Congressional Elections

1. Congressional Elections Part 1: Recruitment and funding

2. Who becomes a candidate? • People typically nominate themselves • Aspirants encounter nat’l networks of parties/interests • “Recruiting” begins 1.5-2 yrs before election • To recruit new talent and keep incumbents from retiring • GOPAC founded 1979, to fund candidates at state level • Gingrich took over in 1980’s, goal to win House majority • Developed/packaged conservative issues through use of surveys/audiotapes/focus groups/grassroots mobilization/etc. • GOPAC credited as key catalyst of “Republican Revolution” of 1994 (first GOP congress in four decades and record number of governorships put in Republican hands). • Widely imitated; DLC and Green Party

3. November 16, 2003 WASHINGTON, D.C. – With hopes of winning back Congress someday, a new liberal political action committee has been studying the war plans of legendary conservative field marshal Newt Gingrich. PROPAC, as the group is called, aims to pour $2.6 million over the next year into recruiting and training left-leaning candidates at the grass-roots level -- the first step in a long-range project to fill the pipeline with a fresh supply of future winners. more Welcome to GOPAC.org - the website for GOPAC, the premier training organization for Republican candidates for elected office. As GOPAC chairman, I am committed to recruiting and training outstanding new Republican candidates, campaign staff, and activists nationwide - and building a deeper farm team for our party at the state and local levels. It's my strong belief that by building a party for all Americans, we will be a stronger America. Heading into the 2003 - 2004 election cycle, Republicans are fortunate to have a Republican president in the White House, and majorities in both houses of congress - as well as a majority of governors in the states read more www.gopac.com

4. Political Action Committees (PACS) • A PAC is an account that gives interest groups a way to pool the resources of their members to support candidates for federal office, as opposed to supporting those candidates directly. PAC funds separate from group’s funds. • Corporations/contractors/labor unions cannot contribute directly to candidates • Can spend unlimited amounts independently, without candidates’ cooperation or consent • PAC can give $5000 to a candidate, $15,000 to party • Political action committees were authorized by federal law in the 1970’s • Virtually all trade, professional and labor organizations have now created political action committees.

6. www.fec.gov

7. Incumbent Advantage • Since WWII, 93% incumbents reelected in House, 80% in Senate • Relatively recent phenomenon. Why? • House members get 1m a year in perks, Senators 2m (staff, travel, office, franking, own subway car, etc.) • 1973 estimate: 476m pieces of mail, $38.1m • The quality of challengers (direction of causality?)

8. Incumbents’ electorally useful activities • Advertising • Brand name. Emphasize experience, knowledge, responsiveness, concern, sincerity, independence, … • Done largely at public expense (franking privilege) • Credit Claiming • Traffic in “particularized benefits” • Given to specific group, by congressman • Given in ad hoc fashion (unlike SS checks), so apparent congressman had direct hand in it • Position Taking • Public enunciation of judgmental statement on anything of interest • Speaker rather than doer; position itself is commodity

9. Nominating process • Candidates for general election usually selected through partisan primaries (ex. Louisiana) • Closed primaries: only voters registered with a party can vote in its primary • Open primaries: voters can vote in either party’s primary (but only one) • Blanket primaries: voters can vote in primary for one candidate for each office, regardless of party

10. California Democratic Party et. al. v. Jones (2000) • Democrat, Republican, Libertarian and Peace & Freedom parties challenged blanket primary in court as violating 1st Amendment right to free association • “In no area is the political association’s right to exclude more important than in the process of selecting its candidates” -Scalia • Louisiana employs nonpartisan primary, with runoff system

11. Money • Average Senate race $3.6m, House race $667,000 • In close House races, winners spent $1.5m on average • This is not counting independent efforts of interest groups • More expensive now because less party involvement • Direct primaries whereas before candidates chosen by party leaders in a caucus • Volunteers used to mobilize voters, now TV ads, mail, etc.

12. Campaign Finance • Federal Election Campaign Amendments of 1974 • Limits on individual contributions, group contributions, reporting requirements • Buckley v. Valeo (1976) ruled that Congress may not limit expenditures by candidates themselves, campaign committees, or independent groups • Treated spending as protected free speech

13. Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002McConnell v. Federal Election CommissionUpheld 5-4 on Dec 10, 2003 • Hard Money • Individuals may contribute $2000 per candidate per election (primaries and general) totaling <$37.500. Can give <$57,000 to parties and PACS. • PACS can give $5000 per candidate per election and $15,000 to a political party. • Soft Money (for “party building” purposes, not supporting a specific candidate) • New carpeting, office furniture • Advertising urging voters to vote for that party • Under bill, party committees can’t accept or spend soft money

14. More on BCRA • State and local party organizations can’t spend soft money on federal campaigns. May spend it on voter registration/mobilization • Independent & coordinated expenditures: FEC must issue new rules to regulate spending by outside groups (rules not requiring formal evidence of coordination w. candidate) • Tax-Exempt groups: Nat’l parties can’t solicit $ from or contribute to any nonprofit that spends money on federal elections • Electioneering communications: Ads now covered under campaign finance limits and disclosure requirements if aired 60 days before general election or 30 days before primary election.

15. Interesting Point • Court rejected the narrow justification for campaign finance laws used by opponents of finance reform – that campaign finance regulations are only justifiable to curtail corruption that causes a change in legislative votes. • Court argued soft money leads not only to a change in legislative votes, but to “manipulations of the legislative calendar, leading to Congress' failure to enact, among other things generic drug legislation, tort reform, and tobacco legislation.” • To claim that such legislative scheduling actions do not change legislative outcomes, says the court, “surely misunderstands the legislative process.”

16. Distinction between voting and agenda-setting • Similar debate concerning whether political parties actually affect legislative outcomes • No statistical difference between whether legislators vote according to preferences or out of party loyalty • Distinction is not between how they vote, but what they vote on • Court argued that soft money didn’t influence votes in the House, but affected legislative scheduling, i.e. the type legislation brought to the floor

17. Congress and ElectionsPart II: Elections

18. Elections as principal-agent problem • Principal, or individual with authority, delegates some of that authority to agent to act on their behalf • Division of labor • Representative democracy type of delegation • Problems arise because each agent motivated by self-interest • Electoral systems can be assessed by their ability to mitigate these problems

19. Types of problems facing voters • Adverse selection: Incomplete information • Solution: Openness and transparency, the media, political opposition • Moral Hazard: Imperfect monitoring • Solution: Same, and possibility of reelection, suffrage Problems with current system? Low turnout, inaccurate ballots, electoral college (in Pres. elections), special interest money

20. Turnout • Turnout extremely low in US, comparatively • 50% Presidential elections, 30-40% Midterm • Why? • Demographic; increases in Latinos, young people • Citizens must initiate registration process • We must vote more often • Disaffection • Rational abstention • Levels actually exaggerated by VAP inaccuracies (actual estimate 52.7-60 %)

21. Riker & Ordeshook (1968) • Turnout explained by cost-benefit analysis Return = (Benefit X Pivotal) - Cost • Since “pivotal” term infinitesimally small, voting is irrational • Civic duty? (R&O later added to equation) • Aldrich: Candidates can share costs by helping citizens register and get to the polls; explains higher turnout in close races

22. The Midterm Effect Turnout 10-20% lower in midterm elections, and President’s party has lost seats in all but 4 since Civil War. Why? • Surge and Decline (Campbell 1960) • Coattails vanish in midterm (fewer moderate voters) • Referendum hypothesis (Tufte 1975) • Midterm a referendum on Pres. performance, and approval typically poor at midterm • Part historical accident, partisan macroeconomics • Not generally accepted

23. Presidential penalty (Erikson 1988) • Voters more demanding of President’s party, inclined to punish • Negative voting (Kernell 1977) • People more motivated to vote against than for, and Pres. party most salient • Balancing (Erikson 1988, Alesina & Rosenthal 1988) • Voters try to bring policy back to center • Loss Aversion (Patty 2004) • Negative turnout • Turnout  among those who like current administration

24. Ballots and Ballot Reform • Currently use the Australian Ballot, which lists all candidates for any office on each ballot (1890’s) • Replaced partisan ballots, printed by the parties • Little secrecy in voting, since ballots distinctive • Intimidation and bribery • Format prevented split-ticket voting • Ticket-splitting led to divided control of government

25. Ballots from late 19th Century California Republican Taxpayers’ Union Prohibition Union

26. Regular Republican Regular Workingmen’s Regular Cactus Regular Democratic

27. Ballot Reform • Why doesn't everyone in the U.S. vote using the same technology? • Constitutionally, elections in the United States are under the jurisdiction of state and local governments. • Some states moving towards more uniformity in their voting systems • Georgia implemented same touchscreen voting system in 2002 throughout the state. • Not likely a single voting system will be used by all Americans in the near future. • State decides which systems are “certified,” local governments pick from list of certified systems

28. Which systems work best? • Residual vote: measure of voting system accuracy # Ballots cast total - # Ballots cast in particular race • Residual vote captures overvotes and undervotes • A good measure of accuracy? • Exit polls show .5-1% voters didn’t vote for president, while residual vote typically 2-2.5% • Massachusetts, Maryland residual <1% • New Mexico, Illinois, SC residual >3% • In some counties as high as 20-30%

29. Different Systems • Punchcard • Pre-scored and non-scored • Most prone to high residual votes (@2.5%) • Optical Character Recognition (OCR) • Centralized optical scanning • Precinct-based optical scanning (better) • Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) • Touchscreen • Both DRE and Touch. had residual rates of 2.3% in 1998-2000

30. Ballot Designs • Example of “Primacy Effect”: June 2001 Compton Mayoral runoff • Clerk randomized names in primary, used same ranking in runoff • Perrodin (listed 1st) beat Bradley (the incmubent) by 261 votes • On basis of expert testimony, Court threw out runoff results and reinstated Bradley as mayor • In CA: Each election cycle S.O.S issues randomized alphabet • Stateside, rotation occurs across 80 districts • Legislative, list utilized for whole district (unless it cuts across county lines)

31. Voting Instructions • Instructions developed mostly by election administrators and system vendors • 2001 L.A. mayoral election: “Got Chad?” • Votomatic punchcard public service announcement • Residuals decreased dramatically, esp. in nonwhite precincts • Pictorial images?

32. Lost votes: non-technology-related factors, such as problems with registration and polling place practices, making voters unable to cast ballots • 4-6m votes estimated lost in 2000 • Provisional voting: allows voters whose names are not on precinct registered voter roster to cast a ballot • Ballot is sealed in an envelope, and voter’s information placed on envelope • Information examined after the election and if mistake was made, ballot included in final tabulation • After the 2002 passage of the ``Help America Vote Act'’ all states required to provide provisional voting

33. Congress and Elections: Part III: Redistricting “Gerrymander”: Conscious district line-drawing, done in order to maximize the number of legislative seats won by a party or group. Origin: In 1811 Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts created a salamander-shaped district to help Democrats.

34. Techniques • Packing: Lines encompass as many friendly voters as possible -> safe districts • Cracking: Dilutes partisan strength across districts to maximize seats won • Types • Partisan gerrymandering • Pro-incumbent gerrymandering • Racial gerrymanderingRacial gerrymandering and the VRA • Racial Gerrymandering: Drawing lines to help racial/ethnic minorities win legislative seats.

35. Voting Rights Act enacted in 1965 • Prohibited any voting qualifications or prerequisites • Suspended any test or other device as a prerequisite • Required 16 states to submit all changes in electoral laws to the Department of Justice • Authorized appointment of federal registrars if local registrars continued to discriminate • Amendments to the VRA in 1982 explicitly encouraged states to create “majority-minority” districts (to pack districts in order to elect minorities)

36. Packing -> Democratic loss of South in 1990's. • “Paradox of Representation”: more minority lawmakers, but a more conservative House.Shaw v Reno (1993) • After 1990 census, NC created two majority-minority districts that were approved by the DOJ. Whites sued. • Court ruled non-minority citizens could sue over racial gerrymandering if district lines were so “bizarre”.

37. Miller v Johnson (1995) • Court ruled race can't be “predominant factor” in drawing a district. • Hunt v Cromartie (1999) • Court ruled political gerrymandering is OK, even if most Democrats happen to be black. A district with a supermajority of blacks not evidence enough to prove race was main motivation.