Five Important Concepts from the 2012 Presidential Election As analyzed by Elisha Sword.

Five Important Concepts from the 2012 Presidential Election

As analyzed by Elisha Sword

I. The Electoral College

How the president is elected, and why we don’t like it

I./The Goal of the US Electoral College “[T]he people should

operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it . . . to men chosen by the people for the special purpose”

— Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 68

I./The Goal of the US Electoral College This shows that the original idea behind the

Electoral College was that the people would not elect the president: instead, they elect people they deem intelligent and capable enough to do so.

Clearly, modern American politics no longer follows this; most states cast their votes winner-takes-all. (Three exceptions: Maine and Nebraska vote by congressional

district, and faithless electors, a rare occurrence in which electors vote against their states.)

I./The Electoral College and Candidacy The Electoral College strongly

impacts which states are visited by presidential candidates.

In general, large, decisive swing states receive large candidate attention: large states have enough votes

to impact the election significantly ex post facto;

decisive states are important enough to a candidate to warrant their attention — this does not necessarily correlate with state size (in 2000, all 28 Bush states were

“decisive” because Bush would have lost ex post facto had any of them voted Gore); and

swing states, obviously, deserve attention because they reasonably can vote either way. Florida, depicted here by congressional

district vote, was a prime example of a large, decisive swing state in the 2012

election.

I./Electoral College Controversy The largest complaint

against the Electoral College is that there have been presidents who lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote and thus the election (e.g., Bush in 2000).

For this reason inter al., there have been over 700 proposals to “fix” the US Electoral College in the past 200 years. However, the current

presidential election system is part of the US Constitution, so any radical change would require a Constitutional amendment.

I./Electoral College Controversy There is a current attempt by the Republican

Party to change the system dramatically: The GOP is planning to use its gubernatorial and

state-legislative control to make some generally blue states (e.g., California, Michigan) vote by congressional district.

This is suspected to be a move to rig the system — after all, the current districts allowed the GOP to gain House control despite having a collective 1 million fewer votes than the Democratic Party. (The GOP is aware of this controversy and calls its

move an attempt to achieve fairness.)

I./The 2012 Electoral College

II. Federal Election Commission

How candidates raise money, and why we don’t like it

II./Background In 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt called for

reform in campaign finance. Congress responded with statues from 1907–

1966. This resulted with limiting the large political spending by the rich

and interest groups, campaign spending regulations, and the enforcement of public disclosure of campaign

finances. 1971: Congress passed the Federal Election

Campaign Act (FECA). “Serious abuses” during the 1972 election prompted a

1974 amendment. This amendment created the FEC.

II./FEC: Roles The FEC has four

primary roles: It determines

candidates’ eligibility for the federal government's public funding program (paid for by voluntary tax redirections);

facilitates the public disclosure of campaign finances;

clarifies the laws regarding campaign finances; and

enforces these laws.

II./FECA: Basics The Federal Election Campaign Act requires

public disclosures from all candidate committees, party committees, and political action committees (PACs), regarding how much they receive and spend above $200;

strict contribution limits for individuals, party committees (national, state, district, and local), PACs, and candidate committees — the specific numbers vary by contributor — ; and

that corporations, labor organizations, and federal government contractors make no contributions and expenditures that “influence federal elections” (but they may form PACs to collect “voluntary contributions from a restricted class of individuals”).

II./FECA: Contribution LimitsTo each

candidate or candidate committee

per election

To national party

committee per calendar

year

To state, district & local party committee

per calendar year

To any other political

committee per calendar

year

Special Limits

Individual $2,500 $30,800$10,000

(combined limit)

$5,000

$46,200 to candidates; $70,800 to

PACs/parties (biennial)

National Party

Committee$5,000 — — $5,000

$43,100 to Senate

candidate (per campaign)

State, District,

Local Party Committees

$5,000(combined

limit)— — $5,000 —

PAC (multicandidate

)$5,000 $15,000

$10,000(combined

limit)$5,000 —

PAC (not multicandidat

e)$2,500 $30,800

$10,000(combined

limit)$5,000 —

Authorized Campaign Committee

$2,000 — — $5,000 —

II./Citizens United vs. FEC In Citizens United vs. Federal

Election Commission, the US Supreme Court made a landmark decision: by the First Amendment, corporation and labor union political contributions are acts of free speech and must be protected.

The justices argued that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (“McCain–Feingold law”), the law in question, was a form of censorship. Thus they extended the ruling far past a case concerning merely Citizens United and began arguing for the conservative ideal of free-market election season spending.

This led to massive contributions and expenditures in 2012 for the presidential campaigns, which collectively totaled over $2 billion.

II./Citizens Controversy For a video that believes corporations have

far too much political power: YouTube: The Story of Citizens United v. FEC (20

11)

III. Political Action Committees

How PACs raise money — and controversy

III./PACs PACs (political action committees) are

officially recognized fundraising organizations that by law are allowed to participate in federal elections. They can provide (limited) direct support to candidates in an election. They must provide full disclosure of their expenditures to the FEC.

Not to be confused with super PACs.

III./Super PACs: Basics Super PACs are interest groups that are not

officially affiliated with political parties and candidates; as such, they are allowed to accept contributions of unlimited size, even from corporations.

The drawback is that super PACs cannot provide direct support for candidates and political parties.

III./Super PACs: Citizens United v. FEC Because of post-Citizens American politics,

super PACs now are allowed to accept ridiculously large donations.

In fact, donations from businesses in the tens and hundreds of thousands has become common, even in local and state elections.

IV. Presidential Debates

How the debates impact the electoral process

IV./Presidential debates The presidential debates are an extremely

important part of the election process. They are often associated with a significant shift in opinion in a candidate’s favor — in fact, the first Romney–Obama debate is often credited with propelling Romney back into the presidential race.

IV./The 2012 Debates There were four major 2012

presidential debates: In the first presidential debate,

Romney managed (to the surprise of many) to “win” against Obama, who was perceived as too passive.

In the vice presidential debate, Biden became well noted (in fact, he became a meme) for his condescending demeanor. However, the debate was not associated with any significant change in public opinion.

In the second presidential debate, Obama, who played a significantly more aggressive game, was generally deemed the “winner”.

In the third presidential debate focusing on foreign policy, Obama and Romney were noted for sharing extremely similar views. Obama was generally deemed the “winner”.

Obama and Romney in the second debate.

IV./Who runs the debates? The Commission on Presidential Debates

is an independent organization dedicated to maintaining the “official” presidential debates.

Other duties include the creation of educational materials, etc.

V. Party Identification

How political parties impact American politics

V./Party Identification Party identification is an individual’s self-described

association with a certain political party. In the United States, individuals are usually classified in four categories: those who self-identify as Republicans, those who self-identify as Democrats, those who self-identify as a third party, and those who self-identify as independents.

The independents form an interesting group, becausea) they often actually tend to vote either Democratic or

Republican (i.e., they often have a “secret” loyalty), and b) more important, they generally form a group large enough

to decide each year’s election.

V./Party Identification PACs and issue groups are not exempt from

party identification. If not expressly partisan, they often tend to associate with a certain party or ideology: The National Rifle Association almost universally

supports Republican Party candidates. Consumers Union, an advocacy group, tends to

express liberal* views, especially regarding the government's role product safety.

Focus on the Family, a Christian advocacy group, can be outspokenly conservative.

*conservative and liberal here refer to the American versions of the philosophies.

V./Party Identification Party identification is also associated with

demographics. Religion comes into play:

Catholics lean Democratic, although the Church itself is outspokenly conservative.

Most other Christian denominations lean Republican. Race comes into play:

Whites (“the White Majority”) tends to vote Republican, and up to the 2012 election would often decide the president.

Minorities (African Americans, Hispanics, etc.) tend to favor the Democratic Party.

Age comes into play: In general, the younger prefer the Democrats, the older the

Republicans. And demographics can be divided in many other ways . . .

V./Party Identification Although the United States tends to be about

equal in partisanship for the Democratic and Republican Parties, there are some interesting technicalities: According to Pew Research Initiative data, there

actually tend to be more who self-indentify as Democrats. The Republicans, however, make up for this with

significantly higher turnout rates, and it generally evens out.

In addition, exit polls tend to show fewer independents than during the election season. But this makes sense, because the act of voting tends to

be associated with some form of partisanship.

V./Party “Decline” In the 1970s, post 60s–era counterculture,

tended to be a largely independent decade. Some scholars extrapolated that partisanship would die out with the older generation. (They were wrong.)

In fact, one study found that the 1996 had 80% more partisanship than the 1972 election.

End

References (I.) The Goal of the US Electoral College

from “Federalist No. 68”: I.i A. Hamilton portrait: P.i

The Electoral College and Candidacy For a statistical analysis of the results described here,

see I.ii. Florida map: P.ii

Electoral College Controversy “ ‘fix’ the Electoral College”, and sub-content: I.iii G.W. Bush portrait: P.iii “current attempt . . . Republican”, and sub-content: I.iv

The 2012 Electoral College 2012 map: P.iv

References (II.) Background

from section “Historical Background” of II.ii About the FEC

from section “Historical Background” of II.ii FEC logo: P.v

FECA: Basics from section “The Campaign Finance Law” of II.ii

FECA: Table of Contribution Limits from section “The Campaign Finance Law” of II.ii

Citizens United vs. FEC “$2 billion”: II.i The rest of the article comes is adapted from II.iii. Money: P.vi

Citizens United v. FEC: Controversy Screenshot: from YouTube video

References (III.) Super PACs: Citizens United v. FEC

See III.ii For a detailed look at how PACs operate,

see III.i and III.iii

References (IV.) Presidential Debates

For an example of how a debate can influence the popular opinion, see IV.ii.

Who runs the debates? For more, see IV.i.

References (V.) Party Identification (slide iv)

See V.ii Party “Decline”

See V.i

Bibliography Parts I–V are on the website. Part P:

i. Trumbull, John. Oil on Canvas Portrait of Alexander Hamilton. Illustration. 1806. Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia Foundation. Accessed December 19, 2012. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Alexander_Hamilton_portrait_by_John_Trumbull_1806.jpg.

ii. Wikimedia Commons contributors. Iamge. Florida Presidential Election Results 2012.svg. Wikimedia Commons. December 5, 2012. Accessed December 19, 2012. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Florida_presidential_election_results_2012.svg

iii. Draper, Eric. Official Photograph Portrait of Former US President George W. Bush. February 14, 2010. Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia Foundation. Accessed December 19, 2012. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/George-W-Bush.jpeg.

iv. Wikimedia Commons contributors. ElectoralCollege2012.svg. Image. Wikimedia Commons. November 10, 2012. Accessed December 19, 2012. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/ElectoralCollege2012.svg.

v. Wikimedia Commons contributors. US-FederalElectionCommission.svg. Image. Wikimedia Commons. November 12, 2007. Accessed December 19, 2012. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/US-FederalElectionCommission.svg

vi. Wikimedia Commons contributors. USCurrency Federal Reserve.jpg. Image. Wikimedia Commons. December 27, 2004. Accessed December 19, 2012. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/USCurrency_Federal_Reserve.jpg