Televised debates

                Another means by which momentum can be generated behind a campaign is via televised debates. This has been a feature of American elections since 1960. During that famous debate, John F. Kennedy faced Richard Nixon. The debonair New Englander appeared more confident and more polished than Nixon; although radio listeners thought that Nixon had won the debate. Under the unforgiving lens of the television cameras, Nixon lost out to his rather more telegenic opponent. The next debate did not occur until 1976, when technical difficulties led to a loss of reception for the viewing public. Despite this small setback, the practice has been a feature of presidential contests ever since.

                There are four general observations to be made about presidential debates. Firstly, style is more important than actual substance. The body language and overall attitude of the candidates is likely to have a far greater impact on viewer’s perceptions than the actual words used. The public rarely give their undivided attention to politicians, but they do get a ‘feel’ for those who seek elected office. For instance, in the year 2000 Al Gore squared up to George W. Bush in a move that jarred with Gore’s wonkish image. Bush managed to diffuse the situation with a cheeky wink of his eye, and it was Gore who came across in a poor manner. Gore also sighed and grimaced when Bush was talking, which added further weight to people’s impression of him as a liberal elitist.

Secondly, a poorly answered question can be very costly to a campaign. In 1988, Mike Dukakis was asked whether he would support the death penalty if a loved one had been attacked. Whilst doubtless heartfelt, his answer made him appear weak. It also reinforced a negative that had come to be associated with the Democrats at that time. Thirdly, a good soundbite can be very useful to a campaign. Soundbites are emblematic of an era in which we give so little of our attention towards politicians. The media will also repeat a soundbite, thereby giving such comments a degree of longevity. There are several examples one might readily consider, although the past master is surely Ronald Reagan. In 1980, he replied to Carter’s rambling delivery with “there you go again” and in 1984, he managed to deflect doubts about his age with good humor. Delivering a well-timed joke can be a very useful weapon in any politician’s armory, particularly if it adds to their folksy persona. Finally, it is usually more difficult for incumbents than challengers because the former has more to lose. This was certainly the case during the first debate held in 2012, although Obama later regained his composure and style.

                Televised debates provide a tremendous opportunity to persuade potential voters. Although many will have already made up their minds beforehand, there will in any given presidential election be a sizeable number of voters who are essentially ‘up for grabs.’ During the performance a successful candidate must reassure his committed supporters whilst reaching out towards the uncommitted. As is the nature of politics, it is a delicate balancing act that requires a deft understanding of people’s wants and fears. He will face questions from an independent moderator based on the theme of the debate itself. In 2012, these were domestic policy, foreign policy and a wide-ranging town hall format in which a number of issues were covered.

                During the 2012 campaign the impact of the televised debates was negligible. Neither candidate made any costly mistakes or memorable gaffes. Equally, no candidate delivered a sucker punch commensurable with Reagan’s comedic put-down of Walter Mondale. In the opening debate, Obama looked weary whereas Romney came across well. However, the last two debates were more evenly fought. Obama once again demonstrated his sharp intellect and impressive oratory skills, but Mitt Romney did better than some might have assumed. On balance, neither candidate managed to gain sufficient momentum during the debates. The vice-presidential debate also failed to impact significantly upon the contest for the White House.

                In truth, it is quite rare for a televised debate to be a game-changer. Perhaps the last really significant presidential debate dates back to 1992. The Republican candidate George Bush senior appeared distant and disinterested, whereas Bill Clinton showed empathy and understanding. The 1992 debate (and the 1996 debate) involved the third party candidate Ross Perot. The likelihood of a third party candidate participating has since been reduced due to rule changes. The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) has certain criteria that candidates must meet in order to be eligible. Firstly, they must be constitutionally eligible. Secondly, they must appear on enough state ballots to potentially gain a majority of the Electoral College. Finally, they must average at least 15% on five selected polls. These changes were instigated by the two main parties in order to prevent the emergence of a credible third party candidate. Frankly, it is the last of these requirements that prevents a third party candidate from say the Libertarian Party or the Green Party appearing with their Democrat and GOP equivalent. That said; third party candidates are not exactly barred from debating. Indeed, some of the minor party candidates conducted their own debate in 2012. 

Balanced ticket

                In my last post, I considered the issue of the 'big mo.' One means by which a candidate might generate momentum behind their campaign is via the choice of running mate. The incumbent usually retains the vice-president, so the focus of the media tends to shift towards the challenger. Naturally, there are times when an incumbent is not in the running. This last occurred in 2008, when both parties put forward challengers. In that election, Barack Obama’s choice of Joe Biden was an adroit move. Biden offered balance to the overall ticket via his skin color, relative age and by his association with the East Coast. McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin also sought to reflect a degree of balance on the Republican ticket due to her age, gender and social conservatism. However, McCain’s choice enabled the Democrats and liberal elements of the media to portray the Republicans as right-wing extremists, particularly on social issues. Her lack of verbal dexterity might have also raised doubts amongst the public. In stark contrast, Romney’s choice in 2012 was a safe one. Paul Ryan offered balance to the Republican ticket in terms of his relative youth and fiscal conservative disposition. Romney’s choice did not however energize the electorate. According to the opinion polls, Ryan’s appointment offered little to the campaign. We may have therefore reached a stage in which the choice of a running mate adds little to that candidate’s chances, but the ‘wrong’ choice can do some damage (as in the case of Palin in 2008).

                Conventionally, it has been assumed that a party needs to offer a balanced ticket in order to win the presidential election. However, this is not necessarily the case. Back in 1992, the Democrats combined two southern, middle-aged Democrats from the DLC wing of the party in Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Whilst this strategy paid electoral dividends for the Democrats during the 1990s, there is always the possibility that certain groups within the party (such as those on the left of the Democrats and those on the right of the GOP) may feel marginalized in some way. This may well deter voters from the party base, drive away potential backers or even discourage potential activists from joining the campaign. Party activists tend to be more ideologically driven than those on the party’s ticket.

                The choice of vice-president often generates a certain frisson of media interest. In contrast, the public are often underwhelmed by the choice. The only truly memorable appointment since the turn of the century remains that of Sarah Palin, who both energized social conservatives and provided something of a godsend to those who sought to ridicule the GOP. She was also quite a boon to comedians such as Tina Fey on Saturday Night Live. Yet despite all this, the choice of vice-president matters for two reasons. Firstly, he or she is literally a heart-beat away from the presidency. This is more than just an academic point. Four presidents have been assassinated whilst in office, and countless attempts have been made on the man who occupies the Oval Office. Secondly, the vice-president can play a key role within an administration. Gone are the days when the post could be compared to a “bucket of warm spit” or dismissed as “handmade for ridicule.” The past three administrations have all made significant use of the vice-president in some capacity. During the Clinton administration, Al Gore played a key role over issues such as the environment and the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement. For his part, Obama has made repeated use of Joe Biden in regards to gaining support from his former colleagues in the Senate. Biden’s personal touch enables the administration to reach those parts that Obama finds difficult to reach. Yet the most powerful figure of modern times remains Dick Cheney. He was rightly described as a big player within the Bush administration (Blumenthal, 2006; Bush, 2010); perhaps even the power behind the throne. Some commentators (Gellman, 2008) even described him as the “shadow President” - a view I concur with.

Momentum

                To gain the party’s nomination, a candidate must to all intents and purposes appear like a winner. Said candidate must also generate a bandwagon effect behind their campaign. By the time a candidate has built up a momentum, that race may well be over. In 2012, Mitt Romney built up a sufficient level of momentum behind his campaign despite a challenge from the right (namely Ron Paul from the libertarian side of the political spectrum and Rick Santorum from the social conservative wing of the GOP). In 2008, the contest for the Democrat nomination was a closely fought affair between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. To the surprise of many pundits, it was Obama who generated the ‘big mo.’ His victory in the Iowa caucus was a key moment in deciding the race in his favor. Obama proved beyond doubt that a black candidate could reach out towards white predominately rural voters.

                In the context of the ‘big mo,’ it is often advantageous for a candidate to win the New Hampshire primary and the Iowa caucus. As the opening contests, they do set the tone for the early stages of the campaign. This may in turn lead towards a greater number of activists, increased media/public interest and a significant boost to their campaign funds. Nonetheless, gaining victory in either of these states does not necessarily guarantee that party’s nomination. In 2008, Mike Huckabee won in Iowa and yet failed to gain the GOP nomination. Similarly, Rick Santorum bagged Iowa in 2012 and yet it was Mitt Romney who secured the nomination. In both cases, the winner in Iowa was more in tune with the party but lost out to a more moderate candidate. This may well be the case in 2016 ...

Inevitably, parties have a rational interest in choosing a candidate most likely to gain victory in the contest for the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. This tends to result in a candidate emerging from nearer the center of the political spectrum rather than a right-wing Republican or a left-wing Democrat. When parties chose a candidate that opponents could label as extreme, the chances of victory are greatly reduced. Perhaps the two most obvious historical examples relate to Barry Goldwater in 1964 (a hawkish conservative who was defeated by a landslide for LBJ) and George McGovern in 1972 (a left-wing Democrat who lost to Nixon in 49 of the 50 states).

                The qualities needed to win that party’s nomination, and the subsequent presidential election; differ to some extent. In order to win the former, it is necessary to present oneself as ideologically in tune with the party itself. To reference Mitt Romney himself, a Republican must be “severely conservative” in order to gain the post. Romney eventually persuaded enough of the party faithful that he shared their instincts, although one of his Republican opponents dubbed him the “Massachusetts moderate.” 

                 It is often the case that a candidate will gain early momentum by offering a message that connects with their party (notably Howard Dean in 2004), only for that candidate to slip away from the race due to their perceived extremism. Voters in America tend to reject candidates they consider to be overtly ‘ideological.’ A skillful politician heading for the White House must invariably trim their sails in order to secure victory come November. The trick is to avoid being trapped by any comments/commitments made during the primary season that might deter moderates during the presidential campaign. As with most countries, voters traditionally congregate around the center of the political spectrum. 

Primaries and caucuses

The distinction between a primary and a caucus is straight-forward. Both seek to secure support for a would-be presidential candidate. By winning a primary or caucus, that candidate gains delegates from that particular state. Each state has the freedom to choose its own particular method. Most states however use primaries. Caucuses tend to held in rural states with a sparse population.

A primary can be either open or closed. During an open primary, all registered voters are allowed to vote. As such, cross-over voting may occur (where Democrats vote in Republican primaries and Republican voters vote in Democrat primaries). During a closed primary, only those registered to that particular party are allowed to vote. An open primary is much more democratic than a closed primary. However, one of the issues presented by an open primary is that voters from the opposing party have an incentive to support an ‘ideological’ candidate who would deter moderate voters during a presidential election. Equally, there is an incentive to prolong the race. In 2012 Rick Santorum actually encouraged Democrat voters to support his candidacy in the state of Michigan. The conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh tried the same tactic in 2008, when he encouraged voters from the Grand Old Party (GOP) to support Hillary Clinton in order to prolong the Democrat race and thereby undermine Obama’s chances of victory.

A caucus however is more of an expression of grassroots politics. A caucus (the Native American word for “meeting place”) may well meet in a local church or someone’s home. The result of each caucus will be passed onto the state party's headquarters. Results are then collated together in order to identify a winner. One of the drawbacks of a caucus is its cumbersome nature. Inevitably, this can result in confusion. For instance, in the Iowa caucus of 2012 Mitt Romney was declared the winner. However, the result was later overturned and Rick Santorum was declared the winner. Collating the results from over 1,700 precincts had arguably contributed to the confusion.

Whereas these are the basic distinctions between a primary and a caucus, there are other terms to be aware of. For instance, a modified primary is a particular type of primary in which registered party voters can exercise their democratic right alongside those registered as independents. This is probably the best test of a candidate’s ability to maintain support among the party base whilst appealing towards the center ground. The qualities needed to win a modified primary are broadly similar to those required during the general election. There is also a jungle primary in which candidates for every state and national office (except the President) are placed on the same ballot and voters may choose anyone regardless of party. The two candidates with the most support then face each other in the general election, even if they are both from the same party.

By convention, New Hampshire holds the first primary of the season whilst Iowa holds the first caucus. Other states have every incentive to hold their contests during the early stages of the campaign, as the race for the presidential nomination (Wayne, 2001; Popkin, 2012) could effectively be over by April. There is even the possibility of a no-contest for those states that leave it too late. Both the RNC and DNC have rules in place in order to prevent frontloading. If state parties break these rules, delegates may be taken away from them. It should also be recognized that both main parties have a vested interest in compression. Neither party wants to prolong their contest, as it may expose divisions within the party and take valuable funds away from the actual presidential campaign. In recent years, the contest has often been effectively over by Super Tuesday (when a number of states – mainly in the south – hold their primaries). This is a test of a candidates appeal to a predominately conservative group of voters.

In 2012, Obama ran virtually unopposed. Usually, the incumbent has a free run from his party as to stand against an incumbent will often present the party in a divisive light. Revealingly, the last three incumbents to face a serious challenge have all gone onto lose the presidential contest. In 1976, Gerald Ford barely edged past Ronald Reagan for the GOP nomination, whereas Jimmy Carter came perilously close to losing against Ted Kennedy four years later. In 1992, George Bush senior faced a challenge from Pat Buchanan (who shocked the GOP establishment by gaining over 35% of the vote in the New Hampshire primary). In all three cases, the incumbent was challenged by a candidate more ideologically in tune with the party. As with members of Congress, an incumbent President is always vulnerable to ‘over-your-shoulder’ politics. The incumbent is also more likely to face a challenge when he is unpopular with the electorate. This is often determined by the state of the economy. In each of three cases mentioned, the economy was in poor shape. It is of course worth noting that the economy is one of the most important determinants of voting behavior.

The primary system was introduced as a response to the flawed system of that what came before. Party activists and bosses would come to some sort of arrangement in order to field the best candidate. Before the reforms of the 1960s, presidential nominees were chosen by delegates to the conventions and the delegates themselves were chosen by conclaves of party activists from each state. Despite the obvious flaws with the primary system, there has been very little call to return back to the old ways. At the very least, most would accept that the primary system represents an improvement from older days. 

Electoral College

If the invisible primary has gained in prominence, the same could not be said about the Electoral College. America’s method of electing its Head of State looks antiquated in the modern era. To its manifold critics, the Electoral College is a cumbersome relic of a previous age. Criticism was particularly rife after the controversial election of 2000, when voters in mainly African-American districts within the state of Florida found it more difficult to cast their vote than others. Black voters overwhelmingly support the Democrats, which inevitably led to accusations of bias on behalf of the Republicans. At the time of the election Jeb Bush was governor of Florida, his brother was running for President and two of the Supreme Court had been nominated by the father of the Republican presidential candidate. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court called an end to the Florida recount and effectively handed victory to George W. Bush. Obviously, the decision was all the more political given the fact that Florida was the last state to call and the winner of the sunshine state would earn the mantle of Head of State. The result was perceived along partisan lines. To Democrats, it was deliberate interference in a closely fought election. To Republicans, it is an insult to claim that voters were confused by the system and nothing more than sour-grapes from their opponents.

The Electoral College is very much an invention of a previous age. The founding fathers were fearful of direct democracy and held a predilection towards elitism. The Electoral College was thereby created in order to prevent the tyranny of the majority by facilitating a level of peer review. Delegates can choose which of the candidates is best suited towards the post of President, therefore offering their wisdom and in doing so assuage the will of the majority.

The mechanics of the Electoral College do not sit well in the modern era. Firstly, the use of delegates seems anachronistic given the potential for a rogue (or faithless) elector. This is more than simply a case of semantics, as half of the past 14 presidential elections have witnessed examples of a faithless elector. Under federal law, an elector is not obliged to honor the result (although some states have laws to prevent it). Secondly, the result is not made official until December. In an age where people expect information to be presented in an instant, the delay seems completely unnecessary – particularly as the result is never really in doubt once election night is over. Whilst these are not the only flaws with the Electoral College, they seem to encapsulate the outmoded character of the system. Frankly, not everything bequeathed by the founding fathers is necessarily positive.

There are of course several advantages to the Electoral College. Firstly, it provides an enhanced mandate to the winner. The President can therefore claim to have the support of over 50% of those who voted, as in the case of Obama in 2008 and 2012. The notion of an enhanced mandate is of obvious relevance when seeking to elect a Head of State. By way of comparison, France adopts a second ballot electoral system in order to ensure an enhanced mandate. A proportional system would be entirely unsuitable for the purpose of a presidential election. Another argument in favor of the Electoral College (EC) is that it prevents an urban-centric victory. Candidates must reach out beyond the more populous cities in order to gain victory. Moreover, it strengthens the electoral impact of minorities. As the votes of a given state are an all-or-nothing affair, minorities can provide the crucial edge. At the very least, neither candidate can afford to ignore minority groups in the quest for the White House.

The EC also maintains the federal character of the union. Indeed, the allocation of EC votes is deliberately generous to the smaller states. The system also enables each state to adopt their own way of conducting an election, thereby preserving states’ rights. For instance, Maine and Nebraska allocate EC votes on a slightly different basis to the rest of the country. The EC also isolates the impact of electoral fraud to the state in which it occurs. Finally, it encourages stability through the two-party system. This may be contrasted to the multi-party systems that exist under various types of proportional representation within Europe.

The drawbacks of the Electoral College are easy to identify. Perhaps the most significant is that it can produce a result totally disproportionate to the wishes of the electorate. For instance, in 2012 Obama gained over 60% of the EC based on just over 50% of those who cast their vote. This distortion is however more pronounced when a third party candidate does well (as in 1992 when Clinton gained 69% of the EC based on a mere 43% of the national vote). Clinton also failed to gain a plurality of the national vote in that year. Secondly, the candidates allocate resources towards the big seven states whilst marginalizing the smaller states. The swing states (such as Ohio) also receive a significantly greater level of attention than relatively safe states (such as California or Wyoming).

There are other flaws to consider too. As with any majoritarian system, the EC entails wasted votes. A number of states are either solidly red (such as Utah) or solidly blue (such as Massachusetts). This may well be linked to the problem of voter fatigue, which is itself exacerbated by democratic overload. The EC also perpetuates the two-party system and thereby prevents a minor party candidate (such as Ross Perot in 1992) breaking through. Furthermore, the EC system can at times raise the aforementioned issue of a rogue (or faithless) elector in those states that allow it. Finally, the EC system can produce anomalies. It is entirely possible to win the contest with a lower number of votes on a national basis than the other candidate. This last occurred in the year 2000, when George W. Bush won a highly controversial election by virtue of a decision taken at the Supreme Court level. Throughout our history, the winner of the Electoral College has actually lost the national vote on four separate occasions.

These criticisms have inevitably led to a search for a different method, including a nationwide election in which the whole country acts as one giant constituency. However, the possibility of an alternative mechanism being introduced for electing the Head of State seems remote. The closest the Electoral College came to being overturned dates back to the Bayh-Celler amendment of the late-1960s (which was eventually filibustered in the Senate). More recently, congressmen Gene Green proposed ending the Electoral College for a system that ensured that each delegate votes for the candidate/vice-president who received the majority of the popular vote in the state. As you may already know, there are pressure groups that seek to overhaul the present system. Alas, any proposed change requires cross-party consensus and reaching a bipartisan platform has become increasingly difficult in our divided nation. Red America and blue America often select a media source that best confirms their bias or pre-existing assumptions. Any balanced assessment is thereby discouraged within contemporary society. This ideological polarization is reflected within the two main parties. Both the Republicans and the Democrats have undergone a period of ideological purification since the collapse of the New Deal in the late-1960s. It is increasingly hard to identify liberal North-Eastern Republicans or for that matter conservative Dixiecrats. Moreover, an incumbent is deterred from seeking a bipartisan agreement because they are often more likely to be defeated in a primary than a general election. This observation is particularly pertinent to members of the lower chamber, where congressional districts are brazenly gerrymandered to suit the status quo. Incumbents must engage in ‘over-your-shoulder’ politics, otherwise they will suffer the fate of Senator Richard Lugar in Indiana, Tim Holden in Pennsylvania and state House representative Larry Kump. Lugar had long been classed as a moderate, whereas Holden (as a self-confessed Blue Dog Democrat) always looked vulnerable after the district was redrawn along more liberal lines. In the latter example, Larry Kump was defeated in West Virginia by the 17-year old Saira Blair.

Invisible primary

When identifying and assessing this phony contest, it is important to reflect upon the term invisible primary (or pre-primary). The term depicts the period between the first candidate officially announcing their intention to run, and the opening primary of the campaign. The invisible primary has grown in importance since the journalist Arthur Hadley (1976) first identified the term, principally because of a greater level of scrutiny from the media and a wider proliferation of media sources. During the invisible primary, the money raised and the results of opinion polls are examined in great detail by the media. For the wider electorate however, this can be a very tedious affair indeed. It effectively lengthens the electoral contest when many people are neither that interested in politics, nor have a particularly high opinion of politicians. It arguably creates further distance between ‘them’ (the political elite and wealthy donors) and ‘us’ (the public).

There are six elements of the invisible primary, although the most important by a long way is the role of money. A would-be presidential nominee needs to have accumulated a sufficient level of funds in order to establish themselves as a frontrunner. It may also serve to deter potential rivals from running against them. The role played by the party hierarchy can also be a factor here, with former advisors and high-ranking members of the DNC/RNC offering their tacit support to the most suitable candidate. A frontrunner can emerge from this somewhat unedifying process, which can also serve to present that candidate as presidential in the eyes of the broader electorate. Given the importance of money to the invisible primary, the term money primary could well be used by informed pundits.

Another element of the invisible primary is the psychological test. The aim of this test is to ascertain whether a candidate has the sufficient mental and physical stamina for the task in hand. It is worth noting here that the President-elect must publish his medical records, and that the psychological test may also be applied to their choice of vice-president. For instance, in 1972 Thomas Eagleton revealed that he had been hospitalized for psychiatric treatment because of depression (which further undermined the already chaotic nature of McGovern’s candidacy). There is also a staff test to consider in which potential candidates must demonstrate their ability to recruit activists. Obama was particularly proficient at this in 2008. The strategy test however relates to the plan by which a candidate might secure their place as the frontrunner. A candidate may therefore have to change their stance on key issues, or to avoid making commitments they cannot meet. This also relates to a constituency test in which the candidate must demonstrate their ability to gain a nationwide group of supporters. Finally, the media test is crucial as potential candidates must perform well and avoid verbal gaffes. Any mistakes they make (such as Rick Perry’s “oops” moment in the 2012 Republican race) could be fatal to their presidential ambitions.

Welcome

Introduction

The United States of America is a truly remarkable country with a fascinating and frustrating system of governance. America may well be unique in the world as a nation that stands for a cause, for what its people expect from their politicians and is for many patriots the last great hope for mankind. It is quite simply the most important political system on Earth, and should therefore be of interest to anyone with any interest in politics and power.

American politics is subject to an ever-changing whirlwind of events, and that is what makes it so absorbing and stimulating as an arena of study. However, there is thankfully much that is constant from one aspect of inquiry to another. The aim of this blog is to assist those embarking upon a journey towards a deeper understanding of politics in the United States, and to arrive at their own informed conclusion. 

Overview of elections

Any understanding of American politics should begin with an examination of the electoral system. In doing so, it is important to recognize the intentions of the founding fathers, the impact of money within the political process and the distinction between theory and practice. We must examine each of these carefully as they are central towards a comprehensive analysis of elections in the United States. Let us therefore begin with the founding fathers of our nation, as this seems a befitting place to start any proper understanding of American politics.

Whilst the framers were fearful of democracy (which they associated with “mob rule”), they sought to create a new Republic which would serve as a beacon of hope for all mankind. As a consequence, the system they bequeathed upon the American people contains a mix of both shrewd skepticism and new world optimism. The electoral system, as with many other facets of American governance; holds a realistic view of how power is wielded by flawed human beings. However, it also reflects an appreciation of the opportunity to learn from the mistakes of the old world.

Money casts a very lengthy shadow indeed over American elections. In order to run for office, politicians need to raise a staggering amount of cash. Ted Turner (the founder of CNN) once said that “money is how we keep score in America.” Although he was not referring to politics, his comment alludes very clearly to the political world. In order to become a credible candidate in the states, it is necessary to raise a sufficiently large war-chest. Candidates need to win what political commentators dub the money primary (an imprecise term … though no less revealing for it!) in order to have any real chance of victory. It has been said, perhaps with some justification; that politicians should appear in public with the names of their sponsors in the manner of a racing driver. At least the public would have a clearer idea of who supplies the greenbacks and what special interests said politicians are beholden to!

The final theme that runs through this opening section is the discord between theory and practice. We are taught from an early age that America is a shining example of democracy, and that we are an exceptional country. America is presented to us as the land of the free with a lengthy history of constitutionally-recognized rights and liberties. Alas, the reality is far from rosy. In truth, America carries with it a considerable democratic deficit. Whilst the United States of America is democratic in a theoretical sense, it falls well short of that ideal in practice. This observation may well identify something intrinsic about the nature of democracy itself. Perhaps all political systems inevitably fail to achieve their worthy intentions?

                Arguably the most serious flaw within the American system is the ability of money to distort the political process. America has been called a ‘dollarocracy;’ and with good reason too. Whilst there is nothing inherently undemocratic in this, the ever-present need for ever-increasing levels of money places donors in a very influential position. As such, donors can exert direct influence upon decision-makers. Politicians may also spend an excessive amount of time chasing donors to the detriment of their representative function. According to one estimate, congressmen spend around 25% to 50% of their time raising funds. Inevitably, the needs of the people may well be side-lined to meet the demands of those at the very top.

                Another aspect of the democratic deficit concerns the role of insider pressure groups. Insider groups representing powerful sections of society (such as Wall Street and the military) can exert an excessive level of influence over elected representatives. Rather than perform their representative function, members of Congress invariably serve the interests of dominant interest groups housed on K Street. Perhaps the clearest illustration of this point alludes to the iron triangle. Consisting of interest groups, congressional committees and the federal bureaucracy; an iron triangle acts in a secretive manner and can reach decisions that are contrary to the wider notion of democracy.

                In terms of electoral representation, one must consider the role of gerrymandering. This is a means by which constituency boundaries are drawn with the sole purpose of determining the result. Such boundaries may thereby hold little relevance to obvious geographical boundaries (as in the case of North Carolina’s twelfth congressional district which links small scattered towns). In virtually all states, constituency boundaries are drawn by political appointees as opposed to an independent body. As a consequence, they may be subject to the influence of powerful figures behind the scenes.

Historically, gerrymandering is widely associated with undemocratic regimes throughout the world. At its very worst, the incumbent is virtually guaranteed victory based on assumptions concerning voting behavior and the distribution of constituents. It is a cozy stitch-up that suits the vested interests of the status quo. However, it could perhaps be justified on the basis of majority-minority districts. Majority-minority districts were first employed in the 1992 House elections, and after a series of legal challenges during the mid-1990s; they look set to remain a feature of congressional elections. Students should note that this does not necessarily require a majority of an ethnic minority, merely a significant number to reside within that constituency.

                From the opposing angle, it could be argued that the US relies too heavily upon the democratic method. The emphasis upon staggered elections and a separation of powers to avoid the abuse of power probably makes the country harder to govern in an effective manner. The quasi-permanent electoral campaign might also lead to members becoming too responsive to the needs of the electorate as opposed to what might be in the long-term interests of the country. A related point concerns the use of direct democracy in several states. Once again, this may sound highly democratic but the consequences could well be negative. There is no better illustration than California, where an over-reliance upon direct democracy is a real problem. Making tough decisions in the golden state becomes virtually impossible in a system balanced so heavily in favor of people power. Controversial but necessary decisions are routinely avoided in order to ensure politicians are re-elected. The founding fathers would surely have never approved of Californian excess.

Armed with these three observations, it is now possible to comprehend the common themes that run through our understanding of American elections. Given the obvious importance of the post, it seems appropriate to begin with the contest to become leader of the country. In the US, the contest effectively begins the precise moment after the previous presidential election. This search becomes all the more heated when the incumbent is not running in the next election (as was the case in 2008 and will also be the case in 2016).