Object Week 4 and 5: The Election Process
The first five weeks of the Road to the White House unit discusses the position of the President. This section of the unit, Campaign for the Presidency discusses the steps that a candidate takes to be elected to the position of President. The first step in this process is the primary election process. Many inspired politicians announce their candidacy and immediately start fundraising; meeting with constituents who want the ear and attention of the [potential] future president. Candidates travel all over the country fundraising and lobbying for votes, hoping to gain the majority of the states' support and earning their party's endorsement for the general election.
The modern primary election process is designed to narrow the candidates through a public state-by-state election process, rather than the archaic "smoke filled back room" negotiations of party leaders. The past system allowed a candidate to proceed to the general election with his armor unchinked by his own party. However, this process relied on the philosophy that the party itself could pick the most elect-able candidate.
The 1968 democratic primary saw Hubert Humphrey chosen by party officials as the Democratic candidate, even though Eugene McCarthy had more support of the public voters. Humphrey ended up losing the general election to Richard Nixon because of the rift between party elites and the average party voter. After this failure, the Democratic Party formed a commission to change the primary process, making the average voter more important, insuring that the candidate would carry significant support to the general election.
The Democratic Party as well as the Republican Party uses more of a public voter system to choose their general election candidate. The system is quite confusing as it uses many different forms of the primary election process by both parties in every state. This has caused much confusion amongst the candidates and public about who is most elect-able in the general election. Most primaries use a system of calculating ballots on primary night and awarding delegates based on those results. Some states give a percentage of the total delegation to each candidate, in others the winner takes all the delegates.
Other states use a caucus system, in which voting districts meet on caucus night and through a series of rounds, the caucus decides viable candidates (a viable candidate must have over 15% of the total votes) to receive a proportion of the delegates. The state can split its total delegates by this system of deciding local delegates.
The differences between the primary and caucus system are a topic of frequent debate. The main cause for debate has been which system produces a viable general election candidate that is party joining and elect able by independents. The two major candidates each has an advantage in their type of nomination process, which has continued to raise questions about which system should be used.
The candidate who has the most delegates and super delegates at the convention will be his party's candidate for president. This system enables more people to participate in the primary process, but it also allows minorities to have more of a voice in candidate choice then political party elites. However, this system has caused more extreme candidates to be nominated by the party's base, rather than who the party as a whole views as a winning candidate. The reason behind this is due to the installation of a closed primary process, allowing only registered party voters a vote in the primary, whereas in the general election, non party voters or independents are also able to cast their vote. The closed election process often favors a nominee who is more polarized to the party's extreme position on certain issues, insuring a greater percentage of the party's primary votes. This becomes a problem when the nominee reaches the general election, as he may not appeal to moderate independents that often make up a large percentage of the electorate.
Is there a better system for determining what the American public wants and needs, and which candidate represents those interests? Is the candidate going to fulfill the roles and responsibilities expected of the office of the president? These questions hint at the larger overarching question, "Is this process significant to the greater process of electing a president?" There is not one correct answer to this question, but many diverging viewpoints that are subject to change given the events of each election.
Once the party's presidential nominee has been chosen, the general election process begins. This process is as dynamic as the primary system. Each state's electoral votes are equal to their representatives in congress, plus their senators. The total number of available electoral votes is 538 - 435 members of congress plus 100 senators, as well as 3 delegates for the District of Columbia. To win the presidency, a candidate must have the majority (51%) of the electoral votes; 270 votes gain an electoral victory. If neither candidate has a simple majority, then each state will cast one vote in the House of Representatives for the candidate of their choice. The candidate with the majority of votes from the House will be the next president.
The practical differences between these election processes warrant the question, which process is the most democratic? This question is central to better understanding this unit. The predominant primary system in use is the so called "First Past the Post" system. In this system, the candidate with the most votes at the primary will receive all the electoral votes of that state. Is this system the best and most democratic system available? Some would argue that the system should require a 51% majority (similar to the Electoral College) of the public's vote in order to declare a winner. One major problem with this system stems from the division of votes when there are more than two candidates. A third party candidate can often pull votes away from the leading candidates, insuring that no one will receive a 51% majority.
Another election strategy would be the use of a proportional system of election to distribute electoral votes; each state's electoral votes are divided amongst the candidates based on proportionality of popular votes of that state. Another system currently used in Australia lets voters rank their candidates; if their candidate is eliminated, their vote will be cast for the second choice the voter has selected, progressing upwards until the winner has been chosen out of two final candidates. The issue many have with this system is that the candidate with the most votes in the beginning might not be the candidate with the most votes at the end. However, this system allows every vote to count towards the final tally and gives every voter a powerful voice in the election process.
A campaign must have a solid strategy in order to win an election. The general election is vastly different from the primary in a variety of ways, including campaign financing. "There are four parts to any campaign; the candidate, the issues of the candidate, the campaign organization, and the money to run the campaign with. Without the money you can forget the other three. (Berry 2008)." Campaign financing is necessary in order to have all other parts of the campaign operational. Campaigns raise money from donors through fund raising. The money is packaged in two categories, either soft or hard contributions.
Hard money is classified as direct contributions to the candidate's election campaign. No one person can give more then $1000 to the campaign of any one candidate. Soft money is any money that a person donates to the party of the candidate. The party can use this money as it sees fit, but the hope of the candidate is that the money will be used by the party for campaign advertising, staffing, facilities, or any other needs that the candidate needs for his campaign, rather then for the party as a whole. Soft money does not have limits, which makes this finance classification very important for a campaign. In 2002 Senator John McCain and Senator Russell Feingold passed a bipartisan bill reforming campaign financing. One of the reforms was public financing of a presidential campaign, provided that candidate agreed to not take private funds. This reform has not lead to a decrease in campaign spending, but curbed the use of private funding by those interesting in buying a piece of a winning campaign.
With this legislation, interest groups who donate to candidates to gain access have been curbed. Many special interest groups defended the right to access as a form of the first amendment right to freedom of speech. However, critics argue that the first amendment rights of an interest group and their use of funds infringes on all others who do not have the funds to gain the same access. This debate has raged on for years, remaining an issue today, though in the 2004 election candidates John Kerry and George Bush both elected to make use of public funds rather than private raised funds.
Campaigns use these funds in many ways, but a large proportion goes to TV and Internet advertising. Advertising is the most common form of a media message used to garner support for a candidate. These advertisements can come in many forms. The most common forms are party centered, issue centered, and candidate centered advertisements. These types of advertisements serve a variety of purposes and candidates use them at different times during the campaign. The goal of party centered advertisements is to get people on board due to party support; these generally occur early in the campaign. The goal of issue centered advertisements is to get the public to support the candidate base on the issues; these occur throughout the election. Candidate centered advertising centers on the candidate's personal characteristics, values, morals and other traits that will appeal to public sentiment. Candidate centered advertising can be used at the beginning of a campaign to help voters get to know the candidate, or could also be used at the end to sway borderline voters.
Strategies
The American presidential election process is an interactive topic that allows a teacher to create many different activities and demonstrations to make the subject understandable without losing relevance. By using this year's presidential election as an example, students will understand all the parts of the election process.
Students will first learn how elections work by understanding the party nomination process. We will begin exploring the nature of different nomination processes and discuss their evolution, using the 1968 Democratic Primary as a starting point. We will discuss whether the nomination process was truly democratic for different political social groups, and if the changes made to insure a greater voice to minority groups, have actually led to more polarization. By analysis of data we will see if the trends of the 2008 election prove that the nomination process gets the most unanimous nominee. Students will also watch a video of the Governor Howard Dean's "I have a scream" speech. Students will explore why the general voting public changed their opinion of the governor from highly favored in most states before the speech and connect the ideas in the previous units to this event.
The party nomination process done through primary and caucus systems is very different. Both primaries systems serve the same purpose, which is choosing the candidate for the general election. Each state has control over which type of election process for the primary - traditional or caucus. The two primary systems, represented by Iowa and New Hampshire, are the caucus system and primary system respectively. The students will participate in a mock caucus and primary, writing down observations on the system as a whole, their feelings about whether or not it's democratic and if the process serves its purpose of electing a popular president.
For students to understand whether any election process of a president is "just" and "democratic" I will have students complete an activity showing them what the different system are, how they work, and then have them decide the positive and negatives of each election process. Students will participate in an activity that will get students up and moving around and another student will record student's observations and comments. The students will replicate the first past post, majority, majority with coalition, proportional, and rank order systems of elections in the classroom. After the class has completed all the processes, we will compare and contrast them to determine if one system is better than another or if they are all equal in their differences.
To understand how the 2008 presidential candidates are financing their campaigns, and who is donating to the candidates, students will collect data of hard and soft money contributions that are published for releases each campaign is required to make of their campaigns financing. We will compare these contributions to the candidate's stances on major issues and discuss whether there is a correlation between the two. We will discuss if this system of financing is democratic or if it is a violation of moral democratic principles.
Comments: