Lecture Notes Chapter 7:

Review of Chapter 6:

ASSIMILATION: IS, A + B = A [When A has the culture generally recognized as Higher on the "Quality of Life Hill" than B, and therefore, B adopts A's culture] 

AMALGAMATION: IS, A + B = C [When A and B recognize that each of their cultures is about equal on the "Quality of Life Hill," and therefore, both A and B adopt the best of the other's culture (dumping the bad) to create a third distinct culture.]

ACCOMMODATION: IS, A + B = A+B [When A believes it has the culture Higher on the "Quality of Life Hill," BUT, B believes it has the culture Higher on the "Quality of Life Hill, and therefore, neither is willing to adopt the other's culture.]

POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION: IS, where we get our ideologies from.

PROXIMATE FORCES: ARE, the forces that are "two-way." In other words, close interaction can take place between an entity being "shaped," and the entity that is  doing the "shaping." 

PRIMARY "FORCE:" IS, a thing (generally a person or persons) that has a close, direct impact on ones beliefs (usually earlier in age). 

SECONDARY "FORCE:" IS,  a thing (generally a person or persons) that has a less close, indirect impact on ones beliefs (usually later in age). 

NON-PROXIMATE FORCES: ARE, the forces that are "one-way," or impact an individual passively. In other words, their is no interaction taking place between the entity being "shaped," and the entity that is doing the "shaping." 

MEDIA "FORCE:" IS, a "thing" through which ideas are transferred through.  For example, the text doesn't offer its own idea to the reader, it offers the ideas of Cummings and Wise to the reader -one way.

SITUATIONAL "FORCE:" IS, a condition that is uncontrollable to an individual but still shapes their beliefs about the role of Government.  For example, a person that grows up during the Great Depression might think about a Government's role differently than someone who grew up in the affluence of the 80's.

CHAPTER 7-

[Note: Because of the dang "Electoral College" this chapter is a bit long.]

AHHHH VOTING!  The one thing that gives us all equal access to determining our preferred, potential, political destiny.  MORE GOV'T?  LESS GOV'T? EQUALITY? FREEDOM?  It's all at your finger tips.  Your vote is weighted the same as mine, the same as your neighbor's, the same as Bill Clinton's, Elizabeth Dole's, and Jesse Jackson's.  It's weighted as "1."  Or is it?

As the text reveals, of the 200 million or so voting age population LESS THAN HALF (49%) voted for their President in 1996, a little more than half in 2000, and about 56% in 2004 - the number drops drastically when looking at "off year" elections (elections when the presidential candidates aren't running) at about a 1/3 of the population, and even less for a primary election (an election that allows the political parties to get behind "one best candidate"), at about 20%.  SO, NOW YOUR VOTE IS WEIGHTED NEARER TO "2" IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS ("5" in primaries).  Technically, if you vote in a presidential election, you are voting for yourself and making the choice for another eligible non-voter, two other voters should you vote in off year elections, and four other voters should you actually participate in the party primary process.

Now, let me start by saying this, I want you to know why you should vote, but to tell you the God's honest truth, I could give a rat's butt less if you do vote, ESPECIALLY if you're NOT going to vote the same way as I do.  I sure as heck don't want you screwing up my vote if you're out there voting just because someone told you to.  I want you to be informed as to who (or which party) represents YOUR interests and vote only when you understand this.  In other words, I know what's at stake and I'd just as soon vote on behalf of the idiots who fail to grasp how the system works -chances are about 50/50 that that one other person is going to vote for the same President I do, anyhow. SO STAY HOME IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHY YOU'RE VOTING AND HOW THAT CHOICE SHOULD/COULD IMPACT YOUR FUTURE.

Having said this, it has been my intent that those of you who pass this course will at least recognize the differences in the Parties, their Ideologies, and therefore the Candidates who profess to follow a certain platform and what that may ultimately mean to your own "self interest." I want you to vote - or not to vote - because of sound, informed, reasons.

Should you decide to vote, there are a few things you need to know: 1.) You have to "register to vote" in this country, and, 2.) With some exceptions, you have to go to your "polling station" to do so.  [See "Web Exercise 11" for assistance in both these matters.] The other thing you need to know is how the candidates running are going to impact your life should they be elected.  This information and more can usually be found on web sites like project "VoteSmart," or "SpeakOut.com" [See "Web Exercise 3"].  And, if you don't quite get enough time to research the candidates (often times there are so many - right down to County Drain Commissioner), then remember the significance of "party affiliation" as it tells you something (maybe the most important thing) about the various competing candidates.

The text does an excellent job giving you the statistical/historical data regarding voting, as well as some great insight into the last election.  However, there are some connections that should be made, and some short comings that should be addressed.

First, the let me ask the question? If there are more Democrats (~34%) than Republicans (~28%), why don't Democrats win every presidential election?   "Independents (~38%)?" Yeah, they have something to do with it (especially the Bush v. Gore election), but if you figure there are as many Liberal Independents as there are Conservative Independents, then the Dems should still have a ~6% lead -and, therefore, win every presidential electionSo why don't they? Well, as we stated above, not every person votes, and (unlike the Independents) the non-voting sector of our country isn't split between the parties or ideologies for that matter -it favors the "right."  See Below:

TABLE 11.2 Voter Turnout by Group and Region, 2000 (The Data is different but the rankings are the same for 2004) 

Voting Groups                                               Percent Voting 

College graduate                                                       80.4% 

65 years and older                                                      77.0 

45-64 years old                                                          73.5 

1-3 years college                                                        72.9 

White                                                                          67.7 

Female                                                                       67.3

35-44 years old                                                           66.5 

Male                                                                           64.4 

African American                                                         63.5 

High school graduate                                                    62.2 

25-34 years old                                                             56.9 

Unemployed                                                                  52.5 

21-24 years old                                                             51.2 

Some high school education                                           47.9 

18-20 years old                                                               45.6 

8 years school or less                                                     40.7 

Hispanics                                                                         35.7

BLUE = More Likely Conservative/Republican

RED = More Likely Liberal/Democrat

Black = No Real Statistical Preference 

From the above data, one might conclude that though there are "More Democrats than Republicans, Republicans have a higher propensity to vote."  Excluding "gender," voting turnout across the board tends to favor those running as Republicans (or those running to "Conserve" the "System").  Age, race, and education (and therefore, probably income), favor the party just to the right of center on the Ideological Spectrum.  So, that's why Dems don't win every election - not just voter turnout, BUT which voters "turn out."  

Another connection that should be made, now that all the pieces have been presented is the fact that it is of the "highest unlikelihood (remembering there are no absolutes in political science)" that a third party candidate will ever win the Presidency!  Why? Because the Spectrum won't allow it.  Let's review.  See Below:

US PARTY IDENTIFICATION PROPORTIONS:

DEMOCRATS = 34%            REPUBLICANS = 28%           INDEPENDENTS = 38%

Note: Independents were all those who DID NOT identify with one of the two major parties.  1999 Gallup.

All right, so this is why it's of the "highest unlikelihood" that a third party candidate will ever win the Presidency!  Got it? . . .No?  It's right there! Above! Well, maybe it isn't so obvious.  The reason is that though there seems to be a huge demand from Independents for "something different" not ALL the Independents are going to agree on what that is.  Note candidates like Ross Perot ('92 and '96) and others have tried to stick themselves in the very center hoping to slough enough voters from his right AND from his left to give him a victory.  Nice plan, the only problem was/is, that the center is where the change over between valuing Freedom takes precedent over Equality (or visa versa), and if you're going to run on a platform - what platform do you run on?  Change? No Change? More Government? Less Government?   There are already party platforms and party supporters pushing these things! How about a "Combination?" The question then becomes, "OK on what issues?"  And, to articulate every position on every issue that matters to a person is not only going to create confusion, but enemies as well.  Pro-choice? Pro-Union? Pro Gun? Pro Same Sex Marriage? These positions have already found a home. THERE IS NO ROOM FOR A CENTRIST PARTY - AS THERE IS NO ROOM FOR AN ADDITIONAL IDEOLOGY! 

OK, there's no room there, but what about on the edges where there are ideologies other than Conservative and Liberal -like Socialism and Libertarianism?  True, there IS ROOM away from the center of the spectrum, on either side of the two major American parties/ideologies.  The problem is that THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH VOTERS OUT THERE ON THE ENDS.  Look at Nader's (2000) Green Party platform.  It's Ultra-Liberal (if not Socialist). And, how'd he fair? 3-4%? Now ask the Al Gore For President Team, "how they feel about Nader? (See Below)"  They're not too happy with him.  All things being equal, those Nader voters would most likely have supported Gore if they voted.  They overwhelmingly came from the left of the "Spectrum."

Same holds true from the George Bush (senior) Team and Ross Perot.  See Below:

How Groups Voted in 2000 (In Percentages)

                                          Clinton:                Dole:                   Perot:         1(1996 Candidates)

1992 Votes:

Clinton (44%)                      85                         9                          4

Bush (Sr) (34%)                  13                        82                         4

Perot (12%)                         22                        44         <---- 2:1 People who voted Perot in '92 then for either  Clinton (22%) or Bush Sr. (44%) in 1996.

                                           Gore:                 Bush:                   Nader:      (2000 Candidates)

1996 Voters:

Clinton (46%)                      82                       15                           2

Dole (31 %)                          7                        91                           1

Perot (6%)                          27                        64                                            

__________________________________________________________________________________

2000 Votes:                      Gore:                 Bush:                   Nader:

All Voters:                            48                       48                         2  

 

Party/Ideology:               Gore:                 Bush:                   Nader:

Democrats (39%)                  86                      11                           2

Liberals (20%)                        80                       13                          6

Republicans (35%)                8                       91                           1

Conservatives (29%)             17                        81                           1

Independents (27%)              45                        47                           6

1996 Party/Ideology:        Clinton:                Dole:                   Perot:

Democrats (40%)                84                      10                           5

Liberals (20%)                       78                       11                          7

Republicans (34%)               13                      80                           6

Conservatives (33%)             20                        71                           8

Independents (26%)              43                        35                           17

 

Family income:                  Gore:                 Bush:                   Nader:

Less than $15,000 (7%)         57                      37                           4

$15,000-29,999 (16%)            54                      41                           3

$30,000-49,999 (24%)            49                      48                           2

$50,000 or over (53%)          45                       52                           2

 

SOURCE: New York Times, November 12, 2000, section 4, p. 4.

 

Though you'd have to look at each voting precinct individually to truly know if the amount of votes Perot pulled from the Republican party in 1992(or 1996) had a monumental impact on the various race results, the data does seem to support that Perot's running hurt (if not cost) George Bush, Sr. his election bid. In short, unless there is a huge ideological shift in this country that happens within a four year period, you'll not (oops, "most likely not") see a third party candidate win a presidential election.

As for the other information, I wanted you to notice that, though Nader didn't help Gore, the Gore Team should be more angry with the Dems that voted for Bush (a reversal of what happened in '96).  And, finally, wanted to backup what I have been saying all along about ideology and party, as well as party/ideology and income, which the data above seems to support -Wealth =Conservatives=Republicans, AND Less Wealth=Liberals=Democrats. 

Lastly, for  the Chapter 11 Lecture,  I want to go over the how we elect a President in this country.  It's totally unique and often times confusing and/or frustrating.  Before we do this, however, I want to make sure you know the difference between a MAJORITY of Votes (50% + one more vote) and a PLURALITY of Votes (The most votes regardless of the number). [If your in to those paradox kind of things then you might notice that if you have a Majority of Votes, you must have a Plurality, but if you have a Plurality you might not have a Majority.]  See Below:  

MAJORITY THRESHOLD

Election One:

Candidate:       Percentage:

   X                            30%

   Y                            60%

   Z                            10%

Winner = Y 

Election Two:

Candidate:       Percentage:

   X                            45%

   Y                            40%

   Z                            15%

Winner = NOBODY

(Because no candidate got more than 50% of the vote)

 

PLURALITY THRESHOLD

Election One:

Candidate:       Percentage:

   X                            30%

   Y                            60%

   Z                            10%

Winner = Y 

Election Two:

Candidate:       Percentage:

   X                            45%

   Y                            40%

   Z                            15%

Winner = X

 

 

The difference is important to know because our Presidential elections utilize both a Plurality Threshold and a Majority Threshold in determining the victor (unlike any other election process I'm aware of).  You also need to understand that though you and I elect our state's "Electors," we do not directly elect the President -The ELECTORAL COLLEGE (a group of individuals (538) elected from each separate state, and the District of Columbia, who will choose -by vote- the President and Vice President of the United States) does.  Now, before you get all up in arms, screaming "Why should I vote MY VOTE DON'T EVEN COUNT NONE."  Let me assure you that YES IT DOES, and if you live in Michigan that vote of yours is more valuable to the election outcome than the votes of the individual citizen from Rhode Island, Alaska, Wyoming, North Dakota, Montana, and New Mexico combinedWHY? To answer this, we need to first define how the system works (of which, the text does a crummy job of telling you).  See Below:

1. PRIMARY ELECTION:

Remember, though there are "OPEN" (open to the non-party members) and "CLOSED" (closed to non-party members) primaries, the party primary's purpose has always been one of serving the party.  Nothing in the Constitution provides for Presidential Primaries or Gubernatorial Primaries, or any primary for that matter.  The primaries were put in place to narrow down a field of like minded, co-party, candidates, to give that party the best chance of winning -by getting as many ideology sharing voters behind that single candidate as possible.

Above, though most primaries are held on the same day for other elections, presidential elections hold primaries from early February to mid-June, state by state.  The National Parties assign each state a number of "Delegates" (this number is based on variables such as population, election turnout, and/or political strength), and depending on how the primary election for each state turns out, the people acting as Delegates will be "promised" to vote for the candidate who was the victor in their area at the National Convention.  The Party's choice for a presidential candidate only becomes official once the tally of "who has the most Delegates" is completed at the Convention. 

2. PARTY NOMINATION:

In addition to nominating a President, choosing a running-mate, and other things, it is during the respective Party's Conventions that "State Electors" (of the electoral college) are nominated.  Each state party will choose who their "potential" electors will be.  Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of Federal legislators (US Reps + US Senators) that represent that state.  

Because of the New Jersey Plan (Representation Based on State Equality ) and Virginia Plan (Population Based Representation), and the resulting compromise the number of electors a state might garner vary from at least 3 (Two for the Senate, and at least one for the House) to a possible -though very unlikely- 385.  Right now there are a total of 538 electoral votes (435 for the House, 100 for the Senate, and 3 for DC), and -right now- California has the most electoral votes at 55 (2 for the US Senate and 53 for the US House).  The state of Michigan has 17 (2 for the Senate and 15 for the House), Florida has 25 (2 for the Senate and 23 for the House), and less populated states like Alaska have 3 (2 for the Senate and 1 for the House). 

3. GENERAL ELECTION:

This is the most important thing to remember of the whole electoral process: WHEN YOU AND I GO TO VOTE, WE DO NOT VOTE FOR A CANDIDATE, WE VOTE FOR A PARTY!   

State by state we vote, same day, pretty much the same way, and, at the end of the day when the states tally your vote, my vote, and the rest of our country's votes, a President is all but chosen.  At the end of the day, the PARTY in each state with the most votes (OR PLURALITY OF VOTES) will get to send their electors to the Electoral Vote in December.  AND (with the exception of two states), it doesn't matter how close the state election was. . . which ever party gets the most votes gets to send THEIR PRE-CHOSEN ELECTORS!  The election is all but over because we know that (with few exceptions, called Mavericks, Turncoats, or Non-Faithfuls) Republican Electors will vote for Republican Candidates, and Democrat Electors will ultimately vote for Democrat Candidates.  However, this isn't official until the vote is held in December.

4. ELECTORAL VOTE:

On a mid-December day, each State's Electors (declared via the voters of the state) will move to that State's Capitol Building to take a vote.

Each "Elector" will be given two ballots (or blank pieces of paper). One ballot for choosing the President and one for choosing the Vice President.  Those votes are tallied state by state, then the state votes are combined for a total.  IF NO CANDIDATE RECEIVES A MAJORITY OF ELECTORAL VOTES (AT LEAST 270 OF THE 538 - which is damn near impossible NOT to get in a two-party system), THEN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WILL DETERMINE THE PRESIDENT, AND THE SENATE WILL DETERMINE THE VICE PRESIDENT.  It is possible -though highly improbable- for our country to end up with a President from one party and VP from another. . . KERRY/CHENEY?  BUSH/EDWARDS? Could have happened. That's it: Primary leads to nomination/choosing electors, which leads to state votes electing which electors to send to the electoral college, which leads to a December vote for president by this electoral college. . . simple as MUD! But, that's our system.

So, now that you have an understanding of "how" our Electoral System works, the question always comes up, "Should we change it?" 

Oh, and remember if needed, there is a quick summary of this chapter available simply by clicking the link below.  

 

 

But be sure to read the chapter and not simply rely on this summary (it leaves too much out).


| Back to top of page | Email Instructor |

________________________________________________________________________________________

This page is designed and maintained by Jon Williams. 
Last modified date: 05/19/08 
©2001 Kellogg Community College