinos or prevent them from gaining a majority in historically white native-born American districts. Similarly, recent proposals to require more stringent identification at polling places is suspected of attempting to reduce Latino voter turnout because a disproportionate number of Latino citizens do not have drivers licenses or other forms of state-accepted ID.

5.4.2: Civil Rights of Asian Americans

Civil Rights controversies surrounding Asian Americans include early immigration restrictions and xenophobia during the Second World War.

Learning Objective

Discuss the civil rights issues that affect Asian Americans

Key Points

• By the late 1800s, Asian American immigrants, especially from China, comprised large portions of the labor force in some industries.
• Throughout the early to mid-20th century, a period of xenophobia referred to as “Yellow Peril” saw limitations on Asian immigration and civil rights violations inflicted on U.S. Asian residents.
• Since the 1960s, Asian Americans have seen large advances in educational attainment and professional success, leading some commentators to refer to the group as the model minority.

Key Terms

Yellow Peril

A period of xenophobia in the early 1900s that resulted in laws restricting the immigration and naturalization of people of Asian origin.

internment camp

A governmental euphemism for a concentration camp, especially a non-Nazi one from before or during WWII; a detention center; a relocation camp.

national origins quota laws

Immigration laws restricting the number of people who may legally enter the U.S. from any given country.

Example

• Internment camps during World War II were used to hold Japanese American residents and citizens, who were suspected of anti-American plotting without the benefit of legal proceedings.

Introduction

According to U.S. Census data, Asian Americans comprise 4.8% of the U.S. population, with an additional 5.6% of the population having partial Asian ancestry. The Census defines Asian Americans as people who indicate their race as “Asian,” “Chinese,” “Filipino,” “Indian,” “Vietnamese,” “Korean,” “Japanese,” or “Other Asian. ” The group term Asian American has been in wide use since the 1960s, and was introduced as an alternative to the now antiquated and sometimes offensive term “Oriental. “

Asian Americans are sometimes referred to as “the model minority” in the popular press. This label reflects the group’s educational and economic success in recent decades. As of 2008, Asian Americans have the highest educational attainment and median household income of any racial demographic in the United States. While the group’s nickname generally reflects positive trends, it can be seen as offensive or stereotypical when it is applied in a way that implies all Asian Americans are well-educated, wealthy, and demure.

Immigration and Civil Rights

Immigration policy has played a central role in legal Civil Rights issues affecting Asian Americans. People of Asian descent began immigrating to the United States in significant numbers in the late 1800s. As of 1868, U.S. policy encouraged Chinese immigration. Chinese men made up the majority of certain industrial labor pools, most notably the western railroad industry, by the end of the century. Chinese laborers were often subject to unregulated work conditions, which resulted in widespread health problems, work-related injury and death, and exploitation. Nonetheless, it was not until the end of the 19^th century that Asian Americans began to face institutionalized barriers to immigration and citizenship.

In 1875, the Page Act expressly prohibited the entry of immigrants deemed “undesirable,” including Asian men seeking contract labor and Asian women who were suspected of engaging in prostitution. The Page Act was followed by the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which suspended all Chinese immigration for ten years, and the Geary Act of 1892, which provided Chinese immigrants to carry resident papers and prevented them from full access to U.S. legal proceedings. By the 1920s, a nativist tendency in the U.S. had propelled the passage of national origins quota laws, which limited the number of immigration from any given country. These policies effectively curbed immigration for several decades.

A xenophobic stance known as the Yellow Peril is often associated with early 20^th century attempts to limit Chinese immigration and to bar Chinese residents from gaining American citizenship. By the mid-20^th century, however, the term became associated with xenophobia towards Japanese Americans. Spurred by Japan’s role in World War II, many Americans, including legislators, became hostile towards Japanese immigrants and people of Japanese descent living in the U.S. In what is now considered to be a major civil rights violation, thousands of Japanese Americans were held in internment camps during World War II. These camps were premised on the suspicion that Japanese Americans could be linked to Japanese war efforts, but in fact they held thousands of civilians without any legal grounds or evidence of criminal activity.

In 1965, at the tail end of the Civil Rights era, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. This bill overturned laws setting immigration quotas, opening the borders to increasing immigration from Asia and Latin America. Asians began entering the U.S. in large numbers, often aided by legal provisions that facilitated the immigration of highly skilled individuals or individuals with family members in the United States. A demographic shift followed the passage of the act, and the Asian American population became increasingly well-educated and had growing access to material resources in the United States.

In the modern day, Asian Americans continue to comprise the second largest ethnic immigrant group, after Latinos. That said, Asian American immigrants have diverse ethnic backgrounds, with large immigrant populations arriving from China, Korea, and India, for example. There has been some controversy over illegal immigration from Asia, with some speculating that as much as 15% of the Asian American population is in the U.S. illegally. However, largely due to favorable stereotypes of Asian Americans, debates surrounding illegal immigration tend to focus on Latinos, who are more negatively stereotyped by native born Americans.

Japanese Americans Sent to Internment Camp

During the Second World War, Japanese Americans were forced to relocate to U.S. government administered internment camps on the baseless suspicion that they may plot anti-American activities.

5.4.3: Civil Rights of Native Americans

Historical policies of American expansion have infringed upon the rights of Native Americans and have lead to long-term inequality.

Learning Objective

Identify the modern civil rights issues that pertain to Native Americans in the United States

Key Points

• 19th and 20th Century policies created a system of Indian reservations, where Native Americans were geographically confined, but had some degree of sovereignty.
• The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 extended legal protections against discrimination by the federal government to Native Americans under tribal governance.
• Since the 1970s, affirmative action policies have attempted to provide Native Americans with equal opportunity in housing, employment, and education.

Key Terms

affirmative action

A policy or program providing advantages for people of a minority group with the aim of creating a more racially equal society through preferential access to education, employment, health care, social welfare, etc.

Indian Civil Rights Act

A law that applies to the Indian tribes of the United States and makes many, but not all, of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights applicable within the tribes.

Indian reservation

An area of land managed by a Native American tribe under the United States Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Example

• Relocating Indian populations to reservations during a period of American expansion is an example of what would today be considered a civil rights violation.

Introduction

Native Americans are people of indigenous American descent, including indigenous peoples within the boundaries of the present-day United States. Native Americans are comprised of numerous, distinct ethnic groups, many of which continue as intact cultural and political entities. According to US Census data, 1.37% of Americans identify themselves as Native American.

European Settlement and American Expansion

Prior to the 15^th century, groups that were indigenous to the Americas lived in isolation from the rest of the world. Indigenous societies ranged widely in terms of geographic location, culture, and social structure, with distinct languages and governing systems. When Europeans colonized the Americas, massive numbers of Native Americans were killed through warfare and the spread of disease. Of those who survived, most were either forced off the land they inhabited or forced to convert to Christianity and work under Europeans. During the initial phases of American colonization, European policy generally forced Native Americans westward, where there was a low density of European settlement.

By the 1800s, however, the newly formed United States of America sought to expand its territory and strengthen its hold on the western portion of the continent. As settlers moved west, new conflicts with Native American populations ensued. In an attempt to confine Native Americans to limited territory, thus clearing the way for westward expansion, the U.S. government created a system of Indian reservations. Reservations were intended to reduce conflict between settlers and Indians without curbing American expansion, but they were controversial and largely unsuccessful from the start. On the one hand, settlers objected to large portions of land being given to indigenous populations, and on the other, Native Americans objected to having their movement restricted and their territory reduced. Moreover, Native Americans rejected the limited autonomy they were granted through the reservation system, as the reservations were administered by U.S. bureaucrats rather than tribal leaders.

Native Americans in the Modern United States

Today, there are still 310 Indian reservations in the U.S., but they remain controversial. Reservations have alcoholism, domestic abuse, sexual violence, poverty, and illiteracy rates that are among the highest in the country. Partly because of the reservation system, civil rights protections have often involved complex legal issues. Native Americans have allegedly been granted the right to self-determination, which has sometimes limited support on both sides for U.S. governmental protections.

Nonetheless, by 1968 the U.S. Congress passed the Indian Civil Rights Act, which gave tribal members protections from both the U.S. Government and from rights infringements by tribal leaders. Soon after, affirmative action policies began being applied to Native Americans, in an attempt to provide equal opportunity in employment, housing, and education. Despite these efforts, Native Americans still tend to have lower socioeconomic status and greater exposure to crime and abuse than other American groups.

Map of Indian Reservations in the U.S.

Beginning in the 19th century, the U.S. government attempted to reduce conflict and pave the way for territorial expansion by confining Native Americans to reservations, granting them a degree of sovereignty in exchange.

5.4.4: Civil Rights of People with Disabilities

Disabled Americans face limited access to public places and institutions that civil rights legislation seeks to address.

Learning Objective

Describe the campaigns and successes of the disability rights movement.

Key Points

• The Disability Rights Movement arose in the 1960s to create widespread institutional reform that would protect the civil rights of disabled persons in the United States.
• Disability is an umbrella term that includes impairments, activity limitations, and participation restrictions caused by a combination of physical, social, and psychological conditions.
• The 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act mandated improved access to government and social spaces for disabled persons, and also strengthened protections against discrimination.

Key Terms

disability

State of being disabled; deprivation or want of ability; absence of competent physical, intellectual, or moral power, means, fitness, and the like.

disability rights movement

The movement to secure equal opportunities and equal rights for people with disabilities.

Americans with Disabilities Act

A wide-ranging civil rights law that affords similar protections against discrimination to Americans with disabilities as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did for other groups.

Example

• Outfitting trains and buses with ramps in order to improve access to transportation for disabled persons is an example of a measure designed to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Introduction

Disability is an umbrella term that includes impairments, activity limitations, and participation restrictions. Disabilities may be physical, cognitive, mental, sensory, emotional, developmental or some combination of these, and they may be present from birth or acquired later in a person’s lifetime. According to the World Health Organization, an impairment inhibits body function or structure; an activity limitation inhibits an individual’s ability to execute a task or action; and a participation restriction affects an individual’s ability to participate in life situations. Thus, disability is often complex, reflecting an interaction between features of a person’s body and of the society in which he or she lives.

Civil Rights

Disabled persons face unique social challenges that may limit their participation in civic life. Notable issues include:

• Accessibility and safety measures in transportation, architecture, and the physical environment
• Equal opportunity in housing, employment, and education
• Protection from abuse, neglect, and the violation of patients’ rights

To address these concerns, a disability rights movement has introduced a range of legislation and law suits.

The disability rights movement became organized in the 1960s, concurrent with the African-American civil rights movement and feminist movement. Prior to the 1960s, individual disability groups had advocated for social reform; schools for the deaf and blind were organized as early as 1817, and the American Federation of the Physically Handicapped was formed in 1940 to advocate on behalf of people with physical limitations. But, it was not until the 1960s that a diverse range of disability groups became unified in pursuit of large scale advocacy. In the 1960s, the movement included such successful initiatives as the Community Mental Health Act, which provided funding for research about developmental disorders, and the Architectural Barriers Act, which required all federally owned or leased buildings to be accessible to disabled people.

Throughout the 1970s and 80s, the disability rights act gained increasing visibility and a number of policy successes, including increased accessibility of public places and increased resources for people with developmental disabilities. Perhaps the most sweeping success, however, came in 1990 with the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The act provided comprehensive civil rights protections modeled after the Civil Rights Act. It mandated that local, state, and federal governments and programs be accessible to people with disabilities, that employers with more than 15 employees make “reasonable accommodations” for workers with disabilities and not discriminate against otherwise qualified workers on the basis of disability, and that public spaces such as restaurants and stores make “reasonable modifications” to ensure accessibility. The act also mandated the accessibility of public transportation, communication, and other publicly provided services.

Transportation Accessibility

Public transportation vehicles, such as train and bus systems, are required to be outfitted with ramps accessible to disabled persons.

5.4.5: Civil Rights of the Elderly

The elderly, or senior citizens, are vulnerable to civil rights abuses due to a propensity for sickness, disability, and poverty.

Learning Objective

Discuss the civil rights issues that affect the elderly in the United States

Key Points

• Senior citizens are those Americans who are older than the retirement age and who are therefore eligible for state benefits.
• American population shifts have caused the elderly population to expand significantly in recent decades, and it is expected to grow until 2020.
• The Older Americans Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act are two pieces of civil rights legislation intended to protect the elderly population.

Key Terms

Older Americans Act

The first federal level initiative aimed at providing comprehensive services for older adults.

retirement age

The age after which a person is eligible for senior citizen benefits, currently 65 in the United States.

senior citizen

An old person, generally, a senior citizen is considered to be over 60 years of age or over the retirement age.

Introduction

The elderly, sometimes referred to as senior citizens in the United States, are a demographic group usually defined by being retired or over the retirement age (which is dependent on life expectancy changes). Due to demographic shifts, including increased life expectancy and high birth rates in the post-World War II era, the United States population has grown older in recent years. As of 1990, only 4% of Americans were over 65; by 2000, 12% were; and demographers estimate that by 2020, 17% will be in that age group.

Civil Rights Issues Affecting the Elderly

Because of a propensity for illness, disability, and lack of employment, the elderly are faced with unique civil rights challenges. Government policies throughout the twentieth century were aimed at meeting the unique needs of elderly Americans. For example, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Social Security Act funded medical care for aging Americans. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Older Americans Act (OAA) into law. This legislation specifically sought to provide equal opportunity for the enjoyment of adequate income in retirement, adequate health care, housing, long-term care, recreation, community services, freedom and self-determination, and protection against abuse, neglect, and exploitation. The OAA provides funding to states for the provision of services on the basis of the percentage of the population over the age of 60. Recipients of the OAA benefits are disproportionately poor, female, rural, and African American, as these elderly populations are particularly vulnerable.

Retirement Home

A large component of non-monetary compensation is retirement funding and similar benefits. Employers will often offer matching or retirement accounts for employees.

Additionally, in 1967, Congress passed the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. This law forbids employment discrimination against anyone who is at least 40 years old in the United States; the denial of benefits based on age; mandatory retirement; and prohibits statements of age preferences in job notices or advertisements. The law attempts to address company policies that force elderly employees out of work once they become eligible for government retirement benefits or due to prejudice against the elderly.

5.4.6: LGBTQ Civil Rights

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) people have attained many civil protections, but are still subject to discrimination.

Learning Objective

Identify the historical origins and issues relevant for the LGBTQ rights movement

Key Points

• Since roughly the 1950s, the LGBTQ rights movement has worked to protect people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
• Many policies have changed as a result of the LGBTQ rights movement, such as the legalization of same-sex marriages or civil unions in many states and the overturning of a ban on LGBTQ military service members.
• Despite many policy changes, LGBTQ people are not protected against discrimination by any federal laws, and a powerful conservative movement opposes LGBTQ rights.
• “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) prohibited military personnel from discriminating against or harassing closeted homosexual or bisexual service members or applicants, while barring openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual persons from military service.

Key Terms

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT)

A policy in effect between 1991 and 2011 prohibiting military personnel from discriminating against or harassing closeted homosexual or bisexual service members or applicants, while barring openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual persons from military service.

Stonewall Riots

Riots against a police raid that took place on June 28, 1969, at the Stonewall Inn, in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of New York City, which propelled LGBTQ activism and visibility.

LGBTQ rights movement

Activist efforts of individuals and organizations to improve the social and legal standing of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) people.

Introduction

The LGBTQ rights movement refers to the efforts of individuals and organizations to improve the social and legal standing of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBTQ) people. The Stonewall Riots of 1969 are often thought to mark the starting point of a worldwide LGBTQ rights movement. In fact, some gay and lesbian organizations were established earlier than 1969 and advocated for the improved social standing of LGBTQ people. Still, it was not until the second half of the twentieth century that LGBTQ advocates organized groups and demonstrations to improve the legal status of LGBTQ people.

Despite the long history of non-heterosexual sexual practices and non-conforming gender roles, the concept of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) rights did not become widely used until the second half of the twentieth century. In the early twentieth century in the United States, men and women engaged in homosexual practices and relationships but did not identify as “gay” or “lesbian. ” In New York City in the 1920s, for example, men met in particular social clubs and bars to find male sexual partners. The majority of these men were married and did not consider themselves to be homosexual. While they engaged in homosexual conduct, they generally did not advocate for the improved standing of homosexuals in society. Likewise, throughout the early 1900s, well-educated, unmarried women sometimes lived with long-term female partners. While these relationships were often intimate and resembled marriage, and were sometimes colloquially referred to as “Boston marriages,” the women in these partnerships were more often advocates for women’s rights than for homosexual rights and did not identify as lesbians. The origin of the term “Boston marriages” refer to two single women living together, independent of men. The term was originally coined in Henry James’ novel The Bostonians, which told the tale of an intimate companionship between two wealthy Boston women.

The Stonewall Riots

By the 1950s “homophile organizations” comprised of self-identified homosexual men and women arose. Like earlier social clubs and bars, these homophile club meetings served as a place to meet romantic and sexual partners. But, unlike earlier meeting places, homophile clubs explicitly advocated for the improved social status of homosexual people. While homophile organizations made early explicit attempts to improve LGBTQ peoples’ status, it was not until The Stonewall Riots of 1969 that large numbers of LGBTQ advocates united to demand legal and social rights. Throughout the 1950s-60s LGBTQ people gathered in a small number of bars that welcomed them as customers. Police forces often kept track of which bars were frequented by homosexuals. Since homosexuality was still illegal under anti-sodomy laws, and LGBTQ people had no protections against discrimination, police raids on known gay bars were common.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) was the official United States policy on gays serving in the military from December 21, 1993, to September 20, 2011. The policy prohibited military personnel from discriminating against or harassing closeted homosexual or bisexual service members or applicants, while barring openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual persons from military service.

The policy was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 by President Bill Clinton who campaigned in 1992 on the promise to allow all citizens to serve in the military regardless of sexual orientation. In accordance with the December 21, 1993, Department of Defense Directive, it was legal policy that homosexuality was incompatible with military service and that persons who engaged in homosexual acts or stated that they are homosexual or bisexual were to be discharged. he “Don’t Ask” provision mandated that military or appointed officials will not ask about or require members to reveal their sexual orientation. The “Don’t Tell” stated that a member may be discharged for claiming to be a homosexual or bisexual or making a statement indicating a tendency towards or intent to engage in homosexual activities.

A congressional bill to repeal DADT was enacted in December 2010, specifying that the policy would remain in place until the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certified that repeal would not harm military readiness, followed by a 60-day waiting period. A July 6, 2011, ruling from a federal appeals court barred further enforcement of the U.S. military’s ban on openly gay service members. President Barack Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen sent that certification to Congress on July 22, 2011, which set the end of DADT for September 20, 2011.

Successes and Challenges

Since the late-1960s, LGBTQ activists have achieved many successes in the struggle to secure civil rights for LGBTQ people. Notably, in the past decade many states have legalized same-sex marriages and civil unions, the federal government overturned a ban on open LGBTQ military service members known as Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT), and most states have passed anti-discrimination laws that prevent discrimination in housing, employment, and education on the basis of sexual orientation. Although gay marriage is legal nationally, and no federal law protects LGBTQ people from discrimination.

Gay Rights Demonstration

By the late 1960s, cities across the country held gay rights demonstrations to oppose discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

5.4.7: Civil Rights of Immigrants

Immigrants are vulnerable to civil rights violations, often due to low socioeconomic status, language barriers, or xenophobia.

Learning Objective

Discuss the history of immigration to the United States

Key Points

• In the early history of the United States, the largest numbers of immigrants were comprised of Europeans seeking economic opportunity and Africans who were forcibly brought to the U.S. as slaves.
• Throughout much of the 20th century, immigration to the U.S. was heavily restricted, but the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 lifted prior quotas and allowed many new immigrants into the country.
• The largest immigrant populations in the U.S. today are Latinos and Asian-Americans, though the former group is the subject of significantly more political controversy.

Key Terms

immigration

Coming into a non-native country for the purpose of permanent residence.

Immigration and Nationality Act

Law that abolished country of origin quotas on immigration.

The Dream Act

Proposed legislation that would provide conditional permanent residency to certain undocumented residents of good moral character who graduate from U.S. high schools, arrived in the United States as minors, and lived in the country continuously for at least five years prior to the bill’s enactment. This proposed legislation has been introduced at least 5 times in Congress since 2001, but has failed to pass both houses.

Example

• Paying migrant farm workers less than minimum wage is a civil rights violation carried out against a primarily immigrant population. The United Farm Workers union, led by Cesar Chavez, directly addressed this illegal exploitation of workers.

History

Immigration is the movement of people from one country to a country in which they are not native. In the United States, immigration has a long and complex history. It has long been a source of population growth as well as cultural, social, and political change.

In the first two centuries of the United States’ history, new immigrants were primarily north European, African, and Caribbean. Europeans immigrated primarily for economic opportunity, though some groups moved in pursuit of religious freedom or political asylum. Virtually all immigration from Africa and the Caribbean was the result of slavery — the movement of Africans and Caribbean Islanders from their native countries was entirely involuntary.

By the mid-1800s, increasing numbers of southern and eastern Europeans were immigrating to the United States. Many new groups were met with xenophobia. For example, in the second half of the 1800s, the Irish population in the U.S. exploded, and anti-Irish sentiment resulted in a plethora of discriminatory practices in housing, employment, and governance.

For much of the twentieth century, immigration was severely restricted by legislation with an isolationist philosophy. It was not until the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 that significant numbers of immigrants were once again allowed to enter the U.S. The Immigration and Nationality Act reversed laws that limited the number of immigrants who could enter from any given country, and instead put in place policies that encouraged the immigration of skilled workers and family members of U.S. citizens.

Contemporary Debates

At present, the two largest immigrant groups in the United States are Latinos and Asian-Americans. While there is general political debate surrounding immigration, the bulk focuses on Latinos. This trend is largely due to the high socio-economic status of Asian immigrants — compared to other groups, Asian immigrants tend to be well-educated, and second-generation Asian-Americans immigrants tend to have high incomes and educational attainment. Latino immigrants, on the other hand, comprise a poorer, less-educated population. Consequently, they are more vulnerable to civil rights violations and lack of legal protection.

All immigrants are affected by certain civil rights issues, though Latinos may be more vulnerable than other groups. Central issues include the low enforcement of labor laws with regards to immigrant workers who are subject to dangerous or exploitative conditions; lack of due process in the courts for residents who entered the country illegally; debates about whether languages other than English should be taught in public schools and used in government documents; and debates about whether children who entered the country illegally can be prosecuted and deported. The Dream Act is an example of recently proposed legislation that would allow children born to parents who are illegally in the U.S. to attend public universities and become citizens .Although the Dream Act has not passed as federal legislation, a California version was passed in 2011. The California DREAM (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) Act is a package of California state laws that allow children who were brought into the US under the age of 16 without proper visas/immigration documentation who have attended school on a regular basis and otherwise meet in-state tuition and GPA requirements to apply for student financial aid benefits.

Mexican-American Rights March

Mexican-American immigrants have organized many political demonstrations to protest the exploitation of workers, discrimination in education and employment, and heavy-handed criminal justice enforcement against illegal immigrants.

While illegal immigration is the most controversial issue in American politics, immigrants who enter the country legally also face civil rights challenges. Discrimination in housing, employment, and education is legally prohibited, but continues to impact many immigrants, especially those who may be vulnerable due to a language barrier or their economic status.

5.5: Affirmative Action

5.5.1: The Supreme Court and the Burden of Proof

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States and has ultimate jurisdiction over all courts that involve a contest of federal law.

Learning Objective

Describe the structure and function of the Supreme Court

Key Points

• The Supreme Court hears cases from lower courts and decides the law of the United States.
• The Court expresses its views in a legal opinion, which much have a majority opinion and may have concurrences and dissents.
• Though the Supreme Court is supposed to be politically independent, the current court’s opinions are more frequently embraced by conservatives than by liberals.

Key Terms

opinion

A statement of judicial finding that becomes law.

Supreme Court of the United States

The highest court in all of the United States, one that can hear and decide cases from all lower courts.

The Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court is the highest court in all of the United States. Any lower (more local) court can appeal a ruling to the Supreme Court. In other words, it has ultimate, but largely discretionary, appellate jurisdiction over all courts that involve a contest of federal law. The Court consists of a chief justice and eight associate justices who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate. Once appointed, justices have life tenure unless they resign, retire, or are removed after impeachment. The sitting court consists of Chief Justice John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. No replacement has been made to fill the open seat resulting from the death of justice Antonin Scalia on Feb. 13, 2016.

The U.S. Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the United States, in 2010. Top row (left to right): Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. Bottom row (left to right): Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The Supreme Court is the head the judicial branch, one of the three branches of American government (the other two being the executive branch and legislative branch). Of the three, the Supreme Court is supposed to be politically independent, and thus not wed to either the Democratic or Republican Party. However, the nomination process itself essentially ensures that some partisanship, or allegiance to a political party, appears on the Court. A partisan president nominates a justice and a partisan Senate must confirm a justice. Justices are thus categorized in legal and political circles as being judicial conservatives, moderates, or liberals. Though explicitly not for political motivations, judicial conservatives tend to confirm Republican agendas while judicial liberals tend to support Democratic aims. Ideally, their legal holdings are independent of their political views, though the degree to which this is true in practice is highly contested. The current court tends to lean conservatively in its opinions.

The Supreme Court decides which cases it would like to hear. Allowing a case to come before the court is called granting a writ of certiorari or granting cert. But for a small set of limited exceptions, the Court only hears cases that have already been reviewed by a lower court, meaning that the Supreme Court is a court of appeal. The party that lost the case in the lower court is called the petitioner and the party that won in lower court is called the respondent. The names of all of the cases that come before the court are structured as Petitioner v. Respondent, regardless of which party brought suit in the lower court. After granting cert, lawyers for each party will submit briefs, or written legal arguments, about the issues for the Court to read before oral arguments, or the time when a lawyer from each side will argue his case before all of the justices. After oral arguments, the justices will meet to discuss the case and then issue an opinion, or written statement of their findings, weeks or months later.

Not all justices have to agree on the finding of the court; in fact, they rarely unanimously agree. Instead, the justices will vote on the issues before them and the majority vote will constitute the legal opinion and law of the United States. Because of this voting process, you will frequently see the score for the vote (justices for and against). For example, in the case of Roe v. Wade (1973), the case that established federal abortion law in some instances of pregnancy became law by a vote of 7-2. The opinion will describe the justices’ reasons for voting as they did. The part of the opinion that address the majority vote and the new law of the land is called the majority opinion, while the part of the opinion that describes the rationale for the minority voters is called the dissent. One justice can write an opinion to which other justices will sign, though justices will frequently write their own opinion. When a justice that voted with the majority writes his or her own opinion, it is called a concurrence. You will frequently find opinions that contain several concurrences and dissents.

5.5.2: Referenda on Affirmative Action

Affirmative action measures, particularly those pertaining to higher education, have been politically controversial in the United States.

Learning Objective

Identify four key referenda challenging affirmative action programs

Key Points

• Affirmative action refers to the integration of minorities in higher education settings and equal opportunity employment.
• Referenda have been issued across the country so that citizens can vote on this politically controversial issue.
• California, Washington, Michigan, and Nebraska have all passed referenda to limit the use of affirmative action in their states.

Key Terms

affirmative action

A policy or program providing advantages for people of a minority group with the aim of creating a more racially equal society through preferential access to education, employment, health care, social welfare, etc.

referendum

A direct popular vote on a proposed law or constitutional amendment.

In the United States, affirmative action refers to two different institutional capacities: 1) the proactive integration of minorities in settings of higher education, possibly by the use of different admissions standards and 2) equal opportunity employment measures that federal contractors are legally required to adopt. Affirmative action measures, particularly those pertaining to higher education, have been politically controversial in the United States. Though the majority of legal discussions about affirmative action have pertained to law suits, many states have had referenda on the topic. A referendum is a direct vote in which an entire electorate (citizens of particular states, in these cases) is asked to either accept or reject a particular proposal.

Major Affirmative Action Referenda in the United States

In California, Proposition 209 (the California Civil Rights Initiative) was passed in 1996 and amended the state constitution to prohibit state government institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education. Proposition 209 was passed with 54% of the electorate approving of the initiative. The most controversial aspect of Proposition 209 was the element that applied to public education. Prior to the passage of the proposition, the University of California system had used mechanisms of affirmative action. Since the passage of Proposition 209, higher graduation rates have be been posted across all of the University of California, leading opponents of affirmative action to suggest a causal link between Proposition 209 and a better prepared student body. However, while minority graduation rates have risen, enrollment rates have decreased. Of the 4,422 student in UCLA’s class of 2006, only 100 (2.26%) were African American. Since the passage of Proposition 209, enrollment rates for African Americans and Latinos have declined significantly, while rates have increased for Asian Americans.

Protests of California’s Proposition 209

Hundreds of students protested Proposition 209 at the University of California – Berkeley.

Several other states were inspired by California’s referendum. In 1998, the state of Washington sought to prohibit racial and gender preferences by state and local government. The initiative passed with 58.22% of the vote, adding the following language to Washington’s laws: “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, or any individual group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI, or Proposition 2), was a ballot initiative that passed into Michigan Constitutional law by a 58% to 48% vote in 2006. The MCRI was legislation aimed at stopping the preferential treatment of minorities (by race, color, sex, or religion) in receiving admission to colleges, jobs, and other publicly funded institutions. However, the MCRI was overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in 2011. Bill Schutte, Attorney General for the State of Michigan, announced that he was appealing the Sixth Circuit’s decision, so the MCRI is in effect until the appeal is complete.

The Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative, or Initiative 424, was a 2008 ballot measure that proposed a constitutional amendment which would prohibit the state from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to “any individual on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” The measure, in effect, banned affirmative action at the state level. It passed with 58% of the vote.

5.5.3: Controversies Surrounding Affirmative Action

Opponents have tested affirmative action programs politically and legally through referendums and lawsuits since the 1970s.

Learning Objective

Analyze the response to the rise of affirmative action programs

Key Points

• Since the 1970s, affirmative action programs, particularly those in higher education, have been tested politically and legally by its opponents.
• Referendums have curtailed affirmative action programs in California, Michigan, Washington, and Nebraska.
• Lawsuits have also questioned the constitutionality of affirmative action programs.

Key Terms

referendum

A direct popular vote on a proposed law or constitutional amendment.

affirmative action

A policy or program providing advantages for people of a minority group with the aim of creating a more racially equal society through preferential access to education, employment, health care, social welfare, etc.

reverse racism

Racism against either a person or people of a racial majority as a result of favorable treatment given to the minority.

Since the 1970s, affirmative action programs, particularly those in higher education, have been tested politically and legally by its opponents. Proponents of affirmative action contend that affirmative action programs give minorities the same educational advantages and opportunities that should be afforded to all races and attempt to compensate for past institutional racism. Proponents further argue that affirmative action programs encourage the elimination of racism by demonstrating that people from all different backgrounds can succeed in educational and professional settings.

However, supporters of affirmative action have encountered opposition. Some opponents have tested the bases for affirmative action programs on the basis of class inequality. These opponents argue that the program actually benefits middle- and upper-class African and Hispanic Americans at the expense of lower-class European and Asian Americans. This argument supports the idea of solely-class based affirmative action or the idea that affirmative action programs should be instituted based on social class rather than race . Other opponents have tested affirmative action by arguing that these programs lower admission standards for educational and professional environments and stating that affirmative action is a form of reverse racism, by which Caucasians are disadvantaged in the same way that minorities were in the past.

Justice Clarence Thomas

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has argued that affirmative action programs disadvantage minority students because others think that they achieved success due to affirmative action rather than their own merits.

Opponents of affirmative action have tried to disassemble affirmative action programs. States such as California, Michigan, Washington, and Nebraska have held a referendums, turning the issue over to voters on a direct ballot measure. In all four of these states, voters demanded that state institutions, including public institutions of higher education, disband all programs that take race and ethnicity into account for admissions. Affirmative action programs have engendered lawsuits disputing their constitutionality. These suits are normally sought by Caucasian students who were not admitted to institutions of higher education while lower scoring minority students were admitted. The most famous of these cases include Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), Hopwood v. Texas (1996), Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), and Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2006). Each of these cases has more narrowly defined the instances in which public schools can factor race into account in admissions.

5.5.4: Strict Scrutiny

The legal standard of strict scrutiny, the most stringent standard of judicial review, must be used in all court cases involving affirmative action.

Learning Objective

Describe the three tests a law faces under a strict scrutiny standard

Key Points

• Courts employ different legal standards to evaluate the constitutionality of legal claims; all cases of affirmative action must pass the strict scrutiny test.
• To pass the strict scrutiny test, the state must demonstrate that the state has a compelling governmental interest in the program or law, that the law or program is narrowly tailored to suit the compelling governmental interest, and that the state is using the least restrictive means.
• The court must use the strict scrutiny test because affirmative action programs constitute suspect classification, or preferential treatment based on race.

Key Terms

suspect classification

When the government classifies individuals along racial lines and treats minority populations differently than the majority population.

strict scrutiny

The most stringent standard of legal review in American courts, used to evaluate the constitutionality of laws and government programs.

constitutional

Conforming to the constitution.

Strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of judicial review used in American courts . It is part of the hierarchy of standards that courts use to weigh the government’s interest against a constitutional right or principle. The other members of the hierarchy of standards are, at the lowest level, “rational basis review” and, at the intermediate level, “intermediate scrutiny.”

Strict Scrutiny

Courts must use strict scrutiny to evaluate affirmative action programs.

Strict scrutiny is the standard that is employed in litigating affirmative action cases. Strict scrutiny is applied by judges in these cases because they give preferential treatment to a class of citizens–racial minorities. Whether the treatment is justified or not is politically contentious, but the treatment is recognized as legally preferential. Because affirmative action programs do not treat citizens equally, the implementation of affirmative action programs must pass the strict scrutiny standard for the programs to be constitutional, or legal and in accordance with the law and principles outlined in the American Constitution.

Judges apply strict scrutiny tests when a case regarding affirmative action come before them. In other words, in order to determine the constitutionality of the contested program, the judge must determine whether or not the program meets the standards of a strict scrutiny test. To meet these standards, the law or program must satisfy three tests:

1. The program must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. This concept refers to something that is necessary or crucial for the functioning of the state, rather than just something that the state wants. An example of a compelling governmental interest would be national security. Whether or not the state has a compelling governmental interest in the incorporation of minority students in places of public education is a key question in any affirmative action case coming before the court.
2. The law or program must be narrowly tailored to achieve the state’s compelling governmental interest. For example, even if the court found that states had a compelling governmental interest in incorporating minority students, the state would have to demonstrate that its program only incorporated eligible candidates. A person could not be admitted to an institution of higher education simply because of his racial background.
3. The law or program must use the least restrictive means for achieving the state’s compelling governmental interest; that is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling governmental interest.

When the court uses the strict scrutiny standard to evaluate affirmative action cases, the court is employing the standard because the court must do so in every case of suspect classification. These are cases in which a petitioner is questioning the state’s categorization and treatment of a particular minority group of citizens. Affirmative action cases fall in this category. For the classification to be constitutional, the class must have experienced a history of discrimination, must be definable as a group, must have limited political powers, and its characteristic must have little relationship to the government’s policy aims or the ability of the group’s members to contribute to society. The Supreme Court has consistently found that classification based on race, national origin, and alienage require strict scrutiny review. Thus, it is used in all legal contestations of affirmative action.

5.5.5: The Diversity Debate

Debates over affirmative action center around the question of whether diversity in the classroom merits a program of state intervention.

Learning Objective

Reconstruct frequently-made arguments for and against affirmative action in higher education

Key Points

• Debates about affirmative action question the need and usefulness of state schemes for racial integration in the classroom.
• Brown v. Board of Education made it illegal to segregate public education; affirmative action programs claim that the government needs to be proactive in integrating minorities.
• Opponents of affirmative action claim that the program encourages a sensitivity to race rather than the development of a colorblind world.

Key Terms

affirmative action

A policy or program providing advantages for people of a minority group with the aim of creating a more racially equal society through preferential access to education, employment, health care, social welfare, etc.

Brown v. Board of Education

The Supreme Court case that ruled segregated education unconstitutional.

Racial diversity in American schools remains a contentious political issue. Should public schools go out of their way to attract minority students? Does the government have a serious interest in the balancing of racial populations in education? Does a racially diverse classroom support educational goals? These questions are at the heart of the debate over affirmative action.

The institutional practice of slavery, and later segregation, in the United States prevented certain racial groups from entering the school system, particularly systems of higher education, until midway through the 20^th century when the Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education forbade racially segregated education. The Court ruled that school segregation stunted the educational development of minority children. Though Brown became law, most counties in the Southern United States did not fully integrate their schools until the 1970s.

Affirmative action programs in higher education are, of course, different from the desegregation programs of the mid-twentieth century. In affirmative action programs, the state goes beyond ensuring de jure equality for racial minorities in public education and makes strides to create conditions for de facto equality. Supporters of affirmative action believe that these types of proactive programs prove that all students benefit from racial diversity in the class room, and that institutional forms of racism have precluded members of the minority community from entering spaces of higher education. Some believe that racial and ethnic diversity in schools fosters understanding of new cultures and beliefs systems, dispelling stereotypes held by the majority population . Since the mid-twentieth century, researchers have found that benefits of racial diversity in schools range from higher reading levels, increased likelihood of high school graduation, positive impact on work aspirations and higher educational attainment, greater interaction with other racial groups and creation of interracial friendships in adult life, and higher desire to live and work in racially diverse environments.

Diversity in Education

Supporters of affirmative action programs posit that all students benefit from diversity in schools.

In addition to the perceived legal obstacles to the implementation of affirmative action programs, some opponents of affirmative action believe that race-conscious approaches to diversity in the classroom are harmful. They perceive little correlation between racial diversity in the classroom and increased performance by minority students. These theorists believe that focusing on race in diversity policies creates a heightened awareness of racial difference and perpetuates discrimination. Rather, these individuals usually support colorblind policies to instill the norm that skin color does not matter.

5.5.6: The Supreme Court Revisits Affirmative Action

The first affirmative action case to come before the Supreme Court dealt with affirmative action in employment.

Learning Objective

Summarize the facts of the case Griggs v. Duke Power

Key Points

• As a concept, affirmative action developed in relation to employment and only later was applied to institutions of higher education.
• The first court case addressing affirmative action was Griggs v. Duke Power Co. in 1971.
• The Supreme Court held that Duke’s hiring tests, which disadvantaged minority candidates, were not reasonably related to the job at hand and thus unconstitutional.

Key Terms

Griggs v. Duke Power Co.

The first Supreme Court case in the US to address affirmative action in 1971.

affirmative action

A policy or program providing advantages for people of a minority group with the aim of creating a more racially equal society through preferential access to education, employment, health care, social welfare, etc.

Though the current debate over affirmative actionin the United States generally refers to affirmative action programs in admissions to institutions of higher education, the term originally developed in regard to actions to proactively hire candidates from minority backgrounds. Examples of affirmative action programs offered by the US Department of Labor include outreach campaigns, targeted recruitment, employee and management development, and employee support programs. In broad terms, affirmative action programs in employment refer to the preferential treatment of minority employees in the hiring or management process.

The first Supreme Court cases adjudicating affirmative action dealt with affirmative action in cases of employment. The first court case in the United States over affirmative action was Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, in 1971. In the 1950s, Duke Power’s Dan River plan had a policy that African-Americans were allowed to work only in its Labor Department, which constituted the lowest-paying positions in the company. In 1955, a time when even public education served as a barrier between whites and African Americans, the company added the requirement of a high school diploma for its higher jobs. After the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, the company removed the racial restriction, but retained the high school diploma requirement, and added the requirement of an IQ test, with the racist belief that African Americans would score lower than whites on an IQ test. African Americans were far less likely to be hired than white candidates. It was found that white people who had been working at the firm for some time but met neither of the new requirements performed their jobs as well as those that did meet the requirements.

The court ruled that Duke Power’s employment requirements did not pertain to applicants’ abilities to perform the job and so was discriminating against African-American employees, even if Duke Power hadn’t intended for the policy to have that effect . The Supreme Court ruled that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, if the IQ and diploma tests disparately impacted ethnic minority groups, businesses must demonstrate that such tests are “reasonably related” to the job for which the test is required. Duke Power’s requirements did not pass this legal standard, and thus the case was decided against Duke Power.

Chief Justice Burger

Chief Justice Warren E. Burger authored the opinion of the court in Briggs v. Duke Power Co. in 1971.

5.5.7: State Initiatives Against Affirmative Action

States and the federal government have argued about the appropriate implementation of affirmative action policies.

Learning Objective

Assess the relationship between states and the federal government in matters related to affirmative action

Key Points

• States have sought to limit the federal government’s implementation of affirmative action policies.
• The most effective state actions against affirmative action have occurred through referenda.
• The federal government has pushed back against state opposition to affirmative action policies.

Key Terms

referendum

A direct popular vote on a proposed law or constitutional amendment.

Griggs v. Duke Power Company

The 1971 Supreme Court case in which the federal government first adjudicated affirmative action, ruling that states cannot limit access to employment for minorities; limitations for employment must be related to work performance.

Following the decision of Griggs v. Duke Power Company, the first court case to assess affirmative action in employment that made it to the Supreme Court in 1971, states took action to limit the application of affirmative action programs in their jurisdictions. This case decided for the minority petitioners, asserting that companies could not impose policies that raised obstacles for minority applicants so long as the the fulfillment of the policies were not reasonably related to job performance. States sought to limit the reach of federal policies regulating employment standards.

However, the scope of affirmative action debates soon extended beyond employment and entered the domain of higher education. Opponents to affirmative action have been even more vociferous about the use of affirmative action in higher education than when affirmative action pertains to employment policies. Since 1996, citizens of Arizona, Nebraska, California, Michigan, and Washington have all sponsored referendums to limit the legality of affirmative action policies . Since voters passed the referenda, the law in Michigan has been put on hold while the Michigan courts assess the constitutionality of voters’ limitations.

State Initiatives Against Affirmative Action

State referenda have been the most successful way for opponents of affirmative action to limit its reach.

Since the implementation of state policies resisting affirmative action programs, the federal government has pushed back to ensure that affirmative action policies are implemented. In 1973, the U.S. Congress passed Section 717 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, both of which require all U.S. federal agencies to implement affirmative employment opportunity programs for all federal employees. In 1979, President Carter issued U.S. Executive Order 12138, creating a National Women’s Business Enterprise Policy and requiring government agencies to take affirmative action in support of women’s business enterprises. As for the judicial branch, in 1995, the Supreme Court heard Adarand Constructors v. Peña, which established strict scrutiny standards of review for race and ethnicity-based federal affirmative action programs.

Thus, one can see that affirmative action policies and programs have gone back and forth between the states and federal government, typically with state voters trying to limit the reach of affirmative action and the federal government insisting on implementation.

5.5.8: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

The 1978 Supreme Court case Bakke was the first case before the Court of affirmative action in higher education.

Learning Objective

Analyze the Supreme Court’s decision in Bakke v. University of California (Davis)

Key Points

• Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) was the first case before the U.S. Supreme Court that evaluated the constitutionality of affirmative action programs in admissions for higher education.
• Bakke held that universities could use affirmative action in admissions and consider racial background “a plus,” but could not establish quota systems like that in place in Bakke.
• The Bakke holding was confusing and far from unanimous. It opened space for decades of further debate over affirmative action in higher education.

Key Terms

quota systems

An affirmative action program in which a certain number of spots in any class of higher education or employment are reserved for minority applicants.

affirmative action

A policy or program providing advantages for people of a minority group with the aim of creating a more racially equal society through preferential access to education, employment, health care, social welfare, etc.

In 1973, Allan Bakke, a 33-year-old white male, applied to 12 medical schools. He had been a National Merit Scholar in high school and graduated from the University of Minnesota with a GPA of 3.51. Bakke had served in Vietnam. After college, he and went on to work as an engineer at NASA. Bakke said that his interest in medicine began while serving in Vietnam and increased at NASA, as he had to consider the problems of space flight for the human body. All 12 schools rejected his application, including the University of California, Davis School of Medicine .

University of California, Davis School of Medicine

Bakke was adjudicated as a result of the 1970’s admissions policies of the University of California, Davis School of Medicine.

At that time, UC Davis was employing an overt form of affirmative action. The school had 100 seats available to applicants, 16 of which were specifically for “Blacks,” “Asians,” “Chicanos,” and “American Indians” under an affirmative action program. By siphoning off these 16 spaces, UC Davis created a separate admissions process for those 16 seats alone. Bakke sued the Regents of the University of California based on the fact that these 16 seats were off limits for him based on race and that minorities had been admitted to fill these 16 seats with lower academic scores than Bakke. He sued to have the state force UC Davis to admit him.

The Supreme Court heard the case in 1978. There were two main issues before the Court: 1) Was it illegal and unconstitutional under Section VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for Bakke’s to be excluded from consideration in UC Davis Medical School special admissions program for minorities? And 2) If Bakke’s exclusion was unconstitutional, should UC Davis be required to admit him?

The strongest contention by the University of California in countering the law suit was the justification of affirmative action by the good of diversity in the classroom. UC Davis’s admissions procedure was designed to increase diversity. UC Davis maintained that the program had originally been developed to 1) reduce the historic deficit of traditionally disfavored minorities in medical schools and the medical profession, 2) counter the effects of societal discrimination, 3) increase the number of physicians who will practice in under served communities, and 4) obtain the educational benefits that flow from a racially diverse student body.

Though fragmented and far from a unanimous decision, the Court ultimately held that affirmative action programs are constitutional. However,quota systems, such as that established by UC Davis, were unconstitutional. In other words, the state could enact programs that preference the applications of minority candidates in the name of campus diversity, but could not reserve a certain number of seats for minority applicants and use an entirely different admissions process.

Bakke is significant for its holding and for the role of the decision in the adjudication of affirmative action. Bakke was the first case the Supreme Court decided that referenced affirmative action policies in higher education. Further, the nuances and confusions surrounding the Bakke decision set the stage for decades of future adjudication over affirmative action. The Court did not establish a precise ruling, but rather opened the door for future debates.

5.5.9: The End of Affirmative Action?

Since Bakke, the Supreme Court has been questioning the constitutionality of affirmative action programs.

Learning Objective

Analyze the two affirmative action cases in which the University of Michigan was involved in the early 2000s

Key Points

• In 2003, Gratz v. Bollinger held that the use of point systems in college admissions, where certain races are given a high number of points, are unconstitutional.
• In 2003, Grutter v. Bollinger held that the consideration of race in law school admissions without a point or quota system is constitutional.
• In 2012, the Court will hear Fisher v. University of Texas which could dismantle the use of affirmative action in public, higher education programs in the US.
• In the United States, multiculturalism is not clearly established in policy at the federal level, but ethnic diversity is common in both rural and urban areas.
• The idea of the Melting pot is a metaphor that implies that all the immigrant cultures are mixed and amalgamated without state intervention.
• Critics of multiculturalism often debate whether the multicultural ideal of benignly co-existing cultures that interrelate and influence one another, and yet remain distinct, is sustainable, paradoxical, or even desirable.

Key Terms

Fisher v. University of Texas

A court case coming before the Supreme Court in 2012 that has the potential to dismantle affirmative action in public education.

Grutter v. Bollinger

A 2003 Supreme Court case that found that considering race without a point or quota system in law school admissions is constitutional.

Gratz v. Bollinger

A 2003 Supreme Court case in which the court held that giving race a certain number of points in admissions decisions at the University of Michigan College of Literature, Science, and Arts was unconstitutional.

Multiculturalism in America

Multiculturalism relates to communities containing multiple cultures. In the United States, multiculturalism is not clearly established in policy at the federal level, but ethnic diversity is common in both rural and urban areas. Continuous mass immigration was a feature of the United States economy and society since the first half of the 19th century. The absorption of the stream of immigrants became, in itself, a prominent feature of America’s national myth. The idea of the Melting pot is a metaphor that implies that all the immigrant cultures are mixed and amalgamated without state intervention

Critics of multiculturalism often debate whether the multicultural ideal of benignly co-existing cultures that interrelate and influence one another, and yet remain distinct, is sustainable, paradoxical, or even desirable. It is argued that Nation states, who would previously have been synonymous with a distinctive cultural identity of their own, lose out to enforced multiculturalism and that this ultimately erodes the host nations’ distinct culture.

Affirmative Action in America

Since the case of Regents of the University of California v.Bakke in 1978, several Supreme Court cases have revisited questions of affirmative action in higher education. The majority of these cases have limited universities’ abilities to incorporate race into admissions .

In 2003, the Supreme Court heard the case of Gratz v. Bollinger, regarding the undergraduate admissions policies of the College of Literature, Science, and Arts at the University of Michigan. The University of Michigan used a 150-point scale to rank applicants, with 100 points needed to guarantee admission. The University gave underrepresented ethnic groups, including African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans an automatic 20-point bonus on the scale. As a point of comparison, a perfect SAT score was worth 12 points. After being denied admission, Jennifer Gratz filed suit on the basis that the University of Michigan’s point system discriminated against her on the basis of race, as she belonged to none of the specified minority groups. The Supreme Court held that the university could still consider race in college admissions, but that the University of Michigan’s ranking and point system was unconstitutional because it gave an automatic point increase to all racial minorities rather than considering what a specific individual could contribute to campus life.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule again on affirmative action in the upcoming term in the case of Fisher v. University of Texas. The case is brought by Abigail Fisher after she was denied admission to the University of Texas at Austin. UT Austin guarantees admission to the top 10% of students in every high school class, regardless of race. Fisher was not in the top 10% and was therefore evaluated based on her merits. She contends that race plays too great of a role in the decision making for students outside of the 10% rule.

The Supreme Court Building

Since Bakke in 1978, the Supreme Court has slowly been limiting the types of affirmative action programs that are deemed constitutional.

4.2: The First Amendment: The Right to Freedom of Religion, Expression, Press, and Assembly

4.2.1: The First Amendment

Learning Objective

Compare and contrast civil rights with civil liberties with respect to the First Amendment

Key Points

• The First Amendment protects Americans’ rights to religious freedom. As part of this, the US cannot establish a religion nor prevent free exercise of religion.
• The First Amendment protects Americans’ rights to the freedom of speech, press, assembly, and petition.
• Originally, the First Amendment applied only to the federal government. However, Gitlow v. New York (1925) used provisions found in the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the First Amendment to the states as well.
• Some of the rights protected in the First Amendment have roots in other countries’ declarations of rights. In particular, the English Bill of Rights, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, and the Philippine Constitution all have similar elements to the First Amendment.
• Clear and present danger was a doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States to determine under what circumstances limits can be placed on First Amendment freedoms of speech, press or assembly.
• In the 1919 case Schenck v. United States the Supreme Court held that an anti-war activist did not have a First Amendment right to speak out against the draft.

Key Terms

French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen

A fundamental document of the French Revolution and in the history of human rights, defining the individual and collective rights of all the estates of the realm as universal.

First Amendment

The first of ten amendments to the constitution of the United States, which protects freedom of religion, speech, assembly, and the press.

civil liberties

Civil rights and freedoms such as the freedom from enslavement, freedom from torture and right to a fair trial.

The First Amendment

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and protects American civil liberties. The amendment prohibits the making of any law pertaining to an establishment of a federal or state religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press , interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances .

Vietnam War Protest in Washington D.C., April, 1971

The First Amendment established the right to assemble as a core American liberty, as is depicted here in a Vietnam-era assembly.

Freedom of the Press Worldwide

The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to a free press. This is something that many other countries do not enjoy, as this map illustrates.

The text of the First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. “

Anti-war protests during World War I gave rise to several important free speech cases related to sedition and inciting violence. Clear and present danger was a doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States to determine under what circumstances limits can be placed on First Amendment freedoms of speech, press or assembly. Before the twentieth century, most free speech issues involved prior restraint. Starting in the early 1900s, the Supreme Court began to consider cases in which persons were punished after speaking or publishing.

In the 1919 case Schenck v. United States the Supreme Court held that an anti-war activist did not have a First Amendment right to speak out against the draft. The clear and present danger test was established by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in the unanimous opinion for the case Schenck v. United States, concerning the ability of the government to regulate speech against the draft during World War I. Following Schenck v. United States, “clear and present danger” became both a public metaphor for First Amendment speech and a standard test in cases before the Court where a United States law limits a citizen’s First Amendment rights; the law is deemed to be constitutional if it can be shown that the language it prohibits poses a “clear and present danger.

Incorporating the First Amendment

Originally, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York (1925), the Supreme Court has applied the First Amendment to each state. This was done through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . The Court has also recognized a series of exceptions to provisions protecting the freedom of speech.

14th Amendment of the United States Constitution

The Fourteenth Amendment, depicted here, allowed for the incorporation of the First Amendment against the states.

Background to the First Amendment

Opposition to the ratification of the Constitution was partly based on the Constitution’s lack of adequate guarantees for civil liberties. To provide such guarantees, the First Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, was submitted to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789, and adopted on December 15, 1791.

Comparing the First Amendment to Other Rights Protection Instruments

Some provisions of the United States Bill of Rights have their roots in similar documents from England, France, and the Philippines. The English Bill of Rights, however, does not include many of the protections found in the First Amendment. For example, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech to the general populace but the English Bill of Rights protected only free speech in Parliament . A French revolutionary document, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, passed just weeks before Congress proposed the Bill of Rights, contains certain guarantees that are similar to those in the First Amendment. Parts of the Constitution of the Philippines, written in 1987, contain identical wording to the First Amendment regarding speech and religion. Echoing Jefferson’s famous phrase, all three constitutions, in the section on Principles, contain the sentence, “The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable”.

English Bill of Rights

The US Bill of Rights drew many of its First Amendment provisions from other countries’ bill of rights, such as the English Bill of Rights. However, the US Bill of Rights established more liberties than the English Bill of Rights.

Although the First Amendment does not explicitly set restrictions on freedom of speech, other declarations of rights occasionally do. For example, The European Convention on Human Rights permits restrictions “in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. ” Similarly, the Constitution of India allows “reasonable” restrictions upon free speech to serve “public order, security of State, decency or morality. “

Lastly, the First Amendment was one of the first guarantees of religious freedom: neither the English Bill of Rights nor the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen contain a similar guarantee.

4.2.2: Freedom of Religion

Learning Objective

Summarize the meaning of “freedom of religion” in the U.S. constitution

Key Points

• The protection of religious freedom is laid out in the First Amendment, which states that Congress cannot establish a state religion nor prohibit free exercise of religion.
• The Establishment Clause prevents the U.S. from creating a state or national religion, from favoring one religion over another, or entangling the government with religion.
• The Free Exercise Clause gives all Americans the right to practice their religion freely, without interference or persecution by the government.

Key Terms

Bill of Rights

The collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.

freedom of religion

The right of citizens to hold any religious or non-religious beliefs, and to carry out any practices in accordance with those beliefs, so long as they do not interfere with another person’s legal or civil rights, or any reasonable laws, without fear of harm or prosecution.

civil liberties

Civil rights and freedoms such as the freedom from enslavement, freedom from torture and right to a fair trial.

The First Amendment

In the United States, freedom of religion is a constitutionally guaranteed right , laid out in the Bill of Rights. The following religious civil liberties are guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. ” Thus, freedom of religion in the U.S. has two parts: the prohibition on the establishment of a state religion, and the right of all citizens to practice their religion.

Monument to the Right to Worship

This monument in Washington, DC honors the right to worship. The inscription reads, “Our liberty of worship is not a concession nor a privilege, but an inherent right. “

No U.S. State Religion

Many countries have made one religion into the established (official) church, and support it with government funds . In what is called the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”), Congress is forbidden from setting up, or in any way providing for, an established church. It has been interpreted to forbid government endorsement of, or aid to, religious doctrines. The Federal Government may not establish a national church or religion or excessively involve itself in religion, particularly to the benefit of one religion over another.

No State Religion

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the creation of a state religion in the U.S. Other countries have had state religions; for instance, the Church of England once dominated religious and political life (former Anglican church depicted here).

Freedom to Practice Religion

In addition to the rights afforded under the Establishment Clause, the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects the rights of citizens to practice their religions. This clause states that Congress cannot “prohibit the free exercise” of religious practices.

Incorporation of the First Amendment

The Supreme Court has interpreted the 14^th Amendment as applying the First Amendment’s provisions on the freedom of religion to states as well as to the Federal Government. Therefore, states must guarantee freedom of religion in the same way the Federal Government must. Many states have freedom of religion established in their constitution, though the exact legal consequences of this right vary for historical and cultural reasons.

Most states interpret “freedom of religion” as including the freedom of long-established religious communities to remain intact and not be destroyed. By extension, democracies interpret “freedom of religion” as the right of each individual to freely choose to convert from one religion to another, mix religions, or abandon religion altogether.

4.2.3: The Establishment Clause: Separation of Church and State

Learning Objective

Distinguish the Establishment Clause from other clauses of the First Amendment

Key Points

• The Establishment Clause prohibits the creation of a national religion, and also prohibits the US government from favoring one religion over another or excessively entangling itself with religious issues or groups.
• Thomas Jefferson is often cited as being the one who introduced the concept of the separation of church and state.
• The Establishment Clause has been incorporated against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the process has been tricky, as it is argued that the Fourteenth Amendment speaks to individual rights, while the Establishment Clause does not.
• The Supreme Court has made judgments on three main questions: can the US government give financial assistance to religious groups? Is state-sanctioned prayer in public schools acceptable? Are religious displays in government-affiliated places acceptable?
• The “Lemon Test,” established by Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) provided a three-part test for determining whether or not a law or act violates the Establishment Clause.

Key Terms

Lemon Test

a method of measuring weather a government action violates the Establishment Clause of the United States’ constitution concerning religion. To pass the test, the action must have a secular legislative purpose, must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.

Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743 (April 2, 1743 O.S.) – July 4, 1826) was an American Founding Father, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the third President of the United States (1801–1809).

First Amendment

The first of ten amendments to the constitution of the United States, which protects freedom of religion, speech, assembly, and the press.

separation of church and state

The distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state.

establishment clause

a pronouncement in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which prohibits both the establishment of a national religion by Congress, and the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another

The Establishment Clause

The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. ” Together with the Free Exercise Clause (“… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”), these two clauses make up what are called the “religion clauses” of the First Amendment.

The Establishment Clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit (1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or (2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the “separation” or “no aid” interpretation, while the second approach is called the “non-preferential” or “accommodation” interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government’s entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

The “Wall of Separation”

Thomas Jefferson wrote that the First Amendment erected a “wall of separation between church and state”, likely borrowing the language from Roger Williams, founder of the Colony of Rhode Island . James Madison, often regarded as the “Father of the Bill of Rights”, also often wrote of the “perfect separation”, “line of separation”, and “total separation of the church from the state. “

Thomas Jefferson

Founding Father and Third President of the United States. Thomas Jefferson’s phrase “the wall of separation,” is often quoted in debates on the Establishment Clause and the separation of church and state.

Incorporation of the Establishment Clause

Incorporation of the Establishment Clause in 1947 has been tricky and subject to much more critique than incorporation of the Free Exercise Clause. The controversy surrounding Establishment Clause incorporation primarily stems from the fact that one of the intentions of the Establishment Clause was to prevent Congress from interfering with state establishments of religion that existed at the time of the founding.

Critics have also argued that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is understood to incorporate only individual rights found in the Bill of Rights; the Establishment Clause, unlike the Free Exercise Clause (which critics readily concede protects individual rights), does not purport to protect individual rights.

Controversy Over the Establishment Clause

Controversy rages in the United States between those who wish to restrict government involvement with religious institutions and remove religious references from government institutions and property, and those who wish to loosen such prohibitions. Advocates for stronger separation of church and state emphasize the plurality of faiths and non-faiths in the country, and what they see as broad guarantees of the federal Constitution. Their opponents emphasize what they see as the largely Christian heritage and history of the nation (often citing the references to “Nature’s God” and the “Creator” of men in the Declaration of Independence).

Main Questions of the Establishment Clause

One main question of the Establishment Clause is: does government financial assistance to religious groups violate the Establishment Clause? The Supreme Court first considered this issue in Bradfield v. Roberts (1899). The federal government had funded a hospital operated by a Roman Catholic institution. In that case, the Court ruled that the funding was to a secular organization—the hospital—and was therefore permissible.

Another main question is: should state-sanctioned prayer or religion in public schools be allowed? The Supreme Court has consistently held fast to the rule of strict separation of church and state in this issue. In Engel v. Vitale (1962) the Court ruled that government-imposed nondenominational prayer in public school was unconstitutional. In Lee v. Weisman (1992), the Court ruled prayer established by a principal at a middle school graduation was also unconstitutional, and in Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000) it ruled that school officials may not directly or indirectly impose student-led prayer during high school football games .

Pledge of Allegiance

In 2002, controversy centered on a California court case that struck down a law providing for the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance (which includes the phrase “under God”) in classrooms. Congress and the Supreme Court eventually overturned the ruling, demonstrating the controversy that exists in the interpretations of the Establishment Clause.

Lastly, are religious displays in public places allowed under the Establishment Clause? The inclusion of religious symbols in public holiday displays came before the Supreme Court in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), and again in Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU (1989). In the former case, the Court upheld a public display, ruling that any benefit to religion was “indirect, remote, and incidental. ” In Allegheny County, however, the Court struck down a display that had more overt religious themes .

Religious Displays

In 2001, the Chief Justice of Alabama installed a monument to the Ten Commandments in the state judicial building (pictured here). In 2003, a court case determined that this was not allowed under the Establishment Clause.

The Lemon Test

The distinction between force of government and individual liberty is the cornerstone of such cases. Each case restricts acts by government designed to establish a religion, while affirming peoples’ individual freedom to practice their religions. The Court has therefore tried to determine a way to deal with church/state questions. In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Court created a three part test for laws dealing with religious establishment. This determined that a law related to religious practices was constitutional if it:

1. Had a secular purpose;
2. Neither advanced nor inhibited religion; and,
3. Did not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

4.2.4: The Free Exercise Clause: Freedom of Religion

Learning Objective

Describe how the interpretation of the Free Exercise clause has changed over time.

Key Points

• The Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause (which essentially establishes the separation of church and state), compose the provisions on religious freedom in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
• The interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause has narrowed and widened throughout the past decades. In the late 1800s, the Supreme Court took the view that it acceptable for the government to pass neutral laws that may incidentally impact certain religions.
• During the time of the Warren Court in the 1960s, the Supreme Court took the view that there must be a “compelling interest” in order for religious freedom to be restricted.
• In the 1990s, the Supreme Court moved away from this strict interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause, and removed the idea that there had to be a “compelling interest” in order to violate religious freedom.
• Jehovah Witnesses have been involved in a lot of litigation related to the Free Exercise Clause and, consequently, have helped define its limits.

Key Terms

strict scrutiny

The most stringent standard of legal review in American courts, used to evaluate the constitutionality of laws and government programs.

Warren Court

The Supreme Court of the United States between 1953 and 1969, when Earl Warren served as Chief Justice. Warren led a liberal majority that used judicial power in dramatic fashion, expanding civil rights, civil liberties, judicial power, and the federal power.

Jehovah’s Witnesses

A monotheistic and nontrinitarian Restoration Christian denomination founded in 1879 as a small Bible study group.

free exercise clause

the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits Congress from interfering with the practices of any religion

The Free Exercise Clause

The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Thus, the Establishment Clause prevents the US from establishing or advocating for a specific religion, while the Free Exercise clause is intended to ensure the rights of Americans to practice their religions without state intervention . The Supreme Court has consistently held, however, that the right to free exercise of religion is not absolute, and that it is acceptable for the government to limit free exercise in some cases.

Church and Political Socialization

Participation in organized religion or church attendance can be another important source of political socialization, as churches often teach certain political values.

Interpreting the Free Exercise Clause

The history of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause follows a broad arc, beginning with approximately 100 years of little attention. Then it took on a relatively narrow view of the governmental restrictions required under the clause. The 1960s saw it grow into a much broader view and later receding again.

In 1878, the Supreme Court was first called to interpret the extent of the Free Exercise Clause in Reynolds v. United States, as related to the prosecution of polygamy under federal law. The Supreme Court upheld Reynolds’ conviction for bigamy, deciding that to do otherwise would provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as human sacrifice. This case, which also revived Thomas Jefferson’s statement regarding the “wall of separation” between church and state, introduced the position that although religious exercise is generally protected under the First Amendment, this does not prevent the government from passing neutral laws that incidentally impact certain religious practices.

This interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause continued into the 1960s. With the ascendancy of the Warren Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren, a new standard of “strict scrutiny” in various areas of civil rights law was applied. The Court established many requirements that had to be met for any restrictions of religious freedom. For example, in Sherbert v. Verner (1963), the Supreme Court required states to meet the “strict scrutiny” standard when refusing to accommodate religiously motivated conduct. This meant that a government needed to have a “compelling interest” regarding such a refusal. The case involved Adele Sherbert, who was denied unemployment benefits by South Carolina because she refused to work on Saturdays, something forbidden by her Seventh-day Adventist faith.

This view of the Free Exercise Clause would begin to narrow again in the 1980s, culminating in the 1990 case of Employment Division v. Smith. Examining a state prohibition on the use of peyote, the Supreme Court upheld the law despite the drug’s use as part of a religious ritual . In 1993, the Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which sought to restore the compelling interest requirement applied in Sherbert v. Yoder. In another case in 1997, the Court struck down the provisions of the Act on the grounds that, while the Congress could enforce the Supreme Court’s interpretation of a constitutional right, the Congress could not impose its own interpretation on states and localities.

Peyote Cactus

Native Americans used peyote (a cactus that has psychedelic effects when ingested) in spiritual rituals. In 1990, the Supreme Court banned the use of this drug, demonstrating a move away from the requirement to show “compelling interest” before limiting religious freedom.

Jehovah’s Witnesses Cases

During the twentieth century, many major cases involving the Free Exercise Clause were related to Jehovah’s Witnesses . Many communities directed laws against the Witnesses and their preaching work. From 1938 to 1955, the organization was involved in over forty cases before the Supreme Court, winning a majority of them. For example, the first important victory came in 1938 with Lovell v. City of Griffin. The Supreme Court held that cities could not require permits for the distribution of pamphlets.

Jehovah’s Witnesses

The specific beliefs and practices (such as a belief in door-to-door proselytizing, depicted here) of the Jehovah’s Witnesses has meant that Jehovah’s Witnesses’ litigation has played a key role in defining the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

4.2.5: Freedom of Speech

Learning Objective

Explain how freedom of speech is protected by the United States Constitution

Key Points

• The Bill of Right’s provision on the freedom of speech was incorporated against the states in Gitlow v. New York (1925).
• Core political speech, expressive speech, and most types of commercial speech are protected under the First Amendment.
• Certain types of speech (particularly, speech that can harm others) is not protected, such as obscenity, fighting words, true threats, child pornography, defamation, or invasion of privacy. Speech related to national security or state secrets may also not be protected.

Key Terms

defamation

Act of injuring another’s reputation by any slanderous communication, written or oral; the wrong of maliciously injuring the good name of another; slander; detraction; calumny; aspersion.

fighting words

agressive words that forseeably may lead to potentially violent confrontation; in law, often considered mitigation for otherwise sanctionable behavior (fighting)

freedom of speech

The right of citizens to speak, or otherwise communicate, without fear of harm or prosecution.

prior restraint

censorship imposed, usually by a government, on expression before the expression actually takes place

slander

a false, malicious statement (spoken or published), especially one which is injurious to a person’s reputation; the making of such a statement

Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions as well.

Protesting for Freedom of Speech

This individual is protesting for the right to speak freely. Freedom of speech is a closely guarded liberty in American society.

The freedom of speech is not absolute. The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are excluded, and it has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech.

Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy are almost always permitted. There are exceptions to these general protections. Within these limited areas, other limitations on free speech balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as rights for authors and inventors over their works and discoveries (copyright and patent), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are often made between speech and other acts which may have symbolic significance.

Despite the exceptions, the legal protections of the First Amendment are some of the broadest of any industrialized nation, and remain a critical, and occasionally controversial, component of American jurisprudence.

Incorporation of Freedom of Speech

Although the text of the Amendment prohibits only the United States Congress from enacting laws that abridge the freedom of speech, the Supreme Court used the incorporation doctrine in Gitlow v. New York (1925) to also prohibit state legislatures from enacting such laws.

Protected Speech

The following types of speech are protected:

1. Core political speech. Political speech is the most highly guarded form of speech because of its purely expressive nature and importance to a functional republic. Restrictions placed upon core political speech must weather strict scrutiny analysis or they will be struck down.
2. Commercial speech. Not wholly outside the protection of the First Amendment is speech motivated by profit, or commercial speech. Such speech still has expressive value although it is being uttered in a marketplace ordinarily regulated by the state.
3. Expressive speech. The Supreme Court has recently taken the view that freedom of expression by non-speech means is also protected under the First Amendment. In 1968 (United States v. O’Brien) the Supreme Court stated that regulating non-speech can justify limitations on speech.

Type of Free Speech Restrictions

The Supreme Court has recognized several different types of laws that restrict speech, and subjects each type of law to a different level of scrutiny.

1. Content-based restrictions. Restrictions that require examining the content of speech to be applied must pass strict scrutiny. Restrictions that apply to certain viewpoints but not others face the highest level of scrutiny, and are usually overturned, unless they fall into one of the court’s special exceptions.
2. Time, place, or manner restrictions. Time, place, or manner restrictions must withstand intermediate scrutiny. Note that any regulations that would force speakers to change how or what they say do not fall into this category (so the government cannot restrict one medium even if it leaves open another).
3. Prior restraint. If the government tries to restrain speech before it is spoken, as opposed to punishing it afterwards, it must: clearly define what’s illegal, cover the minimum speech necessary, make a quick decision, be backed up by a court, bear the burden of suing and proving the speech is illegal, and show that allowing the speech would “surely result in direct, immediate and irreparable damage to our Nation and its people. “

Exceptions to Free Speech

Certain exceptions to free speech exist, usually when it can be justified that restricting free speech is necessary to protect others from harm. These restrictions are controversial, and have often been litigated at all levels of the United States judiciary. These restrictions can include include the incitement to crime (such as falsely yelling “Fire! ” in a crowded movie theater); fighting words (which are words that are likely to induce the listener to get in a fight); true threats; obscenity; child pornography; defamation; invasion of privacy; intentional infliction of emotional distress; or certain kinds of commercial, government, or student speech. Speech related to national security, military secrets, inventions, nuclear secrets or weapons may also be restricted.

The flag of the United States is sometimes symbolically burned, often in protest of the policies of the American government, both within the country and abroad. The United States Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), and reaffirmed in U.S. v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), has ruled that due to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is unconstitutional for a government (whether federal, state, or municipality) to prohibit the desecration of a flag, due to its status as “symbolic speech. ” However, content-neutral restrictions may still be imposed to regulate the time, place, and manner of such expression.

Free Speech Zones

The government may set up time, place, or manner restrictions to free speech. This image is a picture of the free speech zone of the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

4.2.6: Freedom of the Press

Learning Objective

Indicate the role the Freedom of the Press in the U.S. Constitution and discuss violations to and restrictions of it

Key Points

• In a free press, those who own the press or the media have the right to print or say what they want, without persecution or any interference from the government.
• In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, the U.S. government violated its guarantee of a free press by prosecuting Civil War era newspapers and passing the Espionage and Sedition Acts of 1917 and 1918. The Supreme Court argued that a “clear and present danger” justified this suppression.
• In recent times, controversy over free press has been related to WikiLeaks, censoring of U.S. military members’ blogs, and “obscenity” censorship of TV and radio by the FCC.

Key Terms

federal communications commission

A U.S. wireless regulatory authority. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating Interstate and International communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable.

Alien and Sedition Acts

Four bills passed in 1798 in the U.S. Congress in the aftermath of the French Revolution and during an undeclared naval war with France. They granted the federal government more power in dealing with political dissidents.

WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks is an international, online, self-described not-for-profit organization that publishes submissions of secret information, news leaks, and classified media from anonymous news sources and whistleblowers.

Freedom of the Press

Freedom of the press in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution . This clause is generally understood to prohibit the government from interfering with the printing and distribution of information or opinions. However, freedom of the press, like freedom of speech, is subject to some restrictions such as defamation law and copyright law .