Types of pressure groups

                Having built up a readership for my blog, I would now like to turn my attention to pressure groups. First and foremost, pressure groups perform a number of roles within any liberal democracy. They help to educate the public, exert influence upon the decision-making process and maintain a link between the people and the powerful. They also give ventilation to those issues of concern to the American people. That said; the impact of pressure groups is not necessarily a positive one. There is a rich debate within political discourse concerning the relationship between pressure groups and democracy. We might also consider which theoretical perspective (such as elitism and pluralism) best describes the overall significance of pressure groups. In order to understand pressure groups, it is necessary to explore these and other questions in order to properly identify and examine pressure groups within the United States.

                The obvious first step is to define the term itself. A pressure group is an organization of like-minded individuals who seek to promote a particular cause(s) or interest(s). Unlike political parties, pressure groups do not seek elected office. This is the key distinction between the two. Beyond this basic definition, there are different types of pressure groups. When considering this typology, it is worth noting that a pressure group might belong to more than one group. For instance, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is both an insider group and a cause group.

                The most important distinction to be aware of is that between an insider and an outsider. An insider pressure group has close and regular contact with decision-makers amongst the various levels of governance. As such, an insider group has a great deal more influence over the political process than an outsider group. Insider groups tend to represent wealthy sectors of the economy such as the financial services industry. Insiders also derive from influential sections within society (such as the AIPAC and the AARP). Politicians seeking elected office need the support of wealthy groups and the public endorsement of those groups representing strategically important sections of the electorate. This is the unvarnished truth of politics, particularly within a country that would surely never accept state funding of political parties.

                As the name implies, outsider groups do not have access to decision-makers. Mainstream politicians will distance themselves from outsider groups due to their association with direct action. That said; outsider groups can over a period of time become insiders. One obvious historical example relates to the civil rights movement during the 1950s and 60s. Whilst there were elements within the movement who advocated political violence, such as the Nation of Islam led by Malcolm X; the civil rights movement eventually gained an influential voice within the conventional political process. By the mid-60s, the civil rights movement had secured significant legislative gains via cross-party support from Congress and the White House. This example serves to remind us why the distinction between insiders and outsiders holds significance to our studies. Broadly speaking, outsider groups have very little impact upon the political process. It is insider groups that hold by far the most influence.

                Another distinction to be aware of is that between sectional groups and cause groups. The former refers to those groups that represent a particular profession or occupation. In short, sectional pressure groups such as the American Federation of Teachers seek to promote the interests of its members. However, it could be argued that such groups promote the interests of their own profession at the expense of the public interest. By emphasizing the ‘me’ rather than the ‘we,’ sectional groups can exert a negative influence upon the political process. From the opposing side of the argument, a sectional group can be said to enhance the level of democracy within the states. For instance, they give a voice to those groups that might otherwise be marginalized within the decision-making process.

                As the term clearly implies, a cause group promotes a particular cause or issue. There are literally thousands of cause groups within the states, and the very existence of such groups is viewed as a positive contribution towards the democratic health of American politics. This is because all different shades of the political spectrum are covered. As such, no particular interest can dominate at the exclusion of the opposing side of the argument. For instance, there are pro-life conservative groups active in the annual March for Life on Washington DC alongside a number of pro-choice liberal groups such as the National Organization for Women (NOW) and EMILY’s List. However, there are certain cause groups who could be considered extremists because their actions might threaten the life and liberty of others. This is clearly undemocratic, and is widely cited as one illustration of the negative impact pressure groups may have upon the political process.

                Although not widely used, it might be worth noting the distinction between permanent groups and temporary groups. For obvious reasons, permanent groups are of far greater significance than the latter. Temporary groups are usually set up to address local politics, such as parents against the closure of a school. Temporary groups tend to motivate those who might otherwise be largely apathetic towards the political process. They are also associated with a relatively amateurish approach towards raising public awareness, principally due to a lack of money and know-how. As one can see, pressure groups presents us with an area of study that covers a very wide range of examples; from the highly professional lobbyists operating within the corridors of power to the more amateurish approach of those motivated by a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) mindset. 

Quotes on Voting behavior

“America is a nation of immigrants.” John F. Kennedy

“Hands that picked cotton can now pick a President.” Jesse Jackson

“If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning.” Warren Buffett

“In America your economic status pretty much determines your social status.” Joe Bageant

“Religious insanity is very common in the United States.” Alexis de Tocqueville

“Swing is king.” Mark Penn

“The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion.” Abraham Lincoln

“The idea that religion and politics don’t mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country.” Jerry Falwell

“The politicians choose their voters [in the US] instead of the other way around.” John Tanner

“While [Martin Luther] King was having a dream, the rest of us Negroes are having a nightmare.” Malcolm X

“White people have made many rules that the rich may break but the poor may not.” Chief Sitting Bull

“White racism may be the black people’s burden, but it is the white people’s problem.” Bill Clinton

Theories of voting behavior

                There are several theories that seek to offer us an insight into voting behavior. Of these, the most prevalent is rational choice theory; so let us begin with that. Rational choice theory is based on an assumption that individuals are rational actors. Individuals will thereby rationalize their vote according to their own particular interests. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan; they will ask themselves “am I better off than I was four years ago?” They may also hold a rational expectation as to which party or candidate is most likely to look after their economic interest(s) in the foreseeable future. In terms of retrospective and prospective voting, the public will thereby choose between the parties/candidates and make their decision accordingly; akin to choosing between two rival brands for their custom. For this reason, rational choice theory is sometimes known as consumer choice theory.

The assumption that voters act in a rational manner certainly holds some degree of veracity, in that one can readily identify a rational explanation as to why certain groups are more inclined to support a particular party. For example, people on low incomes have a rational interest in supporting that party/candidate which is most likely to favor a redistribution of wealth and opportunity (such as President Obama’s decision to raise the federal minimum wage). Similarly, an Evangelical Christian has a rational interest in voting for that party most closely associated with the promotion of religious values.

The obvious flaw with the rational choice model is that some voters do not fall easily into these clear-cut explanations. For instance, those on low incomes living in the rural heartland of America are more inclined to support the GOP rather than the Democrats; a phenomenon explored in a book intriguingly entitled ‘What’s wrong with Kansas?’ (Frank, 2004). However, less well-off voters throughout the world also vote for right-wing parties. As such, one must place this phenomenon into a broader context. In the UK, working-class Conservative voters can be understood on the basis of class de-alignment. Such discourse is not commonly used within the states, although the term may well have some relevance to our study.

In considering why certain groups vote against their perceived rational interests, one must guard against adopting a prejudgment of some kind. It is patronizing to claim that those whom we do not share characteristics with (perhaps based on income, social class, etc.) do not know which party/candidate is in their best interests. Of more substance is the claim that some voters do not seek to rationalize their choice. They may have little detailed awareness of what the parties or candidates stand for.

Another model one might consider is the party identification model. This model suggests that we identify with a political party from an early age and remain loyal to that party from one election to the next. Identification will therefore reflect what sociologists term our primary socialization. In other words, our choice of party will derive from those norms and values acquired within the family unit. The party identification model does not hold common currency within the states, primarily because party labels are relatively weak. This may reflect a political culture which seeks to emphasize the individual over any collective identity. The party identification model is further weakened by an increase in the number of self-defined independents.

The voter context model claims that voters place their vote into a broader context, such as its relative importance. This particular model certainly casts light upon our understanding of electoral turnout. For instance, it can be used to explain why turnout for a presidential election is consistently higher than is the case for a congressional election. Electing the Head of State is of course clearly of greater importance than electing a member of Congress. The voter context model also explains why turnout tends to be higher during a genuine contest between the two parties (such as that held in a swing state). Second-order elections will tend to record a lower level of turnout.

The issues-based model claims that people make their choice based upon which party best answers their key concerns. For instance, an American citizen concerned about national security may feel that the GOP offers a more convincing set of policies than the Democrats. National security has long been an Achilles Heel for the Democrats, although President Obama can actually claim some credit on this score. Equally, a voter who wants to advance the civil rights movement may feel that the Democrats offer a more credible set of policies than their Republican opponents. The issues-based model also provides an insight as to why poorer voters might prefer the GOP over the Democrats (Bageant, 2008). Such voters may give the issue of abortion greater salience than their own personal economic circumstances. Unfortunately for us, there is always a degree of conjecture when seeking to comprehend voting behavior. It is impossible to get into the minds of those one is seeking a deeper understanding of.

                Other theories of voting behavior (such as the social structures model and the dominant ideology model) are not widely applied to the states. The social structures model states that a person’s occupation is the most important determinant of voting behavior. This does not translate well due to the limited significance of class as a means of social differentiation. Whereas social class does hold some significance within the states, we have never engaged in the same level of class-based politics as European democracies. Moreover, the whole meaning of the term ‘middle-class’ is much broader in the states than it is in other countries. Equally, the dominant ideology model requires us to buy into Marxist assumptions considering the mental means of production (Bloor, 2010). The dominant ideology model therefore exists at the margins of the whole debate.

                In summary, it is crucial to note that no theory will ever fully explain the complex arena of voting behavior. It is simply impossible to identify with scientific certainty the motivation behind why people vote. We can only make educated assumptions, even when they are seemingly supported by persuasive evidence. That is the nature of political studies, and one that we must simply recognize and accept. It is also worth noting that the rational choice theory is the most widely accepted within the field of psephology, but this might be because it offers the most logical explanation rather than necessarily being the most convincing. For me, the most perceptive insight is that offered by the economist Fischer Black. He argued that “a theory is accepted not because it is confirmed by conventional empirical tests but because researchers persuade one another that the theory is correct and relevant.” This is a really prescient observation in the field of politics because the subject matter does not, indeed cannot; invite certainty. To comprehend politics is to be comfortable with endless questioning and theorizing.

Alignment, de-alignment and re-alignment

                No understanding of voting behavior would be complete without a consideration of these three related terms. Alignment occurs when voters identify with a particular party. The relationship between the religious right and the GOP is one example of alignment. De-alignment occurs when a group breaks away from a particular party. The key thing to note is that under de-alignment, those voters do not necessary form a clear attachment to the opposing party. If they do, that would be called re-alignment. As an example of the latter; white conservatives living in the south have shifted from the Democrats to the GOP since the collapse of the New Deal. This particular voting pattern is especially noticeable during presidential elections. In 2012, Romney won 9 of the 11 states that formed part of the old confederacy.

                Identifying these trends in voting behavior requires a certain degree of historical detachment. By doing so, one is able to identify elections as a turning-point in voting patterns. When this is the case, we can describe it as a re-alignment election. When a re-alignment election occurs, a new party system may emerge in some form. Historians such as Marjorie Hershey claim that there have been six party systems within the states, and the last re-alignment election was back in 1968.

                In any given election, social groups may shift their alliance from one party to another. During the 2004 election, the Latino vote was closely fought over by the two main parties. Since then, the Democrats have established themselves as the more popular party amongst Latinos. However, there is much within the GOP’s stance that might attract Latino voters. If the GOP manages to win over this expanding group of voters, then its chances of gaining victory will be greatly enhanced. Due to projected demographic shifts, the GOP needs to address this particular demographic group as a matter of urgency.

                The two most closely aligned social groups to a particular party are African-Americans, and Evangelical Protestants. However, as late as the 1970s both parties were in contention for black voters. Whilst the Democrats based their appeal on civil rights, there were also a number of Dixiecrats who adopted an unsympathetic (and at times, overtly racist) stance against black people. From the Republican side, Nixon did much to advance the whole concept of affirmative action. For example, he launched the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in order to force the construction industry to hire more non-whites. Even today, the EEOC is widely lauded as the single most important development in the history of affirmative action. That said; the ‘party of Lincoln’ now holds very little appeal to black voters.

Amongst Evangelical Protestants, the party of choice is clearly the Republicans. The religious right has emerged as an important element of the party since the 1970s, which in part reflects a shift in the balance of power within the country as a whole. The 'old' North-Eastern elite has been eclipsed by a more southern/western-based network. The latter is associated with a more committed religious agenda than the moderate pragmatism of the North-Eastern style of conservatism.

                Holding a group of voters together is always going to pose difficulties, and there are few better illustrations than the New Deal alliance. From the 1930s to the 1960s, this disparate band of voters was aligned to the Democrats based on a set of policies designed to help the less well-off within society. However, the issue of civil rights eventually caused white conservatives to shift their allegiance from the Democrats to the Republicans. This re-alignment has profoundly changed the contours of elections within the states. There is no obvious equivalent to the New Deal within the GOP, although the religious right certainly provides a crucial base of support within the party. Disagreement lies at the very heart of politics, and no party can expect to hold diverse social groups together for an indefinite period of time. On reflection, the Democrats managed to keep the New Deal together by avoiding the divisive issue of civil rights for such a lengthy period of time.

At the present time, civil rights could conceivably disrupt the Democrat coalition of supporters. Young people and LGBT voters are favorable towards same-sex marriage, but some elements of the party’s blue-collar supporters are hostile to the idea. The Democrats could conceivably experience a fissure comparable to that experienced in the 1970s and 80s, when vocal minority groups appeared out-of-step with blue-collar Democrats. Reagan was particularly skilled at appealing to blue-collar Democrats, claiming that they had been marginalized by the liberal elite and its pro-minorities stance. In a particularly memorable soundbite, he declared “I didn’t leave the Democrat Party, it left me.” Reagan had the communication skills and backstory needed in order to utilize such words to maximum effect.

Swing voters

                My previous post leads inevitably towards a consideration of those who switch their vote from one election to the next. Switchers acting in large numbers can effectively determine the result of an election, particularly if they reside in a marginal congressional district or a swing state during a presidential election (such as Florida or Ohio). It is a truism of election campaigns that those who reside in marginal constituencies will gain more attention from the political parties and candidates than those who do not. To be blunt, some votes will always be worth more than others!

There are two main characteristics shared by floating voters. Firstly, they are likely to be closer to the center of the ideological spectrum than others. Committed liberals and conservatives are obviously inclined to support either the Republicans or the Democrats. Those voters in the center; sometimes depicted as moderates or independents; are always going to be greatly valued by the two main parties. Secondly, a switcher is more likely to share a certain social/geographical background. For instance, they are more likely to reside in the suburbs. The margin of difference in the 2008 and 2012 presidential election amongst suburban voters was a mere 2%. Switchers are also more likely to be between the ages of 40 and 49.

In terms of voting blocs it is predicted that women and Latinos will become increasingly marginal in future years. This argument however rests on the assumption that the GOP can broaden its appeal by adopting a more female-friendly position, or by adopting a more pragmatic approach to immigration. One might also assume that the Democrats could lose their appeal towards female voters and Latinos. The electoral importance of these groups is particularly noteworthy given that women are more likely to vote than men, and the number of Latinos is set to rise. The loyalty of any social group is ultimately dependent upon securing benefits of some kind from that party, or from an assumption that said party best represents their interests. Any voting bloc can collapse given the right level of pressure, as shown by the culmination of the New Deal alliance over the issue of civil rights for African-Americans. 

Differential abstention

                Differential abstention is a term used to describe the difference between the number of registered supporters of a party who abstain from voting, alongside those of the opposing party who also abstain. Differential abstention needs to be located within a broader understanding of voter apathy, and the means by which parties strive to get their potential voters to the polls. It also invites a discussion as to how campaign teams attempt to encourage their voters to the ballot box.

                In many states, voters have to register their prior allegiance in order to vote in a primary contest. This is often where the real contest exists, particularly for congressional House districts and in districts within the state legislature. As such, a committed Democrat or Republican may well feel that their vote will have more of an impact during a primary election than a general election. This assumption derives from the voter context theory of voting behavior.

                High levels of differential abstention would suggest that candidates have largely failed to energize their party’s base. For obvious reasons, it is vitally important that candidates get their core voters to the polling booths. Inevitably, some candidates do much better than others. An interesting contrast is provided on the Republican side by George W. Bush (2000, 2004) and Mitt Romney (2012). George W. Bush was a committed conservative with a backstory that reassured the religious right (the so-called 'values voters'). Whilst some of the policies implemented during his first term did not sit well with social conservatives in the GOP, Bush actually managed to increase his support amongst the party base by the 2004 election. Romney however did not inspire anything like the same level of loyalty amongst conservatives. His claim to be “severely conservative” rang hollow amongst the Republican base, particularly Evangelical Protestants suspicious of his Mormonism and his relatively liberal record as governor of Massachusetts. McCain also failed to energize the conservative base to anything like the same degree as George W. Bush. McCain was a self-confessed maverick associated with a moderate, bipartisan approach as Senator for Arizona.

                One of the vagaries of the electoral contest is that the President can provoke widespread hostility amongst the opposing party and yet still win an election. This is more relevant in the context of an incumbent Head of State, as the electorate already has an awareness of his policies and his ideological stance on various issues. Two insightful examples to consider here are Richard Nixon and Barack Obama. Nixon provoked genuine hostility amongst liberals throughout the country and yet managed to secure re-election by a landslide. Similarly, Obama is reviled by many on the right and yet he comfortably secured a second term in 2012. In politics, it can sometimes be entirely logical to govern in a manner that reassures the party base rather than adopting a vague platform that ultimately pleases no-one. This was the mistake made by Bush senior, who reneged on his pledge not to raise taxation and was subsequently challenged by fiscal conservatives (namely Buchanan and Perot).

Getting voters to the polls

                Both main parties have their natural base of supporters, and both parties have means by which to motivate their natural base. For instance, the stereotypical Democrat is likely to be relatively younger than their Republican counterpart. They are also more likely to be female, part of a minority group, reside in a large city and/or live in the North-East/West Coast. They are further inclined to adopt a tolerant mindset on a variety of lifestyle issues. However, the stereotypical Republican voter is white, male and living in a rural area. They are more likely to hold a conservative mindset and are thereby supportive of traditional moral values. It must also be acknowledged that people are motivated to vote via an emphasis upon key issues such as the state of the economy and national security. A convincing policy platform; combined with a charismatic politician, will also tend to attract voters to the ballot box.

                Both parties seek to motivate their party base by an emphasis upon the culture wars, a phenomenon which dates back to the 1960s. Since that time, the two parties have been divided on emotive issues such as women’s rights, gay marriage and so on. In the contemporary era, Democrat voters might be motivated to vote based on a desire to uphold the rights of minority groups or the right of a woman to choose an abortion. Equally, Republican voters might be motivated to vote by an appeal to traditional conservative values underlined by a broadly religious message.

                Both parties also seek to motivate their potential voters via a subtle emphasis upon social class. For a country in which social class is widely believed to have little bearing on voting behavior, our social background still plays a role in determining American elections. In terms of the Democrats, their core demographic may well take the view that the GOP is merely the party of the wealthy elite (as exemplified by their candidates for the presidency such as Donald Trump). Equally, the Republican Party may seek to portray their opponents as out-of-touch liberal elitists hostile to the common-sense values of ordinary, everyday folk. It must however be noted than an overt emphasis upon social class does not play that well within the states.

               

Democrats and Republicans utilize modern technology in order to target potential voters and thereby maximize their support. During the 2004 election, it was the Republicans who led the way under Karl Rove with a strategy known as GOTV (Get Out The Vote). However, it is the Democrats who have made the best use of technology in recent times. During the so-called ‘Facebook’ election of 2008, the Democrats managed to successfully target potential voters via new social media. In 2012, they went one better in their use of new technology. Never before has a political campaign amassed such a vast amount of data about potential voters. It is a sign of the times that the mastermind behind the Democrat campaign (Jim Messina) consulted both Steven Spielberg and Steve Jobs for advice.

It must surely be acknowledged that new social media plays in the Democrats favor. The Republicans are more appealing to an older demographic of voters, whereas Democrats appeal to a much younger group of voters. Younger people are of course much more inclined to utilize new social media than older voters. It is also worth noting that both parties will target their message to those parts of the country, or those institutions; that are most likely to house their natural supporters. For instance, a Republican campaign team will promote their candidates/cause within churches in rural parts of the country. Similarly, Democrats will usually find a receptive audience within a University campus. There is little reason for either party to target an area or institution in which their natural base of supporters does not reside, unless they can identify a number of independents and moderates.

                Technology also enables both parties to target swing voters. Those who might vote for candidates from either party are a prized asset in any given election. Swing voters might be identified by the area in which they reside, or to some extent their social characteristics. At the present time, those living in swing states and/or suburbs are seen by both parties as ‘up for grabs.’ In contrast, the GOP is hardly likely to tailor its message towards African-Americans living in urban areas. Equally, the Democrats have little appeal amongst white Evangelical Protestants. This would arguably be a waste of resources from their respective campaign teams, both in terms of time and money; to bother with such a fruitless search for votes. 

Democratic overload

                Democratic overload refers to a peculiarly American phenomenon. Compared to most democracies, American citizens have a relatively high number of opportunities to vote. Come election day in November Americans have an opportunity to vote in a wide number of elections. Whilst something of a cliché, Americans do vote for everyone from the Head of State to the local dog-catcher. They also vote in primaries, propositions, gubernatorial contests, mayoral elections and so on. By international standards, this is quite impressive. Alas, it may well contribute towards voter fatigue. Secondly, democratic overload could perhaps contribute towards an ineffective political system. Let us examine both these points in closer detail.

                The link between democratic overload and voter fatigue would at first appear entirely logical. For instance, the negative tone of political advertisements may well be a contributory factor towards voter apathy. The lack of adequate choice may also be considered here. Frankly, it is very important to recognize the limitations of subjects in the social sciences, as they cannot replicate empirical research in the manner of a natural science such as Physics and Chemistry. Natural sciences can engage in experiments in order to establish a truth, whereas that option is simply not available within the social sciences (Buchanan, 2013).

                Secondly, democratic overload could be linked in some way to an ineffective political system. Although something of a blunt dichotomy, the emphasis in the states is very firmly upon democracy rather than effectiveness. The founding fathers sought to prevent the concentration of power. As such, they deliberately created a system in which the elected could never form themselves an interest separate from the public. Far from being unresponsive to the public’s wishes, it could be argued that members of the House are overly responsive to the wishes of the public. They must face the electoral process once every two years, and in order to gain re-election an incumbent usually has to demonstrate what they have provided to their constituents. This often takes the form of ‘pork.’

The American system was created to ensure that those who wield power are to some extent accountable to the people (as the ‘people’ were defined at the time). It reflects a mindset opposed to the notion of inherited titles and political authority exercised by those who are unaccountable to the people. Ultimately, our Republic was borne out of Enlightenment theory. Yet as discussed previously, the American system suffers from a democratic deficit. The intentions of the founding fathers have been progressively thwarted by the partisan rhetoric of ideological polarization, bitterness-as-usual within Congress, the role of wealthy donors and the influence of powerful interests. The first ever President (who stood as an Independent) would doubtless conclude that his great fear for the country; that of strong parties, has come true. Paradoxically, America suffers from the twin problems of a democratic deficit and democratic overload. 

Separate mandate

                Unusually, candidates from the same political party are not elected on a shared mandate. Whilst a policy platform might exist in some form, there is no manifesto akin to that used in parliamentary democracies such as the United Kingdom. Party labels are relatively weak in the states, elections are held at staggered intervals and the contest centers upon the candidates rather than the parties as such. Inevitably, this bears relevance towards our understanding of voting behavior.

                It is an observable trait of American politics that a candidate from the same party as the President may have little incentive to support the Head of State. Indeed, there may be a clear self-interest in placing a degree of ideological distance between themselves and the Prez. This is particularly noticeable within a state that traditionally leans towards a different party to that of the President. As a consequence, a Democrat standing for election in a red state may emphasize their opposition to Obama’s policies. That said; the President still has some leeway over members from his own party although this level of influence fluctuates over the electoral cycle. For instance, it is likely to be considerably higher in the immediate aftermath of his victory on the basis of the coattails effect. His political capital is also higher at that time. However, his influence is likely to wane as time goes on – particularly during the lame-duck stage.

                The relationship between the Head of State and a member of Congress from the same party as the President can be a complex one. The President might reasonably expect a degree of shared ideological ground with his party members in Congress, but he can never guarantee it. From the perspective of a House representative or Senator, offering support to the President comes with an electoral health warning. The President may well have to ‘persuade’ a member of his own party to support a particular policy, as was the case with Senator Ben Nelson in regards to Obamacare. It should also be noted that a congressional member from the opposing party to the President may seek to avoid siding with the administration in Washington DC regardless of the situation in question. Those that do risk the very real possibility of losing their party’s primary on the basis of ‘over-your-shoulder’ politics. These are all consequences of a system based upon a separate mandate, where candidates will always have a degree of independence from the party platform and have some autonomy from the party hierarchy in the nation’s capital. 

Ticket splitting

On any given election day, the American public may well be asked to elect the President, members of Congress, members of the state legislature, governors, mayors and so on. Most states allow citizens to split their vote between candidates from the various political parties. This is a more democratic method than those states that only allow for straight ticket voting (such as Alabama and Oklahoma at the time of writing). Ticket splitting enables the public to choose the candidate most suitable for the post in question. For instance, a voter might think that a Republican would be more suited to deal with the issues that confront the nation whilst voting for an incumbent Democrat congressmen due to his favorable record at providing ‘pork’ for their constituents. This might be placed into the broader framework of the rational choice model of voter behavior, where the Republican ticket for the White House might be seen as more appealing due to their hawkish stance on national security whereas a Democrat incumbent in Congress may have a good record in defending his constituents’ interests. In both cases, the voter could be said to have rationalized their actions.

                Supporting candidates from the exact same party does not necessary make logical sense to American voters because of the sheer range of politicians who might adopt the same party label. In other words, the Democrats may have a conservative (fiscal and/or social), a moderate or more likely a liberal attached to their party label. Equally, the GOP may have a liberal, a moderate or a conservative (fiscal and/or social) on theirs. A liberal Republican could even be characterized as a RINO whereas a conservative Democrat could be a DINO. Moreover, mavericks and independently-minded politicians could stand on either party platform. Americans are socialized into assessing the merits or otherwise of the candidates rather than the parties. The inevitable consequence is of course ticket splitting. Americans also seek to share out power between the parties rather than concentrating power into the hands of a particular party. This reflects the broader mindset of the nation. The founding fathers sought to prevent the concentration of power into the hands of one particular faction, and that worldview has to a large extent shaped generations of Americans.

                As one might expect, voters in certain states are more inclined to split their vote than others. Montana is the only state in the union to split its presidential-US Senate ticket in the majority of elections, with North Dakota and Rhode Island close behind. States with the most consistent straight ticket record include Kansas, Wyoming, North Carolina and Utah (all of whom are Republican-leaning). Finally, it should also be noted that ticket splitting is ultimately a form of tactical voting, a practice common within those countries that employ a majoritarian electoral system. As such, voters in certain states are more inclined to use their vote to maximum effect than other states.

Apathy

                For all the grandiose talk about democracy and freedom in America, a great many people do not bother to vote on the day of an election. The problem is more acute in regards to congressional elections, although turnout for presidential elections hardly compares well to other liberal democracies throughout the world. There are several reasons for voter apathy within the states, but arguably the most significant is the lack of adequate choice between the two parties (Ventura and Russell, 2012). Choice is effectively limited to one of the two main parties, and in certain parts of the country; the two main candidates hardly differ at all in terms of their policy outlook. For instance, in parts of the south a Democrat candidate is highly likely to adopt a conservative platform along with their Republican opponent. Moreover, both parties could be said to share a cross-party consensus over many key issues. For vast swathes of the electorate, the heat generated by partisan rhetoric masks the true reality of the situation. This criticism derives from both the left and right of the political spectrum. Those on the left (such as the Occupy movement) claim that both parties place the interests of the wealthy elite above those of ordinary people. Similarly, those on the libertarian-right (such as the Tea Party) claim that both parties have raised government borrowing in an irresponsible manner. They use taxpayers’ money to keep their clients happy and thereby maintain their hold on power.

                Another reason for low turnout is the general sense of disillusionment with the political process. An election is widely seen as an expensive sideshow that offers voters a choice between the lesser of two evils. To use an analogy; all voters can do is change the leaves, the roots stay exactly the same. The third factor to consider is common to all those countries with a majoritarian voting system; that of wasted votes. The aim of a proportional voting system is to ensure that no vote is wasted. However, that is not the case under a majoritarian system such as FPTP and virtually all elections in the states are held under the FPTP system. Moreover, there is very little chance of meaningful reform when the two main parties have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. The issue of wasted votes is obviously much more pressing in safe seats. Not surprisingly, turnout in swing states is traditionally higher than the average. In terms of congressional constituencies for the House, the issue of safe seats is exacerbated by the phenomenon of gerrymandering. The number of safe districts in the House is usually well over 90%. As such, there is very little incentive for people to go out and vote. Moreover, almost two-thirds of House seats are won by a margin of over 20%. Indeed, in some parts of the country the only meaningful competition occurs in a primary.

                Another problem to consider is sheer boredom with the political process (Thompson, 1994). America is a country which suffers from a palpable sense of democratic overload. There are so many opportunities to vote that the very act of voting has surely lost some of its resonance. It is also difficult to maintain the public’s interest in such a protracted electoral campaign. Indeed, for many people the whole campaign seems little more of a popularity contest rather than any genuine clash of political philosophies and ideas. The entire process can seem somewhat divorced from the reality of people’s everyday lives; spouting forth a sea of boredom punctuated by a verbal gaffe or an October surprise (such as the revelation in 2000 of Bush’s DUI, or Osama bin Laden’s terrorist threat in 2004). In addition, there is a widespread feeling that politicians do not listen to the concerns of ordinary people. The political process may have been captured by powerful plutocrats and multi-national companies. Politicians must keep their paymasters happy when they should be putting forward the needs and interests of everyday voters. Revealingly, this argument is voiced by those on both sides of the political spectrum.

There is a considerable gap in the states between ordinary people and the political elite. Politicians from both main parties find it problematic to reach out towards the everyday Joe. However, it could be argued that the message put forward by the Republicans (such as distrust of government) seems more likely to discourage people from voting, whereas the Democrat message is more positive about the role of government and the prospect of a more progressive society. This observation is worth noting because the GOP can effectively get its candidates elected by driving down the number of voters. Their demographic is older than the Democrats; and older people are much more likely to vote than younger people. In terms of voter turnout, it is indeed worrying that the next generation feels so little attachment towards voting.

                From an entirely different angle, it could be claimed that voters are reasonably content with the status quo. This is known by the term hapathy. In mature democracies such as the US, voter turnout tends to be lower than is the case within emerging democracies or those societies riven by political conflict. Voting is somewhat taken for granted in a stable democracy in which the political process is broadly reflective of the needs and concerns of the population. When content with the status quo, there may be little reason to go out and actually register to vote in the first place.

                There are various proposals one might consider to make voting both easier and more meaningful. For example, voting could be made easier by a form of e-voting. The technology is certainly there, and other countries have utilized technology in order to make voting more straight-forward. Moreover, the electoral system could be reformed in some manner in order to make every vote count. Given the extent of the duopoly within the states, any lasting change is unlikely to occur unless there is a very clear demand for change. Politicians rarely implement change that threatens their own interests unless there is significant pressure from the public.

Short-term factors

 

                In terms of the 2012 presidential election, the most significant short-term issue was the state of the economy. During a time of considerable economic difficulties for millions of Americans, one might have expected Obama to lose public support. Unemployment was above the statistically-significant figure of 8%, the deficit had increased significantly and many were anxious about us losing out to China and other emerging economies. However, Mitt Romney failed to adequately convince the electorate that his alternative was any better. His ‘cut, cap and balance’ approach to curbing the federal deficit pleased the party base but did little to persuade moderates and independents. His personal wealth may have also alienated some voters, an issue the Democrats emphasized throughout the campaign.

 

                Another short-term factor during the 2012 election campaign was that of health care. The issue had gained prominence in the run-up to the election due to the controversy surrounding the Affordable Care Act (or ACA). The Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare was constitutional, a decision that represented a major blow to the Republicans. Furthermore, Romney was placed in a difficult position by Obamacare. Despite a pledge to repeal the policy, he had previously implemented a similar scheme during his time as governor of Massachusetts. This opened him up to the accusation of ‘Romnesia.’ The Republican campaign therefore failed to exploit an issue that President Obama was vulnerable on.

 

                Lifestyle issues such as abortion and gay rights sharply divide the two main parties. The Democrats adopt a more socially liberal stance whereas the Republicans are broadly conservative. In the 2012 campaign, Obama managed to gain 86% of the liberal vote despite being criticized by the liberal base for acting indecisively over gay marriage. In contrast, Romney gained 82% support amongst conservatives for his three F’s platform and his fiscal conservative proposals. According to various surveys, there are more conservatives than liberals within the United States. Conversely, there are more registered Democrats than Republicans – so the picture is somewhat mixed.

 

                Foreign policy is an issue that rarely plays a decisive role within American elections. Public support and interest is invariably one of mood rather than substance, and in a crowded political agenda foreign policy has to shout in order to be heard.  The American people only seem to give their attention to foreign policy when they feel it affects them directly in some manner. The stand-out example from the noughties is the 2002 congressional elections, the first elections to be held after 9/11. The GOP did remarkably well whereas the Democrats did poorly. National security has long been an Achilles Heel for the Democrats, whereas the Republicans are associated with a hawkish stance on such matters. Having said this, Obama managed to neutralize this negative during the 2012 presidential election due to the assassination of Osama Bin Laden. The Republicans were therefore denied the opportunity to capitalize on concerns over national security.

 

                Law and order should in theory be a strong card for the GOP. They are associated with a much tougher (and therefore reassuring) stance on crime than their Democrat opponents. However, the Democrats have at times claimed credit for declining crime rates – particularly during the 1990s under Clinton (Stiglitz, 2003). During the 2012 campaign Obama could cite falling crime rates, with overall crime rates their lowest for decades. As with national security, a key element of the GOP’s electoral strategy was effectively denied to them.

 

                Before we leave this section, it is worth reiterating the point that short-term factors have become more significant over time. Partisan identification amongst the electorate is considered to be in decline. As such, neither party can rely upon the same level of loyalty as they did in previous generations. Many more voters are prepared to consider the merits or otherwise of both main candidates. According to recent figures, 40% of the electorate fail to identify as either liberal or conservative. In order to appeal to the vital center, candidates must thereby seek to address their concerns on issues such as national security and the economy. They must also offer a convincing set of policies to address such worries. Within this critical slice of the electorate, Obama secured a comfortable 16% lead. In 2012, he managed to persuade the majority of moderates that he understood their concerns and was the best candidate to deal with them.

Demographic trends

                 It is said repeatedly that demographics is destiny! If so, then it is possible to offer a number of comments regarding future trends within American elections. Firstly, an ageing population will have a major impact upon voting behavior – not least because older people are more likely to vote than any other comparable group. Secondly, the ethnic make-up of the states is predicted to change over time. By 2042, it is forecast that whites will no longer be in the majority. Let us consider both these trends in turn.

                An ageing population would seem to be a straight-forward touchdown for the GOP. Older voters are more likely to adopt a conservative mindset and voting pattern. Moreover, the majority of older people have a rational self-interest in maintaining relatively low levels of taxation on inherited wealth and property. However, all is not lost for the Democrats. Older voters clearly have an economic interest in maintaining high levels of spending upon Medicare and other welfare benefits. As the party most closely associated with welfare spending, the Democrats can always appeal to older voters on such matters. They can also remind voters that fiscal conservatives within the GOP favor privatizing Medicare and other public services, such as the partial privatization scheme put forward during the 2012 campaign.

                All one can say with certainty at the present stage is that people are living longer, and an ageing population presents opportunities for the two main parties. However, an ageing population should benefit the Republicans provided they can maintain their current level of support amongst senior citizens. On a separate point, the influence of pressure groups such as the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) is likely to become even more salient as a result of an ageing population, as too are the issues that disproportionately impact upon older people.

                The second demographic trend to consider has been crudely depicted as the browning of America. If population trends continue, whites will be in the minority by the middle of this century. This should be good news for the Democrats. The party gains a majority of support amongst Hispanics (around 7 out of 10 Hispanics voted for Obama in 2012) and a very high level of support amongst African-Americans and Asians. In order for the Republicans to regain the White House, the party has to reach out towards non-whites in a more effective manner than either McCain (2008) or Romney (2012) did. This may be achieved via an emphasis upon the three G’s (or three F’s), a more prominent role for non-whites within the party and a more inclusive tone that reflects the realities of modern-day America. Although the first point is the more significant, one should never underestimate the need for a political party to look like the people it seeks to represent. The GOP needs more non-white politicians to gain nationwide prominence in order to counter its rather white-bred image. If not, the Republican Party will remain the ‘43% party’ in national elections.

 

                The final issue to consider here is the long-term impact upon American society. Whites will eventually be in the minority and that will surely change the whole dynamics of American politics in some manner. One might reasonably argue that the birthers and the Tea Party are already railing against the trend towards a more ethnically-diverse America. More worryingly, it could lead to heightened levels of racial tension. The best case scenario however is that such an adjustment occurs peacefully. America has always been subject to a maelstrom of change, and has largely managed to come through it on a stronger basis.