Student Lists - Section 04,
06 (F99)
Renka's Home Page
GradeA gradebook (labeled PS103-00 for both sections)
Student
Essays - PS103 - U.S. Political Systems
Professor Renka
Fall 1999
Southeast Missouri State University
Exam
No. 1
°Essay No. 1a
- Chris Manning
°Essay No. 1b
Exam No. 2
°Essay No. 2a - Katie Vandagriff
°Essay No. 2b -
Edwards Essays
°Amanda Crabtree
° Shelly Kofsky
Exam No. 3
°Essay No. 3a - Katie Vandagriff
°Essay No. 3b - Marisa Banasik
PS103
– Fall 1999 Exam No. 1 – Essay Section
Top
September 20-21, 1999
Professor Renka
Answer only one of the following essays, in a paper of approximately 2 ½
to 3 honest pages, either typewritten or word processed.
Due:
Monday morning, September 27, by 10:00 a.m. You may turn in the exam in
person, or by sending a physical copy to my mailbox at Social Science 211-L.
If you cannot be there in person, send by email attachment to rdrenka@semovm.semo.edu
or by FAX to 573/651-2695.
1.
Roche said the Framers of the Constitution were pragmatic democrats, but
Hofstadter raised serious doubts about that, labeling them as economic
upper-class defenders who feared the aggressive urban mobs and small dirt
farmers—men whom Rakove says were habitually voting their own into office in
the states of the 1780s.
Madison in Federalist No. 10 and No. 51 put forth the framers’ views on
human nature as self-interested and inclined to form into factions that sought
power for their own selfish ends.
Yet Madison in No. 10 also says voters will be inclined to elect their
betters in a republic with powers conferred on elected officials.
I chipped in that elected officials are much kinder on taxation to their
own citizens than they are to outsiders and nonvoters.
What was democratic about the things the Framers did in Philadelphia?
What was undemocratic about the things they did?
On balance, were they more democratic than undemocratic?
2.
Federalism is rare, while unitary government is common among the
contemporary nations of the world.
In your readings on the American system, some argue there is too much
power in the central government, others that the states have acquired powers
they will not use wisely or well.
Based on your readings, what are the primary benefits of U.S. federalism?
And what are the primary liabilities or shortcomings?
Is the balance of power between nation and states about right, or not?
Answer these queries as if you were obliged to defend these claims.
Essay No. 1a - Chris Manning
PS103-04 H, MWF 10:00 AM
Dr. Renka
Take-Home Essay, Test #1
In the early days of the United States, it was obvious to many that a
system combining both federalism and representative democracy was needed.
According to the textbook, “the people were too widely dispersed, and
the country’s transportation and communication systems too primitive to be
governed [solely] from a central location” (pg. 58).
Although today both communication and transportation are highly advanced,
America still maintains a federal system. The
driving force behind that system is our increasingly expanding diversity. The United States ranks fourth in the world in size (www.stats.demon.nl/chart.area25.htm)
and third in population (www.census.gov/ipc/www/idbrank.html).
There are 213 languages spoken in America (www.sil.org/ethnologue/countries/USA.html)
and probably just as many religions practiced.
Federalism is the method by which this diverse population is better
represented in the democracy of the United States.
The national government makes many important decisions that impact our
daily lives; however, there are some issues on which the opinion of the American
public varies widely. In our
federal system, the states are usually responsible for making policies that
involve social, family, and moral/religious issues.
This is one of the most important advantages of a federal system.
The decentralization of the government allows the desires and needs of
smaller groups of people to be acknowledged and fulfilled at the local level.
Californians differ in many ways from residents of Arkansas who differ
greatly from Alaskans. Variations
in culture and lifestyle create needs for different political policies.
A large, single, centralized government would be unable to make efficient
social policies that were compatible with the convictions of a majority of
America’s diverse groups. However,
the national government still has enough power, through a system of checks and
balances, to obliterate local policies that infringe upon the human rights of
smaller factions.
Federalism is not, of course, without disadvantages.
To begin with, more levels of government equal a larger bureaucracy with
many more people involved in the decision-making process.
This provides more opportunities for corrupt government officials.
Federalism also means that a complex tax system must exist so that each
level of government receives funds from those in its jurisdiction in order to
carry out laws and policies. Another
major disadvantage of federalism is slow response to crises.
Because so many people are involved in the decision-making process, it
takes longer for the necessary authority to be alerted and for action to be
taken.
Under the American system of federalism, a delicate balance of power has
been established. Some believe that
the states have too much power, and others believe that it is the national
government that possesses too much control.
One thing is for certain, though, and that is that a strong national
government is necessary for the survival of the United States.
The earliest American leaders understood this.
Under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government was weak and
unable to control small factions: a perfect example being Shay’s Rebellion. It was obvious to all that the national government must have
a certain level of authority or the new nation would not live long.
The fact that our current government system has lasted now for over 200
years is testimony that something is being done correctly.
Although in most cases the states or other local governments (county,
city, school district) enact policies involving moral and social issues, the
federal government does indeed get involved.
In the past, the Supreme Court has made decisions on issues such as
drinking age, speed limits, suffrage, and abortion.
Some of these decisions have been overturned and the power to decide them
given back to the local governments. Usually,
when the Supreme Court acts as the American conscience, it does so under the
blanket of the Bill of Rights. Nearly
every person in the country believes that murder is immoral and wrong, and
policies involving such human rights are not questionable.
Therefore, the national government can make laws concerning such rights
without fear of infringing upon the moral convictions of most secular groups.
But some issues are not so clear-cut.
Abortion is one example of such an issue.
As I mentioned before, nearly every American (for that matter, almost
every person in the world) believes murder of another human being in wrong.
In the matter of abortion, the big question is: “When is a human fetus
considered a human being?” The answer to this question is what various religious and
cultural groups disagree on. I
believe that the issue of abortion should be given to the states to decide upon,
because they represent a more homogenous collection of voters and citizens than
the national government does, and therefore are more likely to better represent
the moral convictions of the citizens.
There are several advantages to the federal system in the United States,
and there are also quite a few disadvantages; however, I believe that the
diversity of the nation demands that the system remain.
Americans will probably always disagree on balance of power between
national and local governments, though it is hoped that as we continue to grow
as a nation, our political system will remain as adaptive and flexible as it has
in the past. In the words of W.H.
Seward, “The circumstances of the world are so variable, that an irrevocable
purpose or opinion is almost synonymous with a foolish one.”
PS103
- Fall 1999 Exam No. 2
- U.S. Political Systems
Top
October 18-19, 1999
Professor
Russell Renka
PS103
Examination No. 2 -
Fall
1999
Essay
Section: Answer one of the
following questions in an essay of approximately 2 ½ to 3 honest pages,
typewritten or word-processed. Due:
in class on Friday for PS103-04; at my office by or before 4:30 p.m.
Friday afternoon for PS103-06.
Please note: To get anything better
than a low C grade in university courses, one must learn how to use sources and
cite them properly. I recommend you
do so by checking how the text does its own citations. You don’t have to exactly follow their practice, but you do
have to fully cite all sources. When
you cite the text, cite the page or pages of your source material instead of
just saying “text” and leaving your reader to wonder where among 600 pages
that material might be. When you
use the reader’s sources, cite the specific writer, article and pages; do not
attribute something written by Thomas Patterson to editors Cigler and Loomis.
If you cite a website, first cite the author (if one is given), then file
name (title of the article or piece to which you refer), then the URL, and
finally the date you accessed it. For
APA style users, just cite website file name in full or part instead of using
the full URL. If in doubt about how to do citations, check Kent Library’s
main floor information desk for how-to handouts.
Or ask me for assistance.
1. What is the source of
controversy about affirmative action policies based on race or gender?
What evidence exists that federal courts may more against affirmative
action policies? If the courts do
so, what is the likely impact upon institutions (such as universities) that use
affirmative action policies now?
2. Polling has been both
blessed and damned by a variety of commentators.
What is the difference between a properly done scientific poll (one
that’s “good”) and all other types? What
are the major complaints against the widespread use of polls in the political
realm? And what are the reasons
that citizens should learn to understand polls?
Public opinion is defined in the text as “the distribution of the population’s beliefs about politics and policy issues” (Edwards, Wattenberg, and Lineberry 150). On paper, it sounds so simple; in reality it is much more difficult to determine. The most common method for ascertaining and consolidating public opinion has been through the widespread use of polls. Their popularity has steadily increased over the years. One reason is that they provide an accurate, reliable representation of the opinions of an entire population and supply decision-makers with valuable insight that may be used to determine a future course of action. However, not all polls are created equal. Polls are conducted by various organizations, businesses, corporations and public officials in an effort to determine the public’s stand on issues ranging from the terribly controversial to the completely trivial. Regardless of subject matter, there are basic principles of polling that greatly affect their quality and reliability.
“Commandment #1” on everyone’s list states the necessity of a randomly selected sample of a population. This ensures that all those whose opinion the poll attempts to represent shall have an exactly equal chance of being interviewed. Telephone interviews conducted on a sample size of 1,000 – 2,000 people called from a list of random, computer-generated phone numbers are all typical components of a good poll. Some of these components can be altered without critically affecting the overall quality of the poll. For example, good polls can be conducted on a sampling as small as 700 – 1,000 people; the decrease in size causes an increase in error margin, but not by much. But the selection process should not be changed; random selection is essential to the goal of polling, which is to “come up with the same results that would nave been obtained had every single member of a population been interviewed” (Gallup 1). Without a randomly selected sample, the results can only be applied to the specific persons questioned (Blake 1). This is why results from polls that allow self-selection, such as those found on the web, or in your mailbox, automatically demand a higher level of scrutiny and skepticism.
Wording and ordering of interview questions is another area that demands major attention. Words, terms and phrases should be stated and ordered in such a way as to create as little room for bias as possible, and should be presented, in full, with the polling results (Blake 2). Question wording has been called the “biggest source of bias and error in data”, and is therefore an aspect of polling that will always leave room for criticism (Gallup 4). Occasional ill-wording of questions is tolerable, if not unavoidable, as long as it is not obviously meant to tilt the results or prompt a certain response.
However, it is not unheard of nor is it uncommon for such polling practices to occur. Some attempts to persuade are definitely more malicious in nature than others. This is the subject of the article “When Push Comes to Poll”, by Larry Sabato and Glenn Simpson. They outline several types of sneaky polling practices. But, by far, Sabato and Simpson agree that “negative persuasive” polls are the worst! These polls target a specific population, in a thinly veiled attempt to inflame, provoke and persuade so that they can “push” the responses in the direction that they want them to move (140).
Other common complaints and criticisms that arise from the use of polls have to do with the ways in which they seem to alter the fundamental nature and impact of public opinion. Benjamin Ginsberg, author of “Polling and the Transformation of Public Opinion” says that “polls interact with opinion, producing changes in the character and identity of the views receiving public expression” (124). Before polling, citizens had to invest time and thought into making an opinion heard; only the people who knew and cared about an issue were likely to make the effort. This ensured that public opinion was obtained from sources of stronger, more informed opinions. Now citizens don’t have to put forth their opinion; they are constantly being asked for it. In this sense, the identity of opinion has been changed from “active behavior to passive attitude”, which tends to drown those persons with strongly held views in a massive sea of ill-informed or apathetic people (Edwards, Wattenberg, and Lineberry 151). This expressed public neutrality can fool politicians into thinking that policy, as it stands, is adequate and generally supported. Ginsberg also says that polling makes opinion safer for government by removing the impact of the “spontaneous natural assertion of strong opinion” (137).
The availability of opinion not only makes it a less threatening force, but some say that it makes it easy for politicians to follow rather than lead; knowing what the public wants at any given moment makes it easy for an official to always take the popular stand. Cynics, critics and skeptics tend to doubt the effectiveness of polls, claiming that a politician need do no more than “use the results to tailor a course of action”. However, popular opinion can change like the weather; a political official who is constantly jumping from one side of the fence to the other won’t make it far in today’s demanding political realm (Kenney 121).
Yet another concern that poll results presented via the media contribute to the “bandwagon effect”, which is the tendency for voters with no real opinion to simply jump on board with the apparent majority (Edwards, Wattenberg, and Lineberry 152). This is one of the big complaints regarding “exit polls”, which are polls that predict and broadcast the so-called results of an election before the election is even over! This means that in a national election, people on the West coast, who still have hours of voting time available to them are bombarded with talk of the presumed winner (151). This can cause voters to feel that they are too late to make a difference, and so contribute to the bandwagon effect.
Aside from the cynical views of polls, they can be very useful in determining the general will of the people. Polls can show where the public’s angst lies, hint at probable future problems, and so give government a chance to come up with possible solutions. Good pollsters, who have a firm handle on theories of math and probability, and can decipher the raw data obtained from interviews, make good polls that can provide constructive insight into the opinions of a population. Advances in media and communications technology have led to “faster, fresher, more reliable” polls (Kenney 115). However, the speed and ease with which a poll may be compiled leaves the market wide open for people who are completely clueless when it comes to basic knowledge, principles and theories associated with scientific polling. It is almost too easy for someone to make a fast buck creating useless, unscientific, “ugly” polls, that still retain an air and appearance of importance and professionalism.
In order for citizens to be well-informed “consumers of politics” it is essential that they not only pay attention to polls, but fully understand them as well. It is far too easy, upon encountering an interesting, entertaining poll, to be led astray because it has its own website, looks attractive, sounds scientific, and appears to be professional (Edwards, Wattenberg, and Lineberry 152). All these components add to a poll’s marketability, but there are certain criteria that it must also meet in order to be considered reliable. All polls should indicate the method for obtaining the sample, the sample size, the error margin, the question verbatim, who conducted the poll and who paid for the poll (Blake 1 – 2). Inclusion or easy access to previous polls conducted on the same subject, or comparisons of results gathered over time is definitely a plus (Gallup 7). Because of the prevalence, pervasiveness and possible perfidy of polls, general principles and standards that distinguish between good and bad polls must be understood by the public so that they can be used to interpret results as legitimate or ludicrous.
References
Ken Blake, “The Ten Commandments of Polling”, UNC – Chapel Hill, 1996, http://metalab.unc.edu/journalism/pollcomd.txt, pp. 1 – 2.
George C. Edwards, III, Martin P. Wattenberg, and Robert L. Lineberry, Government in America: People, Politics and Policy, 8th ed. New York: Longman, Inc, 1999. Section: “The Role of Polls in American Democracy” – pp. 150 - 152.
The Gallup Organization, Princeton, “How Polls are Conducted”, http://www.gallup.com/poll/faq.asp, pp. 1 – 7. (The Gallup article is a secondary source cited from: Frank Newport, Lydia Saad, and David Moore, Where America Stands, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1997).
Benjamin Ginsberg, “Polling and the Transformation of Public Opinion”. Allan Cigler and Burdett Loomis, American Politics: Classic and Contemporary Readings, 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Miflin Company, 1999, pp. 124 – 137.
Charles Kenney, “They’ve Got Your Number”. Allan Cigler and Burdett Loomis, American Politics: Classic and Contemporary Readings, 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Miflin Company, 1999, pp. 114 – 123.
Larry Sabato and Glenn Simpson, “When Push Comes to Poll”. Allan Cigler and Burdett Loomis, American Politics: Classic and Contemporary Readings, 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Miflin Company, 1999, pp. 139 – 145.
PS
103-06 TR 11-12:15
Professor
Russell Renka
WHAT
WE SHOULD EXPECT OF PRESIDENTS
GEORGE
C. EDWARDS III
Wednesday,
October 20, 1999
George Edwards III visited SEMO Wednesday, October 20, to discuss public
standards for judging a president. Edwards
is originally from New York and has written many books and articles on American
politics. He is a professor of
Political Science at Texas A & M and one of the most important scholars on
the American presidency.
Edwards began by declaring himself a "president watcher."
We as Americans want to know if a president will be an effective leader.
Edwards stated two central questions we should ask to evaluate a
president's effectiveness: "Has the president identified adequate
possibilities in his environment?" and "Has the president adopted
effective strategy to accomplish his goals?"
The rest of his speech revolved around these two standards, and he
applied these standards to Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton first ran for the presidency in 1992 as a democrat, up
against George Busch and Ross Perot. Clinton
won with 43% of the votes. During
his first tenure he had many new ideas for policy change, but he overestimated
the extent of change. Clinton
developed health care reform as the centerpiece of his administration. By developing a left end strategy rather than center out, his
plans failed. Clinton couldn't even
get Congress to vote on health care reform.
This was a major failure. He
didn't understand his political environment, which is one of the two central
standards used to judge a president's effectiveness. Greater complexity of policy change equates to more
opposition. According to Edwards,
Clinton should have expected a loss.
With a lack of financial resources, he had small employers pay for
political action. These employers
were not pleased. Health care
accounted for 1/7 of the American economy financially.
The government paid for a large portion of health care, and Clinton
controlled the costs through complex regulations. However, people did not want their income controlled as he
did. With added political costs, he
misunderstood the political environment. Once
again, this was a failure on his part.
Edwards then proceeded to evaluate Clinton's governing style. During Clinton's first two years, he governed as a
conservative but campaigned as a liberal. Many
citizens felt misled by his actions. He
said one thing and did another. A
president's governing style is created by his own skills and views of
requirements for effective leadership. Clinton
had a distinct governing style. Clinton
has stated, "The role of the president of the United States is a
messenger." Two questions
should be considered when evaluating a president's governing style: "Did
the president set the country's agenda?" and "Did the president use
limited resources on the highest priority item?" Clinton was not successful with either of these.
He did not use his resources wisely.
For example, he waited eight months before speaking on health care reform
(his highest priority item). Instead
of bringing up this issue during the honeymoon period, he waited a year into his
presidency. Edwards stated,
"Part of the problem was the president himself."
Clinton has been described as energetic, desired to please many sides,
and held a large and diverse agenda. However,
he became his own enemy in the effort. By
wanting to do so many things, it is very difficult to focus on priority issues.
As a result, Clinton did not clearly set the agenda his first two years.
Edwards then covered another aspect of Clinton's ineffectiveness.
Clinton didn't define himself and his administration didn't define
themselves, so the Republicans defined the issues.
In Clinton's opinion, 1994 ruined him.
He overestimated the public's acceptance on his agenda and often went to
the public for support. He frequently used the veto to defend moderation after his
first term. Clinton's new goal was
to block the Republicans, a defensive rather than offensive strategy.
Clinton was successful and as a result he was reelected in 1996.
This was an easy victory.
To conclude his speech, Edwards stated that we are at the core of
successful presidency. Clinton is a
prime example of how difficult it is to establish a central vision with a large
agenda.
Edwards made many valid points in his speech. He is obviously a
Republican from the statements he made regarding standards for presidency
effectiveness. Edwards seemed to
focus his speech on the downfalls of President Clinton.
Though Edwards claimed not to be a "Clinton-basher", he
certainly pointed out more of Clinton's weaknesses than strengths as president.
Rather than use examples of effective leadership in presidents, he
focused on the ineffectiveness of President Clinton as a leader.
I feel as though only one side of the coin was presented.
Yes, Clinton did not have a narrowly focused agenda.
Yes, Clinton waited eight months before speaking on health care reform.
However, Edwards referred to "Clinton's success story" only at
the end of his speech, and even this was without much elaboration.
If Clinton was such an ineffective leader in the past, what could have
been done to change this? Edwards seemed to relate ineffectiveness as a president with
liberal viewpoints. Liberals are
known for wanting to change many things in the world. Does this mean they always fail at defining narrow political
agendas? If so, their political
nature can itself be labeled ineffective, according to Edwards.
Edwards' standards for effective presidency lean towards conservative
standards. However, he failed to
elaborate on effective presidents. From
his speech one can conclude that if a president has identified adequate
possibilities in his environment and adopted effective strategy to accomplish
his goals, he is thus an effective president.
This is not always the case. Many
factors contribute to a president being an effective leader, many which were not
mentioned in the 60 minutes Edwards spoke.
However, Edwards gave insightful information regarding presidential
ineffectiveness.
Shelly Kofsky
Shelley Kofsky
PS103-06
Professor Renka
October 20, 1999
"What Should We Expect of Presidents?"
George C. Edwards III spoke about whether or not it made a
difference if we had a President or a Prime Minister. He gave a
roundabout answer right off the bat, of yes and no. Mr. Edwards
started to discuss the fundamental functions of a President, one of
which is building coalitions in the public as well as in Congress. He
said that President Clinton spent $18 million to promote himself in
1995, a non presidential election year. A president, according to Mr.
Edwards, can go to the public and "bully pulpit" or ask for support and
succeed. However, it is hard for Congress to counteract it. Getting
the public's support, according to the speaker is very elusive to all.
Mr. Edwards brought up Ronald Reagan to illustrate his point that even
the best communicators don't always get what they want. In the eight
years of Reagan's presidency, public opinion didn't change in his
direction. Reagan had to offer a dramatic tax cut of 25% to the public
in order to get support.
Clinton & Reagan are two different Presidents
beyond the party difference. According to Edwards, Clinton has based
his style on rhetoric, and every time he has asked for the public's
support in something, he has failed. In order to see if life without
having a President would be different, we need to ask ourselves how
Prime Ministers do, and what obstacles are in the public official's way.
He compared our Presidents to Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of
England around Reagan's years as President. While Ms. Thatcher has
relatively the same views as Reagan, but was more articulate than her
American counterpart, she "had no more success than Reagan in moving
public opinion," (Edwards). Some of the obstacles in the public
official's way include the public's attentiveness to the Presidential
messages, the public's understanding of those messages, and the public's
acceptance of the presidential message. Americans have short attention
spans, have a low interest in politics, and political predispositions
are hard to change and mediate the message. According to Edwards, if
our nation's government wants to see more interest from the people it
represents than it needs to accommodate the limited attention span by
making things simple. Elected officials need to start using "black and
white" terms so that John and Jane Q. Public can attempt to understand
what's happening in Washington D.C. Of all the Presidential initiatives
that a president tries to get support for, only 41% of the initiatives
became law. Lastly, Edwards pointed out that our governing system was
"inefficient" but wondered how we should alter it.
Overall, I was generally impressed with the material that he
presented and could see his points on most of the ideas that he brought
up. I was however sometimes left hanging, due to the time constraint,
as to how he was tying it all together. A lot of the stuff we have
discussed in class so it wasn't new to me. I was convinced that both
the President's office and the American public need a lot of work before
we can have a truly people friendly democratic government. I realize
that there wasn't a lot of time for him to express his feelings, but
even in the time that he did have, he made a strong case for his side
while also addressing what his opponents or critics would say. It is
hard to speak to college students about politics because we are the true
decision makers of this country and some students don't even attempt
to make their voice heard in our nation's capital. Mr. Edwards did a
great job of working with what he had and using the time as well as the
materials to the best of his ability. I was convinced that he wanted to
educate the college population about the presidency and how difficult a
job it really is. I think if the title of the speech was changed to
"What should we expect of Presidents?" would more suit his case.
Overall, he was aware of he topic at hand and presented his material
very well. Mr. Edwards did a really good job convincing this non-
political science major about the expectations of the office of
United States President.
PS103
- Fall 1999 Exam No. 3
- U.S. Political Systems
Top
October 18-19, 1999
Professor
Russell Renka
PS103 Examination No. 3 - Fall 1999
Essay No. 3a - Katie Vandagriff
Title
We may live in a country that encourages voting in political elections, yet the level of voter turnout in America is relatively small and continues to decline. Compared to other countries with democratic governments, the United States falls very near the bottom of the list with its percentage of voter participation. One explanation for this disturbing phenomenon states that the American system requires more effort from voters, asking them to participate in “more elections for more levels of government with more elective offices at each level than any other country in the world” (Schudson 159). In most other democracies, the citizens may be asked to vote only 2 or 3 times over a 4-year period (Edwards, Wattenberg, and Lineberry 246).
American voters feel overwhelmed by all that is asked of them. The diverse and numerous elections held in the United States, especially at the state and local levels try the attention spans of voters and decrease their willingness or desire to participate. Reading the local election ballot and trying to determine the actual function of the various obscure local offices such as county clerk, court clerk or register of deeds can be a daunting task. Extracting real meaning from the political jargon used in wording local propositions can also be a challenge and source of discouragement (Schudson 156). Dr. Bill Lyons, of the University of Tennessee, said this of Tennessee state and local elections: “In Tennessee, we also have a very long ballot with a lot of constitutional offices and we have an awful lot of elections. I think that’s bad because it unnecessarily splits the time and attention of voters” (Flessner 2).
Americans also lack the same sort of political stimulus as exists in other countries. Many European governments operate under a proportional system of representation, which allows the percentage of the popular vote obtained by a party to determine the percentage of seats that party occupies in the legislature. This encourages the formation of several parties to represent specific interests and generally, the wider the selection, the higher the turnout rate (Edwards, Wattenber, and Lineberry 208). For example, the American presidential election of 1992, when Ross Perot ran as the candidate for the Reform Party, turnout levels increased (Teixeira 149).
The threat of large, influential socialist parties in many European democracies increase their incentive to vote. When the decision has to be made between conservative or socialist control of the government, the “consequences for redistribution of income and the scope of government are far greater than the ordinary American voter can conceive of” (Edwards, Wattenberg, and Lineberry 246).
Some countries manufacture incentives by imposing fines on those eligible voters who do not show up at the polls. Most Americans would consider an imposition of this sort extremely undemocratic. If such a thing were attempted in America, I believe that we would see the highest levels of turnout ever in an election, but only long enough to vote that proposition down, and exercise the power of recall on every elected official that supported it in the first place!
Another explanation for the differences between American turnout and that of other democracies addresses our system of registration. It is the sole responsibility of each American citizen to make sure that they are registered to vote. No other nation requires that citizens register themselves. Indeed, registration procedures have been labeled as one of the main reasons for low turnout. Before 1993, these procedures were determined entirely by state and local elected officials (ABC 1). Some states made the process easy, while others, especially in the South, made registration burdensome, complicated and inconvenient (Edwards, Wattenberg, and Lineberry 245). Not surprisingly, these states averaged lower levels of turnout. Therefore, it was believed that easing registration procedures would increase the number of those able to vote, which would logically lead to increases in overall turnout. The National Voter Registration Act or “motor voter” law of 1993, was a reform law that mandated all states to allow registration at the time of application for a driver’s license or renewal. The law succeeded, increasing the number of registered voters in the U.S. by an estimated 11 million (ABC 2). However, it did nothing for the levels of turnout, which continued to decline.
Possible explanations for continued lack of participation are as plentiful as the sources that profess them. Some propose that citizens are contented with the way things are, and so possess no compelling desire to vote (Gilbert 1). Others argue that it is, in fact, dissatisfaction and cynicism toward government that deters people from voting (ABC 2). Still, others contest that political efficacy, affected by education or income can be used to accurately predict and explain the disparaging levels of turnout. Observations indicate that college graduates are more likely to vote than high school dropouts, and wealthy people are more likely to participate than their poorer counterparts. Many sources even lay blame on the political parties, claiming that people would be more likely to vote if they could see significant differences between party policies and candidates (Edwards, Wattenberg, and Lineberry 245).
However, Ruy Teixeira labels many of these so-called “reasons” as merely “myths” that need to be dispelled before real reasons can be defined and handled properly. He purports that contentment and cynicism are merely characteristics of the population and do not distinguish between those who vote and those who do not. He also says that while the poor are dropping out of the voting process at a slightly higher rate, “declining turnout has been a ‘team’ effort, with all strata of society making a fair contribution”. Nor does he accept the notion that the public cannot determine differences between the parties; as it turns out, more people today see more significant differences now than they did three decades ago (Teixeira 150).
Lack of motivation seems to be the real culprit in American society. A survey conducted by the Census Bureau, entitled “Why People Don’t Vote”, found that 30 percent of non-voters said they either “didn’t like the candidates” or that they “just don’t care” about government or politics. Schudson suggests that this collective lack of motivation could be due to the fact that citizens find it more difficult today than they did in 1960 to place their trust in the in the traditional linkage institutions of government (163). It is common for citizens to think of elected officials as dishonest, political parties as ineffective, lobbyists and interest groups as corrupt and self-serving, and the media “alternately as heroes and scoundrels” (Schudson 164).
Still others contend that the problem runs much deeper than just desertion of the voting booths and that low turnout is the inevitable effect of widespread citizen disengagement from all civic involvement. A survey conducted by the Roper Organization, found that the number of Americans who reported that within the past year they had “attended a public meeting on town or school affairs” has decreased by over a third. People are withdrawing from their communities and “direct engagement in politics and government has fallen steadily and sharply over the last generation” (Putnam 167).
So where does that leave us for the future? Unless improvements are made, the diagnosis will only get worse. The election system must be made more voter-friendly, by removing unnecessary obstructions. A step in the right direction would be to do away with voter registration altogether. “Our current system of voter registration was established during an era of mass political upheaval where fraud was rampant” (CTD 1). But times have changed since those days fraught with corruption. Doing away with the process now is not likely to send our political system spiraling out of control. The rule should be that when you turn 18, the government automatically registers you, lifting the responsibility from potential voters. Changing election days from Tuesdays to a more convenient day, like Sunday, would also go a long way toward reviving voter participation. There seems to be no clear, definitive reason why elections are held on Tuesdays, considering that most eligible voters are also full-time workers. Changing to Sundays would increase the likelihood that people would take the time to show up, without the hassle of major governmental readjustments (CTD 1).
Real campaign finance reform is another proposed solution that would do much to ensure the public that government is not being run by special interests and their bottomless wallets. Removing “big money” as the major factor in campaigns would lead to increased diversity among candidates competing for office, decrease chances for political manipulation, and help dispel the public view of politicians as corrupt and insincere (CTD 1). Reforming the campaign process in general, by regulating television campaign commercials, or providing free, issue-based media coverage during elections, would help raise the public’s awareness of the issues, creating a more informed, perhaps less disillusioned electorate (Teixeira 150).
Several other possible solutions exist, such as abolishing the Electoral College (CTD 1), making it possible for people to register (if they must) through E-mail and vote over the Internet (Edwards, Wattenberg and Lineberry 241). Whatever the reason, whatever the solution, one thing is certain – we need to do something, and we need to do it now. Voting is a privilege, but one that only a relatively small percentage of the population chooses to exercise. Many people feel that one, little vote will not make a difference anyway. But if over half of the population believes the same thing, it adds up to a gap in representation 100 million people wide and growing!
References
Alliance for Better Campaigns (ABC), “Issue Brief: Voter Turnout”, http://www.bettercampaigns.org/documents/turnout.htm, 1998, pp. 1-3.
Census Bureau Survey, “Why People Don’t Vote”, NCPA Government and Politics Issue, http://www.ncpa.org/pd/govern/aug98g.html, 1998, p. 1.
Citizens for True Democracy, “…And What To Do About It”, http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/2417/fedleg1.html, 1999, pp. 1-2.
Craig Gilbert, “Low Voter Turnout is a Biennial Worry”. Journal Sentinel Washington Bureau, http://www.jsonline.com/archive/july98/news/editorials/0712gilbert.stm, July 1998, p. 1.
Dave Flessner, “Why is Voter Turnout so Low?” The Chattanooga Times, http://www.chattimes.com/news, May 9, 1998, pp. 1-2.
George C. Edwards, III, Martin P. Wattenberg, and Robert L. Lineberry, Government in America: People, Politics and Policy, 8th ed. New York: Longman, Inc, 1999.
Chapter 10: Elections and Voting Behavior – pp. 244-248.
America in Perspective Sections on pages 208 and 245.
Michael Schudson, “Voting Rites: Why We Need a New Concept of Citizenship”. Allan Cigler and Burdett Loomis, American Politics: Classic and Contemporary Readings, 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Miflin Company, 1999, pp. 156-164.
Project Vote Smart, “PVS General Population and Youth Survey”, Department of Political Science at OSU, http://www.vote-smart.org/youthsurvey.phtml?checking=/, 1999, p. 5.
Robert D. Putnam, “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital”. Allan Cigler and Burdett Loomis, American Politics: Classic and Contemporary Readings, 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Miflin Company, 1999, pp. 165-175.
Ruy Teixeira, “Voter Turnout in America: Ten Myths”. Allan Cigler and Burdett Loomis, American Politics: Classic and Contemporary Readings, 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Miflin Company, 1999, pp. 149-155.
Exam No. 3 - Essay
No. 3b - Marisa Banasik
PS103-04
Dr. Renka
Exam 3 Essay
Question 1 -
In most democratic nations, an important component of the political system
is the prevalence of political parties. A party, according to Anthony Downs,
is broadly defined as "a team of men and women seeking to control the governing
apparatus by gaining office in a duly constituted election" (Edwards et al, p
188). This definition is further summarized in to the statement that parties
want to win elections (Edwards et al, p 188). In the United States there are
two main political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats. America is
unique compared to other democratic nations because of the generalized lack of
parties. However, there is a growing trend among the American public that
implies that the two-party system that has dominated American politics is
rapidly being weakened..
America is unusual compared to most democratic nations because of the lack
of political parties. Most European democracies have multiple party systems
that allow for more than two parties to be represented in their national
government (Edwards et al, p 197, 199)Even though Americans prefer diversity in
almost everything else, ever since the beginnings of the current political
system there have only been two parties. On occasion a third party may appear
to challenge the status quo, but most of these minor parties fade within a few
years. Sometimes one of these third parties may eclipse one of the two main
parties, but this has not happened since the Republicans first appeared during
the Civil War.
Why then has the two-party system in the United States survived so long?
One explanation is that the system moderates political conflict. If there were
multiple political parties, each party would have to distinguish itself in some
way to appeal to voters (Edwards et al, p 207). In the European multi-party
system, parties must take strong stands on issues to be elected, and after
election they must be willing to compromise in order to make coalitions that
could thwart other, smaller groups of legislators (Edwards et al, p 208). The
two-party system of the United States also helps maintain political ambiguity.
Extreme and unconventional views on issues are smothered before they can be
given any real voice (Edwards et al, p 208). Perhaps the strongest argument
for the continuity of the two-party system is the winner-take-all system of
voting. In the United States, the candidate that achieves a plurality of votes
gets elected, and the other candidate or candidates get nothing for their work.
This essentially weakens the chance that a small party could gain any political benefit
from running for an office because they are not likely to gain a plurality of
votes. Therefore, these small parties are not likely to be elected into a
political office (Edwards et al, p 208). Though some third party candidates
like Governor Jessie Ventura do get elected, this is a rare occurrence. Most
European systems employ a proportional representation style of election
(Edwards et al, p 208). This allows small parties the chance to place their
candidates into a political office of some sort without having a massive base
of support. Once elected, these parties may chose to use their power for their
personal benefit, or they may chose to form a coalition with a larger party to
gain control of more than fifty percent of the seats in a legislature (Edwards
et al, p 208). Because of the proportional representation that the European
system of democracy uses, it is easier for a new party in the European
multi-party system to become an active force in the country's policy making.
Even though the two-system has reigned supreme since almost the inception
of the democratic government the United States uses, current trends among
public opinion and voting behavior suggest that this empire is weakening. In
current American politics, neither party has been able to assert itself as the
dominant party for over thirty years. A divided party government has become
the norm instead of the oddity that it once was. A divided party government is
defined as when the presidential and legislative branches of the American
government are controlled by two different parties. Since 1969, there have
been only six years where a unified government was present (Edwards et al, p
202). The American public is regularly voting in different parties into these
two different branches of the government. Everett Carll Ladd states that the
"loss of party loyalty and the dominance of televison" contribute greatly to
this lack of a majority party (b, p 231). This difference becomes more
apparent when one considers that all throughout America's political history one party has dominated for
long periods of time (Edwards et al, p 199).
Acording to George Edwards, American politics seems to be undergoing party
dealignment. The voting public is gradually moving away from both political
parties (Edwards et al, p 202). There is a decline in party loyalty in the
United States (Edwards et al, p 202). American voters are now far more likely
to split their ticket, meaning they will vote for multiple parties on one
ticket, rather than voting for the same party constantly (Edwards et al, p
192). Those people who still identify with a party do so because of ideology
compatibility instead of simple loyalty. Finally, George Edwards states that
"even though party loyalty has lagged, party organizations have become more
energetic and effective" (p 204). This implies that despite the rebirth that
the two political parties are undergoing, the American public wants nothing
more to do with these outdated constraints. As Kay Lawson mentions, "parties
in the United States today have little or no reality for most American
citizens" (p 182).
Several other pieces of information also point to the weakening of the two
party system. According to a 1975 study by Jack Dennis, sixty-six percent of
the public want party labels removed from the ballot, and a full eighty five
percent belief that the parties create conflict. Years later, the numbers
continue to worsen (Lawson, p 187). Lawson states that there is strong support
for direct democracy (p 188). Everett Carll Ladd also adds that the support
for term limits and the backing of Perot's third party are also indications of
the American public's deposing of the two party system (a, p 201).
The two-party system has dominated the American democracy. Its golden age,
however, appears to be fading. Voters are far more inclined to vote according
to their own beliefs rather than for the party that they had supported in the
past. In the past half century, the American government has undergone
restructuring to help modernize it with the rest of the country. It is
becoming more apparent with the introduction of such influential and
controversial issues such as AIDS and abortion that, perhaps, the two-party
system that the United States has clung to needs to be restructured as well.
To do so would give voters more of a choice on a wide range of issues if one
agrees with a party on one issue but dissents from their view point on a
second.
References
Edwards, George C. III, Martin P. Wattenberg, and Robert L. Lineberry.
Government in America: People Politics and Policy. New York: Addison Wesley
Educational Publishers Inc., 1998. p 188-208.
Ladd, Everett Carll (a). "Of Political Parties Great and Strong."
American Politics: Classic and Contemporary Readings. ed. Allan J.
Cigler and Burdett A. Loomis. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999. p
193-205.
Ladd, Everett Carll (b). "1996 Vote: The "No Majority" Realignment
Continues." American Politics: Classic and Contemporary Readings. ed.
Allan J. Cigler and Burdett A. Loomis. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,
1999. p 229-242.
Lawson, Kay. "Why We Still Need Real Political Parties." American
Politics: Classic and Contemporary Readings. ed. Allan J. Cigler and
Burdett A. Loomis. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999. p 181-193.