Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
64 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
History of suffrage in the U.S.
|
- originally states were left up to decide and the majority said 'white, property-owning males' and many had a religious requirement
- now, 18 yrs, US citizen, registrered, 30 day residency requirement |
|
|
How did suffrage requirements change?
|
* voluntary changes my states
- religious requirements removed by 1820s and property mostly removed by 1860s * key constitutional amendments - 15th, 1870, African-Americans - 19th, 1920, women - 24th, 1964, poll taxes = unconstitutional - 26th, 1972, 18+ vote *Supreme Court decisions - residency requirements, okay but only relatively short ones - unconstitutional to say someone has to pay property taxes to vote in school and bond elections *Congressional Action - Voting Rights Act 1965 updates everything and "did away with everything else discriminatory" |
|
|
Turnout Rates today
|
- Presidential - 50%
- Midterm - 33% - Local - 10% |
|
|
Controversies of how to measure turnout
|
voting age population vs. voting eligibility population vs. registered population
|
|
|
What explains variation in turnout over time?
|
- increasing voting age population, turnout declines because newly enfranchised don't start voting immediately
-closeness of race -mobilization efforts of parties -mundane factors such as weather |
|
|
Why is turnout in the U.S. typically lower than turnout in many other democracies?
|
- some countries make it a requirement
- registration requirements are different - election day in US is on a workday - 2party vs. multiparty - voter fatigue? we have many elections... maybe we should add up the times someone voted in ONE of them and find higher rates |
|
|
The "Paradox of Voting" and its solution
|
P x U - C > 0
P x U - C > 0 + d > 0 (Probability of your vote affecting outcome) x (Utility of your candidate winning) - Cost of Voting > zero "Do the benefits outweigh the costs?" SOLUTION. add term, D = civic duty "maybe people vote for reasons that are not purely rational" (Probability of your vote affecting outcome) x (Utility of your candidate winning) - Cost of Voting >zero+D> zero [so we would expect higher turnout when stakes are higher/attitudes about civic duty are strong] |
|
|
Characteristics of Voters and Nonvoters
|
Socioeconomic status: wealthier, higher educated
Political efficacy: people who feel like they are effective Party affiliation: those who feel strongly about party Demographics: *gender: women more than men *racial/ethnic; latinos less than others *age: younger vote at lower rates |
|
|
3 Models of Vote Choice
|
Sociological Model (Columbia), Socio-Psychologial Model (Michigan), Rational Choice Model (Rochester)
|
|
|
Sociological Model of Vote Choice
|
1940s study, group characteristic affect vote choice
low-income=Democrat; high-income=Republican identities pointing one way entirely were more likely to vote that way; those who were "cross pressured" were not problem: doesn't explain WHY differences exist |
|
|
Social-Psychological Model of Vote Choice
|
- vote choice is a product of individual attitudes based on 3 orientations:
1) psychological attachment to a party 2) opinions about particular candidates 3) views on prominent issues "Funnel of Causality" metaphor |
|
|
Rational Choice Model of Vote Choice
|
voters select candidates whose positions on issues are closest to their own
|
|
|
Partisanship--What is it?
|
- affective orientation to a political party ~ like a sports team
|
|
|
How many Americans are partisans?
|
same amount as independents (even distribution)
|
|
|
What's the difference between independent leaners and pure independents?
|
leaners look like partisans
pure independents are a small proportion and are generally less educated |
|
|
Prospective vs. retrospective voting
|
prospective: "how will they do in office?"
retrospective: evaluating past performance |
|
|
Changes in strength of partisanship over time
|
very strong 40's, 50's
weakened 60's-80's (change in parites, increase in Independents, split-ticket voting, etc.) 80's-present resurgence of partisanship |
|
|
The New Deal realignment--What was it? What groups became aligned with the Democrats and Republicans?
|
sharp, lasting change in patterns of party loyalty
D -> blue-collar, working class, racial and ethnic minorities R -> business and professional classes |
|
|
Current differences in the Democratic and Republican coalitions
|
R -> white, middle education, men, south and southwest, protestant fundamentalists and evangelicals, middle-aged
D-> racial and ethnic minorities, most and least educated, women, coastal residents/particularly urban, seculars and religious minorities, old and young |
|
|
Campaigns? What's the conventional wisdom among the public and political scientists about their extent?
|
public thinks that campaigns matter
political scientists think that, largely throughout history they haven't mattered, but that recently they have subtle effects, not enough to affect large changes |
|
|
The Hypodermic Model--what does it say about the extent of campaign effects
|
- Communication is "injected" into you the way a vaccine is
- People are immediately influenced by media that they consume |
|
|
Hovland's studies of persuasion--how did he set them up? what did he find?
|
- conducted experiments about the effects of communication, took advantage of the fact that recruits were randomly assigned to training camps and were relatively the same, shows a propaganda film
- found that the film did have an effect - an educational one, so it was not correct: persuasion did not work effectively |
|
|
Lazarsfeld et al.'s studies of voting--how did they set them up? what did they find?
|
- looked at presidential campaign, followed people across campaign, goal: see how attitudes change
- expected to find that campaigns change a lot of minds found that less than 10% actually changed their voting intention and they really crystallized and activated existing preferences |
|
|
The Era of Minimal Effects--what was it? what prompted the rethinking of it?
|
- campaigns don't change mind, but act as agents of reinforcement ** Klapper
- 1950s-70s Michigan school hold sway, maybe partisanship is more important in vote choice - selective exposure, perception and reception - reassuring and disturbing * the idea that campaigns must have some effect prompted the rethinking of it |
|
|
Priming (def.? indirect?)
|
- exposure to issues makes people weigh them more heavily
- not directly changing your mind, but the context in which you make a decision ex. clinton mentioning economy; admissions council |
|
|
Current State of Research
|
- revises era of minimal effects.. we can get something out of campaigns!
1) learning 2) short term effects 3) indirect effects |
|
|
Differences between presidential general election campaigns and other types of campaigns (in terms of effects on voters)
|
- campaign spending effects
- increasing name recognition in primaries and congressional - study voting in primaries when party ID cannot be used - strategic considerations |
|
|
Gimpel et al. study--what was their question? what data and methods did they use to answer it? what did they find?
|
does a state's status as a battleground decrease the gap in political interest and engagement between wealthier and low income voters?
they were right. |
|
|
Types of Surveys
|
- cross-sectional - survey people and compare, typical
- panel - follow a group of individuals and interview them multiple times - rolling cross-section - interview small number every day across campaign, can capture effects of unexpected events |
|
|
Plusses and Minuses of surveys
|
+ study actual campaigns as they occur
+ easy from different locations + inexpensive and straightforward + long history - random samples for each state/congressional district harder to gather - questions of direction of causality |
|
|
Types of Experiments
|
- lab
- field |
|
|
Plusses and Minuses of Experiments
|
+ can get at causality in a way surveys cannot
+ can study effects with small number of subjects + lab experiments are easily replicated - somewhat artificial - many interesting phenomena don't work with experiments |
|
|
Campaign effects on mobilization and turnout
|
personal contact, 60% voted
non personal contact, 45% direct mail, small effect telephone, no effect what you say when you contact someone does not matter |
|
|
Journeys with George--what was it about? how does it illustrate the other points we discussed re: coverage of campaigns?
|
Alexandra Pelosia
NBC coverage of Bush's campaign 2000 pack journalism, horserace coverage, soundbite news |
|
|
Radio and TV coverage--when were they first important in campaigns?
|
Radio = 1920s, live as it occurs, now a source of advertising, news programs like talk radio
TV = 1952, enough people had tv's so it became useful, 1/2 hr network news broadcasts, 1980s cable news |
|
|
Routines of news reporting--beat system, pack journalism, horserace coverage, negativity, soundbite news
|
beat system - places where news occur, reporters assigned there = circularity
pack - reporters cover issues as a pack, high-profile reporters coverage trickles down, cover and miss same stores horserace - idea of who's ahead vs. behind, easy to cover and generate, objective, emphasizes politics as a game = cynical? soundbite - candidates don't tell own story, mediated through reporters/correspondents, lengths since 1968 (42 sec) to 2008 (5-7) |
|
|
Feeding frenzies--what are they? why all the focus on character in campaign coverage?
|
reporters attack and then lose sight of goal
press is now 'screening committee', reporters as watchdogs, feel that's what public wants, to ignore info would be elitist, private conduct affects public actions effects. candidates=paranoid and restrict access journalists look for something new vicious cycle good candidates drop out |
|
|
What are the communication goals of candidates?
|
increase name recognition
target appeals to voters to persuade and mobilize personal feelings towards candidates |
|
|
How many people recall/recognize names of candidates?
|
recall, recognize
HOUSE incumbent 10%, 60% open 37%, 80% SENATE incumbent 33%, 80% open 66%, 90% |
|
|
Types of targeting of appeals
|
partisan targeting - focus on leaning indpendents/copartisans
group/demographic targeting issue targeting |
|
|
Free vs. paid media--what's the differences? what are the advantages and disadvantages of each?
|
FREE
+ free - mediated through journalists, candidate struggle to control - candidates in "down ballot" races can't count on much of it PAID + unmediated - expensive |
|
|
Strategies candidates use to manage free media
|
- avoid questionable behavior
- don't flip flop - play expectations game wisely (creating images of having come from behind) - schedule events strategically to maximize newsworthiness - make reporters jobs easy (press releases, feed information about opponents) - restrict access when leading in polls - "go local" to avoid critical national coverage (they are more star struck and also makes you appear to care about local issues) |
|
|
Paid media options (TV, radio, direct mail, etc.)--primary advantages and disadvantages
|
TV
- cost - mismatch btwn media markets and district boundaries RADIO + cheaper + easier to target appeals - harder to reach people NEWSPAPER + cheapest + detailed appeals + readers more educated and likely to vote MASS CALLS - push polls DIRECT MAIL + inexpensive + below the radar + most targeted of methods - throw it out - more negativity? |
|
|
what is new media?
|
nontraditional ways of communicating with voters
e-talk shows, news parodies, websites, email, blogs, advertising on the internet |
|
|
Clinton's War Room strategy and non-traditional TV outlets
|
- before, candidates avoided softer programs because they did not appear presidential
- clinton goes directly to voters on MTV and Arsenio Hall |
|
|
Do appearances on non-traditional shows affect election outcomes?
|
Direct effects - Fowler found that it was not a significant increase in candidates' winning, but donations increased
|
|
|
Is there a “Colbert Bump”?
|
bump that levels off a few weeks afterwards, spill over onto other news shows and an increase of funding
|
|
|
Likely future technological advances in campaigns?
|
youtube, blogs, technology to target, creative search engine strategies, technology based activism
|
|
|
Have candidates changed their strategies in response to the new technology?
|
- raising money
- expenditures still primarily to tv - email to reach voters, but phone still more - campaign websites |
|
|
How much do voters use the internet in campaigns?
|
55% (74% internet users) used web or email to get/exchange news
35% internet users get "most" info on internet 38% internet users talk with others online about campaign same amount of Dems and Reps audience for candidate websites are supporters journalists and undecided voters |
|
|
1952
|
Context - Korean War, McCarthyism, fed. gov't corruption; Harry Truman decides not to run
Eisenhower vs. Stevenson comical, mild criticism but not attacks Eisenhoer wins |
|
|
1964
|
Kennedy's death - LBJ must continue Kennedy's legacy and still remain unique
Goldwater vs. Johnson Johnson - social spending, great society, Kennedy and legacy, making Goldwater look crazy (Daisy girl), if you vote for my opponent you will die Goldwater - civil rights, social security, Vietnam, nukes, "right" in your heart |
|
|
1984
|
Reagan vs. Mondale (former vp)
economy good again, small military victories, reagan is very compelling and good, mondale made bad choices (female vp w/ husband financial scandals), announced he would raise taxes reagan - evoke emotions capitalize on face things are going well, highlight foreign policy strength mondale; rollercoaster ad, "they're saying vote is over but it's not" |
|
|
1988
|
bush vs. dukakis
bush says dukakis cannot defend country dukakis says he wants to make things better even though they're already good, negative ad regarding environment documentation and info in ads |
|
|
1992
|
bush vs. clinton
bush - ethical claims against clinton, highlights his own experience and clinton's inexperience (he hasn't been to washington), focus on fact that clinton will raise taxes and spend everyones money; show he's not classy - speed evokes craziness, ad attacks flipflopping clinton; economy. time for a change. economy is major focus |
|
|
Ad strategies:
early on move on to... |
biography ads, introduce candidate to voters
image/issue spot ads: broad theme; focus on issues, past experience, future plans, single or many - wedge ads - negative ads good when you're behind; VP should do it - hit back and mount counterattack |
|
|
How prominent are issues in campaigns? How can we study this?
|
there is issue content, but they don't need to necessarily take a major stand
differentitation between issue content and issue position |
|
|
Issue selection strategies--issue ownership & riding the wave (what are they? why might they be advantageous?)
|
- party issue ownership + priming
- riding the wave- focus on issues most salient to the public, regardless of ownership |
|
|
Types of negativity
|
traits and substantive issues
|
|
|
Why might we be worried about negativity? Why might we not?
|
make politics uncivil, people don't like it, misleading/untrue, dampens signals about subsequent behavior, could demobilize voters
GEERS ARGUMENT democracy requires argument in order to be accountable negative ads have more info positive ads are more misleading can help retrospective voters negativity = dialogue |
|
|
Principles of advertising/components of negative ads
|
Stereotypes
Code words Associations Demonization |
|
|
Is negativity new? How has it changed over time?
|
negativity is not new
personal attacks less now, more substantive attacks |
|
|
In what sorts of races do we see the most negativity?
|
A. Effect of competitiveness?
1. The more competitive the race, the more negative 2. front-runners attack less than trailing candidates B. Effect of candidate status? 1. In congressional races, incumbent vs. challenger… challenger is more negative 2. On presidential tickets, VP is more negative because it doesn’t affect their image as a stateperson as much C. Demographic characteristics of candidates? Men more than women run negative ads D. Effect of sponsor? Don’t run too many negative ads, if they do then they might not look as credible E. Effect of time in campaign? Upward trend of negativity up until election day and then positive ads |
|
|
Proposals for reform
|
ad watches, laws, funding
|
