We have a report due (3-5 pages) by December 19th, so I worked on that today. It's supposed to be more reflective than stuffed with information so I have to do introspection, as Mr. Simmons would say. I'm going to do a little drafting/outline thing here. Also reminder: I can't ask questions in this paper.
What I learned: the election process has many steps and is complicated, and each stage has flaws that experts have detailed. Reforms will have to be enacted in different ways (some will need to be passed on a state by state basis, some need to be passed nationally at once). In addition, numerous reforms have been proposed, but each one needs to be analyzed for practicality and effectiveness (should probably name some of the most effective reform ideas at some point). Also, I had to come up with a list of goals for this project (state goals). I can also analyze some of the obstacles here.
This is mostly reflection so a large part of the paper will be about my motivations for choosing this topic and what I hope to achieve with it. I can use some stuff from my thesis presentation for that.
List of things to put in the paper: initial ideas, motivations, suggested reforms, obstacles, how far I've gotten, what I have left to do, goals.
Also added more things to the pro and con file.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Friday, November 21, 2014
Organizing!
Today I looked through my old blog posts for analyses and began to compile my pros and cons list. It's going to be hard because what some analysts see as a pro is seen as a con by others.
Some of the primary reforms that have been suggested are good ideas theoretically but don't work out very well practically. For example, having the small states go first to build up media coverage (Delaware plan) sounds great until you realize they're all spread out geographically, causing trouble when it comes to the actual movement and cost of campaigning.
Finally found the original report concerning the suggested reforms. It details some of the issues (Iowa and New Hampshire going first, frontloading, etc.) and then analyzes the reforms pretty well. The issue I am facing right now is that I can't find a con for the modified regional rotating lottery system. Well actually I guess that's great for the reform but it makes it look kind of biased.
Some of the primary reforms that have been suggested are good ideas theoretically but don't work out very well practically. For example, having the small states go first to build up media coverage (Delaware plan) sounds great until you realize they're all spread out geographically, causing trouble when it comes to the actual movement and cost of campaigning.
Finally found the original report concerning the suggested reforms. It details some of the issues (Iowa and New Hampshire going first, frontloading, etc.) and then analyzes the reforms pretty well. The issue I am facing right now is that I can't find a con for the modified regional rotating lottery system. Well actually I guess that's great for the reform but it makes it look kind of biased.
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Caucus Confusion, Funding
I'm trying to figure out the difference between a closed primary and a caucus.
It looks like a closed primary would still have more turnout than a caucus though.
I looked at my outline and the next thing is campaign advertising so I think I will be discussing some ideas with Keilah (advertising is her thesis).
Looking into the basics of campaign funding today as well:
These three primary methods of raising money and regulating it are disclosure, contribution limits, public financing.
Disclosure: every state has different requirements about how often a candidate has to disclose funds. Independent expenditure disclosure involves television and radio ads and is not coordinated with candidates, so it is not regulated, which explains the surge in ads.
Contribution limits: four states do not have contribution limits (Missouri, Oregon, Utah and Virginia)
Here is a chart of limits for the states in the 2013/14 election cycle. It's really long because each state has different requirements, definitions, and time limits. However, the amounts are in the thousands, so how PACs are allowed to donate millions of dollars is beyond me. I'm guessing they send their money to the headquarters and then it gets distributed, or there are loopholes involved.
Twenty-four states currently operate programs that give grants of state funds to candidates and/or political parties for their campaigns. The amount of money that a candidate receives varies hugely by state (some states have grants that are limited in scope, while in others the state finances the entire campaign). There are requirements involved of course. The candidate must raise a certain amount of money beforehand or otherwise prove that he/she is popular enough to merit a grant.
Another type of public financing is commonly called "Clean Elections" public financing, and is the newest idea in state campaign finance reform. Once a candidate qualifies by collecting a specified number of small contributions (often as low as $5), he or she agrees to abide by strict spending limits and is prohibited from receiving any additional contributions from private sources. Instead, he/she receives a state grant to run a campaign. This looks like a good idea and has been around in a few states since 2000, but for it to work every state would have to use it to equalize the funding barrier.
I also found two studies (here and here) that showed that electronic voting increases the amount of residual votes (votes that are not counted because they were cast incorrectly).
Also an analysis of the different primary reform proposals. Definitely need to find another one that is more balanced.
Unfortunately, having all the primaries on the same day is logistically a problem. Maybe if it's later in the year the media coverage issue could be solved.
It looks like a closed primary would still have more turnout than a caucus though.
I looked at my outline and the next thing is campaign advertising so I think I will be discussing some ideas with Keilah (advertising is her thesis).
Looking into the basics of campaign funding today as well:
These three primary methods of raising money and regulating it are disclosure, contribution limits, public financing.
Disclosure: every state has different requirements about how often a candidate has to disclose funds. Independent expenditure disclosure involves television and radio ads and is not coordinated with candidates, so it is not regulated, which explains the surge in ads.
Contribution limits: four states do not have contribution limits (Missouri, Oregon, Utah and Virginia)
Here is a chart of limits for the states in the 2013/14 election cycle. It's really long because each state has different requirements, definitions, and time limits. However, the amounts are in the thousands, so how PACs are allowed to donate millions of dollars is beyond me. I'm guessing they send their money to the headquarters and then it gets distributed, or there are loopholes involved.
Twenty-four states currently operate programs that give grants of state funds to candidates and/or political parties for their campaigns. The amount of money that a candidate receives varies hugely by state (some states have grants that are limited in scope, while in others the state finances the entire campaign). There are requirements involved of course. The candidate must raise a certain amount of money beforehand or otherwise prove that he/she is popular enough to merit a grant.
Another type of public financing is commonly called "Clean Elections" public financing, and is the newest idea in state campaign finance reform. Once a candidate qualifies by collecting a specified number of small contributions (often as low as $5), he or she agrees to abide by strict spending limits and is prohibited from receiving any additional contributions from private sources. Instead, he/she receives a state grant to run a campaign. This looks like a good idea and has been around in a few states since 2000, but for it to work every state would have to use it to equalize the funding barrier.
I also found two studies (here and here) that showed that electronic voting increases the amount of residual votes (votes that are not counted because they were cast incorrectly).
Also an analysis of the different primary reform proposals. Definitely need to find another one that is more balanced.
Unfortunately, having all the primaries on the same day is logistically a problem. Maybe if it's later in the year the media coverage issue could be solved.
Monday, November 17, 2014
Scattered Research (felon disenfranchisement, caucuses)
I am really having trouble finding positive articles regarding the caucuses. There is some data to show that primaries and caucuses are equally likely to have bad demographic representation, but this isn't a pro for caucuses. As can be seen in the last post, there are a litany of concerns being raised when it comes to caucuses and the only clear reason that we haven't eliminated them is tradition.
Basically for caucus reform, abolishing the system all together will be difficult, but a slow transition to a system more similar to a primary will have to be suggested (maybe beginning with changing caucuses to closed primaries, then transitioning towards open primaries).
Looked more into felon disenfranchisement today. There are arguments being made that these laws are a form of racial discrimination. Also many states actually allow felons to vote once they are released (or with other conditions) but the felons themselves are not informed of this fact and thus do not vote because they are not aware that they can.
Checking out some procon articles about the issue, but first I need to put all my new sources in one file, so I'm putting that together today. (here is the file). Sources that were already in the annotated bibliography are not included.
Notes on this article: The US is the only country amount post-industrial nations to disenfranchise non-incarcerated felons. It also has a very high incarceration rate (686/100,000 vs. 105 in Canada, 95 in Germany, and 45 in Japan). The study, by analyzing data about voter turnout in states that had disenfranchisement vs those that didn't or had different rules, determined that felon disenfranchisement resulted in changes in elections. It also could have influenced 7 highly contested senate elections, which doesn't sound like much but could influences which party had a majority. The felon disenfranchisement would also have affected the 2000 presidential election (under worst case scenarios, where the expected turnout of ex-felons is halved, Gore would have still carried the state of Florida by several thousand votes.) The 1960 election (Kennedy vs. Nixon) could have actually resulted in Nixon's victory had current rates of felon disenfranchisement been present.
On a side note, it's been really cool to see how my thesis is overlapping with so many others, even in ways that I wasn't expecting. Campaign funding relates to Kendall's thesis about PACs, campaign ads relate to Keilah's advertising thesis, and felon disenfranchisement relates to Amy's thesis about prisons for profit. While the connections are interesting and help me get more sources for data, they also showcase how widespread the problems are regarding voter turnout and the election system, as well as how far reaching the consequences are.
Caucuses confuse me; I don't know their origin and attacking the reform part is difficult. I guess first I have to see what, if any, constitutional barriers will appear when I'm trying to suggest reform for them...
Basically for caucus reform, abolishing the system all together will be difficult, but a slow transition to a system more similar to a primary will have to be suggested (maybe beginning with changing caucuses to closed primaries, then transitioning towards open primaries).
Looked more into felon disenfranchisement today. There are arguments being made that these laws are a form of racial discrimination. Also many states actually allow felons to vote once they are released (or with other conditions) but the felons themselves are not informed of this fact and thus do not vote because they are not aware that they can.
Checking out some procon articles about the issue, but first I need to put all my new sources in one file, so I'm putting that together today. (here is the file). Sources that were already in the annotated bibliography are not included.
Notes on this article: The US is the only country amount post-industrial nations to disenfranchise non-incarcerated felons. It also has a very high incarceration rate (686/100,000 vs. 105 in Canada, 95 in Germany, and 45 in Japan). The study, by analyzing data about voter turnout in states that had disenfranchisement vs those that didn't or had different rules, determined that felon disenfranchisement resulted in changes in elections. It also could have influenced 7 highly contested senate elections, which doesn't sound like much but could influences which party had a majority. The felon disenfranchisement would also have affected the 2000 presidential election (under worst case scenarios, where the expected turnout of ex-felons is halved, Gore would have still carried the state of Florida by several thousand votes.) The 1960 election (Kennedy vs. Nixon) could have actually resulted in Nixon's victory had current rates of felon disenfranchisement been present.
On a side note, it's been really cool to see how my thesis is overlapping with so many others, even in ways that I wasn't expecting. Campaign funding relates to Kendall's thesis about PACs, campaign ads relate to Keilah's advertising thesis, and felon disenfranchisement relates to Amy's thesis about prisons for profit. While the connections are interesting and help me get more sources for data, they also showcase how widespread the problems are regarding voter turnout and the election system, as well as how far reaching the consequences are.
Caucuses confuse me; I don't know their origin and attacking the reform part is difficult. I guess first I have to see what, if any, constitutional barriers will appear when I'm trying to suggest reform for them...
Thursday, November 13, 2014
Caucus and Primary Reform
Researched some pros and cons of the caucus vs. primary today.
- 12 states use caucuses, 36 states have primaries
- it's a meeting between members of a party, rather than a popular vote
- this study was cited to show some differences between the two systems
- it has very low turnout (with the exception of Iowa caucus) because it is time consuming and only registered voters with a party participate
- Caucuses are less time-consuming and cheaper than primaries
-The states that hold caucuses are rather attached to them, so banning them all together would be difficult
Notes from the study cited earlier:
- Obama won more caucuses than Hillary Clinton in 2008, but she won more primaries, leading to the idea that systemic differences in the nomination processes influence candidate choice. This was also shown in the races between Romney and McCain.
- There is evidence that caucuses have a sort of response bias, where the voters with the most strong and partisan opinions are most likely to participate.
- The methods that are employed by the caucus (one time, one place, lots of speaking, old procedure) are likely to alienate certain groups of the population, such as the disabled and those with limited English proficiency, once again leading to response bias.
- The study found that neither primaries nor caucuses have great demographic representation (caucuses had more Hispanic voters, while primaries attracted more African Americans. This was probably because of which states had which systems)
- Caucus voters were more likely to be male, educated, and less religious (in terms of church attendance)
- The studies showed that caucus participants had more extreme political views than primary participants. However, the extremism was evident for both parties.
Reforms for the primaries:
- Graduated random presidential primary
- Delaware plan
- Rotating regional primary system
- Interregional primary plan
- National primary
Reminder to look closer at the different types of primaries.
- 12 states use caucuses, 36 states have primaries
- it's a meeting between members of a party, rather than a popular vote
- this study was cited to show some differences between the two systems
- it has very low turnout (with the exception of Iowa caucus) because it is time consuming and only registered voters with a party participate
- Caucuses are less time-consuming and cheaper than primaries
-The states that hold caucuses are rather attached to them, so banning them all together would be difficult
Notes from the study cited earlier:
- Obama won more caucuses than Hillary Clinton in 2008, but she won more primaries, leading to the idea that systemic differences in the nomination processes influence candidate choice. This was also shown in the races between Romney and McCain.
- There is evidence that caucuses have a sort of response bias, where the voters with the most strong and partisan opinions are most likely to participate.
- The methods that are employed by the caucus (one time, one place, lots of speaking, old procedure) are likely to alienate certain groups of the population, such as the disabled and those with limited English proficiency, once again leading to response bias.
- The study found that neither primaries nor caucuses have great demographic representation (caucuses had more Hispanic voters, while primaries attracted more African Americans. This was probably because of which states had which systems)
- Caucus voters were more likely to be male, educated, and less religious (in terms of church attendance)
- The studies showed that caucus participants had more extreme political views than primary participants. However, the extremism was evident for both parties.
Reforms for the primaries:
- Graduated random presidential primary
- Delaware plan
- Rotating regional primary system
- Interregional primary plan
- National primary
Reminder to look closer at the different types of primaries.
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Voter Turnout
Some rather saddening facts about voter turnout and the elections in 2012 from that report last class:
The nation's most populous states (California, Texas, New York) ranked in the bottom 10 in turnout.
Swing states and Election Day registration states had the highest turnout.
99% of presidential and vice presidential campaign stops were in swing states, and the campaigns targeted 10 states, ignoring the other 40.
About 2.3 million fewer votes were cast than in 2008 (some of the low turnout was contributed to Hurricane Sandy in New Jersey and New York)
Minnesota remains the state with highest turnout in both presidential and midterm elections (must find a report about why it's so high... found this, which contributes it to the civically engaged community outreach and same day registration)
Four non-swing states (California, Alaska, Hawaii, and Oklahoma) saw double-digit percentages of decline in turnout. In California, this means over a million fewer people voted, a loss that amounts to more people than voted in Alaska, the District of Columbia, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming combined.
A remarkable amount of youth voted, actually deciding the election in some swing states.
Well. gerrymandering has become such as issue that the report actually had to analyze the bias that results from having incumbents redesign their own districts...
There is a serious debate on whether or not all states should have same day registration: while it increases turnout, it slows down the process at the polls, making lines longer while workers fill out and file the paperwork. I have been seeing provisional voting recommended as a replacement, but those votes take longer to count and delay the results of the election. So really it's a question of what we want to delay: the voting or the counting of the votes. Or there could be some kind of compromise.
Just to see some of the details on same-day registration, I am reading this report. It appears that same-day registration costs more for smaller counties than it does larger ones. The process has been working well in the states that currently use it, but the effects of using on a large scale for the presidential election could be really different.
The nation's most populous states (California, Texas, New York) ranked in the bottom 10 in turnout.
Swing states and Election Day registration states had the highest turnout.
99% of presidential and vice presidential campaign stops were in swing states, and the campaigns targeted 10 states, ignoring the other 40.
About 2.3 million fewer votes were cast than in 2008 (some of the low turnout was contributed to Hurricane Sandy in New Jersey and New York)
Minnesota remains the state with highest turnout in both presidential and midterm elections (must find a report about why it's so high... found this, which contributes it to the civically engaged community outreach and same day registration)
Four non-swing states (California, Alaska, Hawaii, and Oklahoma) saw double-digit percentages of decline in turnout. In California, this means over a million fewer people voted, a loss that amounts to more people than voted in Alaska, the District of Columbia, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming combined.
A remarkable amount of youth voted, actually deciding the election in some swing states.
Well. gerrymandering has become such as issue that the report actually had to analyze the bias that results from having incumbents redesign their own districts...
There is a serious debate on whether or not all states should have same day registration: while it increases turnout, it slows down the process at the polls, making lines longer while workers fill out and file the paperwork. I have been seeing provisional voting recommended as a replacement, but those votes take longer to count and delay the results of the election. So really it's a question of what we want to delay: the voting or the counting of the votes. Or there could be some kind of compromise.
Just to see some of the details on same-day registration, I am reading this report. It appears that same-day registration costs more for smaller counties than it does larger ones. The process has been working well in the states that currently use it, but the effects of using on a large scale for the presidential election could be really different.
Thursday, November 6, 2014
Day 25! (Outline, Turnout)
Worked more on the outline today and organizing notes. I got interrupted last time I was looking for caucus reform so I will be working more on that today. The cool thing about this outline is I can take notes on whichever part of the election process I feel like doing at the moment.
Researched some statistics on voter turnout to see what is being done to address the problem and who exactly we are addressing. Nonvoters are more likely than voters to be poor, not have a college education, and are more diverse in ethnicity. They have weak partisan views and are more likely to support aid to the poor. Surprisingly this other statistic shows that Asian-American turnout is low; many participants stated the reason for this as "conflicting work or school schedules."
Voters also have a negative opinion of Super PACs and the Citizens United ruling.
Felon disenfranchisement is another issue which I read about today. 5.3 million Americans are kept from voting because of this. 75% of people disenfranchised because of a felony are not living in prison.
I was researching voter turnout a lot so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that I accidentally found a report on voter turnout in 2012. Unfortunately I found it 6 minutes before the bell, so it's homework reading.
Set of polls regarding the 2012 presidential election.
Also got some scholarship stuff back from Ms. Marberry and I've gotten my acceptance letter from UTD (that was strange because it was October 31st and Blaine predicted in the Inkling's horrorscopes that we would be getting college letters soon)...
Researched some statistics on voter turnout to see what is being done to address the problem and who exactly we are addressing. Nonvoters are more likely than voters to be poor, not have a college education, and are more diverse in ethnicity. They have weak partisan views and are more likely to support aid to the poor. Surprisingly this other statistic shows that Asian-American turnout is low; many participants stated the reason for this as "conflicting work or school schedules."
Voters also have a negative opinion of Super PACs and the Citizens United ruling.
Felon disenfranchisement is another issue which I read about today. 5.3 million Americans are kept from voting because of this. 75% of people disenfranchised because of a felony are not living in prison.
I was researching voter turnout a lot so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that I accidentally found a report on voter turnout in 2012. Unfortunately I found it 6 minutes before the bell, so it's homework reading.
Set of polls regarding the 2012 presidential election.
Also got some scholarship stuff back from Ms. Marberry and I've gotten my acceptance letter from UTD (that was strange because it was October 31st and Blaine predicted in the Inkling's horrorscopes that we would be getting college letters soon)...
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
Presidential Platform and Voting Methods
Looking over some political platforms that previous candidates have used.
I also printed my documents for my meeting with Ms. Marberry next week.
More on the Congressional District Method used by Maine and Nebraska:
Each district is given one electoral college vote. These go to the winner of each district, and the remaining two votes go to the winner of the state overall. Since employing this method, neither state has had to split electoral votes. Because of gerrymandering, this could be a problem and misused in many states.
Direct election with Instant Runoff voting:
Ranks candidates by preference. If no candidate has a majority, the lowest scoring one is removed and the votes are recounted until a candidate gets the majority. This prevents a plurality win and can be done a nationwide or statewide scale. (for statewide, no constitutional amendment is required). For this reason, this method is popular as a candidate for use in statewide election in states that have a history of electing governors on a plurality. It is also used in Ireland and for election of the Australian House of Representatives.
(opinion in Alaska) (this report wouldn't load in class so I'll read it at home)
Pros: Costs less than a separate runoff election, prevents plurality win (cites Jesse Ventura and previous gubernatorial candidates), eliminates spoilers, increases voter turnout, one-man-one-vote, politically neutral.
Cons: Some state legislatures require a majority (actual separate runoffs), voter confusion, strange tech issues (lost electronic votes, unreliability of touch screen, etc. these are not all specific to IRV), interesting outcomes that are unintended (the article argues that spoiler candidates, which cannot win under IRV are not bad because they highlight problems with the front runners; however they do not often win under the current voting rules (ex. Ralph Nader).)
Proportional allocation:
Each candidate receives electoral votes according to the proportion he/she won from the state (a candidate who won 45% of the vote would receive 45% of the electoral votes). The biggest problem with this method is math: percentages of electoral votes would sometimes be decimals. Getting this passed on a nationwide basis would be difficult, so it would have to be passed state by state; this could give parties unfair advantages halfway through (for instance, if California switched to proportional while Texas stayed with winner-take-all).
REMINDER TO FINISH ADDING THE PRIMARY REFORMS TO THE OUTLINE
I also printed my documents for my meeting with Ms. Marberry next week.
More on the Congressional District Method used by Maine and Nebraska:
Each district is given one electoral college vote. These go to the winner of each district, and the remaining two votes go to the winner of the state overall. Since employing this method, neither state has had to split electoral votes. Because of gerrymandering, this could be a problem and misused in many states.
Direct election with Instant Runoff voting:
Ranks candidates by preference. If no candidate has a majority, the lowest scoring one is removed and the votes are recounted until a candidate gets the majority. This prevents a plurality win and can be done a nationwide or statewide scale. (for statewide, no constitutional amendment is required). For this reason, this method is popular as a candidate for use in statewide election in states that have a history of electing governors on a plurality. It is also used in Ireland and for election of the Australian House of Representatives.
(opinion in Alaska) (this report wouldn't load in class so I'll read it at home)
Pros: Costs less than a separate runoff election, prevents plurality win (cites Jesse Ventura and previous gubernatorial candidates), eliminates spoilers, increases voter turnout, one-man-one-vote, politically neutral.
Cons: Some state legislatures require a majority (actual separate runoffs), voter confusion, strange tech issues (lost electronic votes, unreliability of touch screen, etc. these are not all specific to IRV), interesting outcomes that are unintended (the article argues that spoiler candidates, which cannot win under IRV are not bad because they highlight problems with the front runners; however they do not often win under the current voting rules (ex. Ralph Nader).)
Proportional allocation:
Each candidate receives electoral votes according to the proportion he/she won from the state (a candidate who won 45% of the vote would receive 45% of the electoral votes). The biggest problem with this method is math: percentages of electoral votes would sometimes be decimals. Getting this passed on a nationwide basis would be difficult, so it would have to be passed state by state; this could give parties unfair advantages halfway through (for instance, if California switched to proportional while Texas stayed with winner-take-all).
REMINDER TO FINISH ADDING THE PRIMARY REFORMS TO THE OUTLINE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)