Chapter 10: Elections and campaigns AP US Government, Nov.1, 2013. Campaigns then and now. Old-school: Parties . Why old-school? Split-ticket voting The Australian ballot Open primaries Front-loaded primaries Increase in # of registered independents
Old-school: Parties. Why old-school?
It costs LOTS of money. Just how much? Well….
Last presidential election:
Where did that money come from? (See next slide)
…”super PAC” contributions.
Contributor $ contributed to a Super PAC
Cong. Bonner’s last race:
(Through first week of August)
The point: It costs a boatload of money to run for just about any political office.
The FECA was passed in 1973 and it --
Guess what? People found a way around.
So along comes the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA, a/k/a the McCain-Feingold Act). Among its provisions:
People got around the limits on soft money by setting up “527s” (named after the section of the Internal Revenue Code that allowed them).
Top 4 super PACs in last presidential campaign:
will be unable to judge source –
and therefore the motives & credibility
competitive (House incumbents
win 90%+ of the time, usually
with 60%+ of the vote)
N.B. These 3 factors help explain why so many incumbents win reelection (along with better name recognition, money, casework, seniority, scaring off good challengers, etc.)
They all paid visits to Iowa last year.
The point: you better start early if you want to run for President.
Some pros and cons:
The trouble with the Electoral College:*
unless done to discriminate
in a way that hurts
“Positionissues are those on which people can take positions (for or against public ownership of industries, for example). Valence issues are those on which nearly everyone takes the same side (against crime, for a strong economy, for example). Politics, it is argued, is increasingly about valence issues — the differences between the parties on position issues have become relatively small.
For voters deciding which party to support, then, the question is not which party takes ideological or policy positions that they share but which party is likely to be most competent at achieving the goals that are widely shared (such as reduced crime, low inflation, a well-run health service). Making judgments like this is not straightforward and demands some knowledge of what parties might do or have done in the various policy areas.
Voters, therefore, tend to use a convenient short cut. They make judgments about the party leaders. This is a much simpler task. We don’t need to know much about policies or politics to decide whether we like or dislike the party leaders that we see often enough on television. We can all have opinions about people without necessarily knowing very much about them.” http://www.politicscymru.com/en/cat1/article16/
Cheesy graphic #2: