PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION MECHANICS

1. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION MECHANICS

2. The Franchise: 1789 • Under the original constitution, who had the right to vote? • for U.S. House? • for U.S. Senate? • for Presidential electors? • for state and local officials?

3. The Franchise: 1789 (cont.) • Voter qualifications (including for U.S. House and Presidential electors) were set entirely by state law • Proviso: The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifica-tions requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. [Article 1, Section 2] • Property-owning/tax-paying qualifications were common, and • often scaled to level of office • Perhaps 50% of adult white males were eligible to vote in early elections, • plus some free blacks (and even some women) were eligible to vote in some elections in some states.

4. The Franchise: 1830s • “Jacksonian Revolution”: • Almost all adult white males got the right to vote • All Presidential electors were popularly elected (except in SC) • Voter mobilization campaigns by competing (Democratic and Whig) political parties greatly increased voting turnout, i.e., • the proportion of eligible voters who actually cast votes. • But non-whites (and most or all women) lost the right to vote (in so far as they previously had that right).

5. 14th Amendment • Section 1. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ...; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. • Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state. [IMPLICATION FOR ELECTORAL COLLEGE]

6. 15th Amendment • Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. • Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

7. The Franchise: Turn of the 20th Century • The “Jim Crow” regime was established in the South. • “Jim Crow” had two main elements: • de jure segregation; and • de facto disenfranchisement (poll tax, literacy test, grandfather clause, “white primary,” intimidation) • Blacks remain enfranchised outside the South (but relatively few lived outside the South until WWI and WWII) • Women gained the right to vote in some states (especially in the West) in late 19th/early 20th centuries. • Caused dramatic “apportionment effects” in Electoral College: • E.g., 1916 StateElectoral VotePopular Vote IL 29 2,192,707 NY 45 1,706,305 PA 38 1,297,189 • 19th Amendment (1920) • The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

8. The Franchise: 20th Century • 23rd Amendment (1963) • The District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct a number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a state, but in no event more than the least populous state; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the states, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a state; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment. • 24th Amendment (1964) • The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. • Voting Rights Act (1965) • 26th Amendment (1971) • The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

9. The Franchise: Continuing Issues • Failed 27th Amendment • Section 1. For purposes of representation in the Congress, election of the President and Vice President, and article V of this Constitution, the District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall be treated as though it were a State. • Felon disenfranchisement: • State laws vary • Voter ID laws, etc. • Presumably the franchise should be uniform across all states and DC if the Electoral College were replaced by a direct national popular vote through a constitutional amendment. • Apportionment of electoral votes is based on total population, • including non-citizens and illegal immigrants (in so far as counted by census)

10. Voter Registration • Prior to the late 19th century, only informal voter registration systems exists: • probably a lot of fraudulent voting • “vote early and vote often” • States adopted voter registration laws in the late 19th century, • which produced an evident decline in total turnout. • Voter registration systems undoubtedly • reduced fraudulent voting, but also • may have had the effect of “vote suppression.” • Typically, people who are eligible to vote have to take some initiative to get themselves registered. • Moreover, registration list were periodically purged of non-voters. • Mid to latter part of 20th century, general liberalization of registration laws (by states, by courts, and by Congress) • “Motor Voter” Act (1993) • Help America Vote Act (2002) [provisional ballots] • Voter registration evidently remains something of a mess in many states and localities. • “deadwood” problem • There is uncertainty (and passionate academic dispute) concerning the typical turnout rate among registered voters.

11. Voting Turnout • “Total actual vote”/ “Total potential vote” • In the U.S., voting turnout in Presidential elections is usually calculated as • total recorded vote for President, • divided by the census estimate of the voting age population (VAP) • However, such turnout is often (mistakenly) characterized as the percent of eligible (or even registered) voters who actually voted. • Election workers who report “high” turnout on election night are looking at the number of voters who showed up as a percent of registered voters on their lists.

12. Problems with PV / VAP • Numerator misses • spoiled ballots • Presidential abstentions • Denominator • includes • (legal and illegal) immigrants • institutionalized population (generally ineligible or unlikely to vote) • felons perhaps not eligible to vote • but excludes eligible voters overseas.

16. Some Reasons for National Differences in Turnout • Some countries have compulsory voting. • Some countries make election day a holiday. • Most countries have (national) voter enrollment (vs. state voter registration) systems, • in which case, about 90-95% of eligible voters are enrolled, and • turnout denominator is (usually) the number of enrolled voters [not VAP]. • U.S has unusually frequent elections with many offices/propositions at stake in each (“long-ballot”): • federal/state/local offices • separate executive and legislative (and often judicial) elections (sometimes with runoffs) • referendums • plus primaries (sometimes with runoffs)

17. TURNOUT IN SELECTED COUNTRIES, 1960-2005

18. TURNOUT DECLINE IN ALL OEDC COUNTRIES (1960-2000)

19. Ballot Types and Ballot Access Early voting was informal, perhaps oral, otherwise voters had to create own ballots, hardly secret Mass party competition (1830s on) led to party ballots printed by parties listing only party candidates distribution to party supporters hardly secret (differently colored paper) Implications: No “ballot access” problem Hard for voters to “split ticket” Enhanced influence of party leaders Easy to arrange (even on election eve) “fusion” between (major or minor) parties

20. “Australian Ballot” Reform (~1890) • Government election authority prints ballots • all voters receive same ballot at polling place • ballots list all candidates for all offices • secures secret ballot • Implications: • “Ballot access” must be regulated • filing fee, deposit, petition, etc. • It becomes much easier for voters to cast “split ticket” ballots. • It reduces the influence of party leaders and organizations. • It becomes harder to “fuse” party tickets. • In fact, “fusion” may be prohibited. • Partisan vs. non-partisan [Australian] ballots • U.K. vs. U.S. example • what information listed for each candidate?

21. Fundamental Implication of a Partisan Australian Ballot • Which candidate is entitled to be listed on the ballot under a given party label? • This produces government [in U.S., state government] regulation of party organization and nominating procedures, • in particular, in the U.S. it led to primary elections, • by which a candidate is entitled to be identified on the ballot as a party nominee by virtue of winning a government-run election.

22. Two Formats for U.S. [Australian Ballots]: Party-Column/Line Ballot vs. Office Block Ballot • This distinction is relevant only if • the ballot is partisan, and • two or more offices are at stake in a single election; and • it is especially relevant if many offices are at stake [“long ballot”] • Party-Column/Line Ballot: • Such a ballot is set up so that all candidates of a given party appear in the same column or line. • In effect, it is several party ballots placed together on the same page. • It encourages “straight ticket” voting. • It may provide for a “straight party” vote. • It raises the question of party order on the ballot. • Office-Block Ballot: • Such a ballot groups together all candidates for a given office. • It encourages “split ticket” voting, • though it can (but usually does not) provide a “straight party” vote. • It raises the question of candidate order in each block.

23. A Party- Column Ballot (Indiana, 1956)

24. An Office-Block Ballot (Massachusetts 1956)

25. An Office Block Ballot With a Straight Party Option [Missouri]

26. The Notorious Butterfly Ballot

28. Presidential Election Ballots • Does the ballot make any reference to Presidential electors? [Today, usually but not always] • Does ballot list Presidential elector candidates individually? [Today, usually not] • Does ballot allow or require voters to vote for electors individually? [Today, never] • If voters are required to vote for electors individually, does the ballot indicate the candidates to whom the elector candidates are pledged? [Today, not relevant] • Does state law allow “fusion” of elector candidate slates? [NY does]

29. Kansas (1960)

30. Vermont: 1960 vs. 2012

31. New York (1960) [allows “fusion”]

32. Hawaii (1960)

33. Alabama (1960)

34. Maryland (Baltimore Co.) 2008 No mention of electors But they actually exist =>

36. Election Administration • Prescribed by state law (with increasing but still secondary federal regulation) • Administered by counties, often with in ballot technology etc. variation from county to county. • Episodic tasks, heavily dependent on more or less volunteer labor • Historically party organizations were involved • Checks and balances?

37. Voting Technology • Paper ballots used universally into 20th century • 1930s onwards: automated technology becomes available • 1930s: lever machines • e.g., New York, Alabama • 1950s: punch cards machines • 1960: optical scan machines • 2000s: touch-screen (“ATM”) machines

39. Caltech-MIT Voting Technology Project • Assessment of reliability of different voting technologies • Rate of apparently spoiled ballots • residual votes = # names checked off minus votes for particular office • undervotes vs. overvotes • does voter get feedback? • Reliability, Security, and Verifiability • Paper • Optical • Lever • Punch card • Touch-screen http://vote.caltech.edu/drupal/

40. Experimental study of reliability of alternative voting technologies Brookings Institution, 2008

42. Why does the U.S have bigger voting technology problems than other countries? • “Long ballot” • Federal system • Multiple offices (plus propositions, etc.) • Overlapping districts • Need rapid counting at precinct level • U.K. vs. typical U.S. election cycle • UK: MP, local councillor [MEP, MSP etc.] • Where combined, separate ballots for each office, ballot pooled for counting • US: President, US Senate, US House, Governor etc.; state Senator; state House; county executive or mayor, county &/or city council, school board, state &/or local judges etc; other offices; bond issues; propositions; initiatives [and primary &/or runoff elections]

43. Other Administrative Issues • Absentee ballots • excused vs. unexcused • Early Voting • Mail ballots (Oregon)

44. House Size, Apportionment, and Districting • Each of these factors, which pertain directly to House elections, is also relevant to Presidential elections. • House size and apportionment determine how many electoral votes state get (beyond the guaranteed floor of 3). • The Maine/Nebraska (Modified District) system of awarding electoral voters is based on Congressional Districts. • House size is not fixed by the Constitution, except that “the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative.”

45. Implications of Increasing House Size for Electoral Votes • Increasing the number of House seats allows a more precise apportionment among the states. • Increasing the number of House seats reduces the impact of the 3-electoral vote floor relative to the total number of electoral votes. • On both counts, increasing the size of the House increases proportionality in the allocation of Electoral Votes and, in particular, reduces the small state advantage. • Changing House size can change the outcome of Presidential elections (all else equal).

46. House Size and the 2000 Election • In 2000, Bush carried 30 states and Gore 21 (including DC), so • on the basis of “House” Electoral Votes only, Gore would have beaten Bush: • Bush: 271 – 60 = 212 • Gore: 267 – 42 = 225 • 2000 was the first time since 1916 that an electoral vote victory turned on “Senatorial” electoral votes. • And it was the first time since 1876 that a popular vote loser became an electoral vote winner on the basis of “Senatorial” electoral votes. • As a result, a larger House size could have given Gore an overall [House + Senatorial] Electoral Vote victory. • But, perhaps surprisingly, the relationship between increasing House size and Gore’s electoral college advantage was not “monotonic.” See M. G. Neubauer and J. Zeitlin, “Outcomes of Presidential Elections and House Size,” PS: Politics and Political Science, October 2003

48. The Apportionment Clause • Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 • Representatives [and direct Taxes] shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers [which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons]. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every sub-sequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

49. The Apportionment Problem • But the Constitution does not specify a mathematical formula by which this apportionment would be calculated. • When Congress took up the first Apportionment Bill in 1790, it discovered that solving this problem was not straightforward. • The apportionment problem is a standard problem in applied mathematics (e.g., MATH 100). • Two rival apportionment formulas were proposed: • Hamilton proposed a quota system; • Jefferson proposed a divisor system.

50. Hamilton’s Method [Largest Remainders] • Fix the size of the House, e.g., at 105. • Determine each state’s proportion of the apportionment population. • For example, New York had 9.77685% of the population. Given a House of 105 members, NY would ideally have 9.77685% x 105 = 10.26569 seats (NY’s quota). • But NY and every state must have a whole number of House seats. • The most obvious remedy is to round off quotas in the normal manner (giving NY 10 seats); but such rounded whole numbers may not add to 105. • Hamilton’s method: round all quotas down, then allocate remaining seats to states according to the size of their “remainders.”