Oregon in the Lead

Voter mobilization is something that has constantly been on the mind of candidates running for office from small town offices all the way up to the presidency. You can be the candidate most cut out for the job, but if you cannot get the voters, more importantly your supporters, out to vote then that will not matter in the end. The United States has by far one of the lowest voter turnout among nations that hold national elections. Although it changes slightly from year to year, the United States tends to stay around 40 percent of people who actually get out and vote. Other countries such as Belgium and Australia have some of the highest voter turnout rates at around 90 percent. Throughout the years, candidates have been trying to figure out the “science” behind voter mobilization—aka, getting people registered and then out to the polls. Oregon has always been seen as a sort of trailblazer in this problem area.

Starting back almost seventeen years ago, Oregon was “the first state to hold all elections with mail-in ballots” (Associated Press, 2015). Upholding their revolutionary leadership, yesterday Democrat Governor Kate Brown signed a bill that will start having the state automatically registering the people of Oregon to vote.

Oregon Governor Kate Brown moments after signing the bill.

They will do this by using information obtained from the Department of Motor Vehicles. Anyone who has had any business at the Department of Motor Vehicles will automatically be registered to vote and will receive a ballot in the mail no less than twenty days before the next statewide election. They are hoping this will add about 300,000 more voters to the rolls. A lot of republicans in the state of Oregon heavily opposed this bill saying it is “forceful”. However, it is not as overpowering as it may seem. These people that are becoming automatically registered to vote do have an opportunity to opt out. By making it a longer process to opt out than become registered, Brown and her team are hoping to deplete any sort of hassle or obstacle in the way of voting. This works in an environment like Oregon because, like I mentioned earlier, all of their elections are already done by mail.

The small changes happening throughout the nation and the big change that just occurred in Oregon is proof of the importance of mobilizing voters. Parties have struggled with this constantly over the years. Why don’t Americans vote? What is it about our system of government that causes or allows for the citizens of this nation to take a back seat? There are many theories and predictions of why this is the case, which is not necessary to get into during this discussion of Oregon. Instead I think it is important that the steps that these governors and legislators are taking are bettering the country and getting people involved. Getting rid of any hassle that may go along with voting is an interesting test to see why people are not voting. If it is because of reasons other than hassle and convenience, much further study is going to have to be done to help solve that problem. Just like the small changes before in regards to voting procedures and law, the voting turnout is going to increase with the implementation of this bill.

Oregon saw a problem in the US voting system, and took a strategic approach to fix it. It is not by accident that Oregon has one of the highest voter turnouts in the nation at about 50 percent. The laws and regulations that they are putting in place is working to get higher number of people voting. Voter mobilization has been a fixation of not only the nation but the world for decades. The reasons for and against voting have long been a mystery that is just beginning to unveil itself. According to Rasmussen Reports, 52 percent of Americans rate Congress’ job performance as poor. If so many people are unhappy with the current state of government, it is in their interest to vote for themselves and make a change. Through these small changes in state voting laws, there is a huge chance to make a difference and get the whole country involved in what ultimately affects us all.

Sources

http://www.electproject.org/2014g

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/us/oregon-voter-registration-made-automatic.html?ref=politics&_r=0

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-steven-friedman/voter-turnout-europe-america_b_1660271.html

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance

Hilary Clinton: Does She Have What It Takes?

       Current public opinion polls within the United States claim that President Obama’s approval ratings are down and have been negative for some time now. An even larger portion of America believes the country is headed in the “wrong direction.“ As the 2016 presidential elections quickly approach, the question on everyone’s mind is who will be the next President of the United States? Various candidates are coming out of the woodworks, including Scott Walker, a potential favorite for the GOP as well as Chris Christie, Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz. Potential candidates for the Democratic ticket are Hilary Clinton, Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warner, to name a few. Rumors have begun to circulate around the likelihood of some candidates to secure the nomination, which some scholars believe is the true victory in a presidential election. Because the American political system is so polarized, there are two clear sides, and the biggest question for you to answer is what side do you fall on? Topics, as years go on, seem to become more polarized, furthering the ability for compromise and crossover and rather solidifying the two extreme sides of the spectrum.  In a Washington Post article written earlier today, voters expressed their interest in rubbing shoulders with suspected Democratic nominee, Hilary Clinton. The author presumes that although Hilary Clinton has not explicitly stated that she will be running in 2016, she has done plenty to prepare for the anticipated announcement. Swing States are eagerly awaiting her arrival and many other Republican nominees are already battling it out with each other on the front lines. So why, you might ask, is Hilary Clinton taking her sweet time getting her campaign efforts started? Perhaps, she is too busy putting out fires from her latest email scandal, or better yet, she may be prepping herself for the much-needed build of the Democratic Party in hopes of restoring the hope of the American people. As outwardly expressed by the results of the Midterm elections in 2014, the American people were not happy with the work the Democratic party has done thus far with President Obama in office, in fact, the GOP was able to successfully take back the majority. A major success for the Republican Party has eased the pressure of those running for office in 2016, added pressure to candidates in the Democratic Party, suggesting that the party has a lot of ground to make up.

        Many social scientists have studied the effects of parties on candidate selection and also the effect of candidates on the party’s success during an election. As discussed in the article by Brawn suggests that candidates serve as a mouthpiece for the parties or “powers in control” behind closed doors. Instead, candidates take the heat when things go wrong and essentially become the face of the party or group. Brawn believes that essentially these groups or parties are those that are navigating the policy and all decisions that the candidate is making. Conversely, there are other social scientists that believe the candidate selection process has become more democratized, allowing for voters to have a larger say and influence on candidates. Rahat believes that historically, parties have played a larger and often more selective role in who they chose to be potential candidates, however this process has changed drastically. He theorizes that parties now let the general electoral have a major say on who their potential candidate should be, allowing them to vote in a democratic manner. He believes that although some could argue that this increases the strength of democracy in America, Rahat believes this weakens the power of the parties, both over the candidate and also over the electorate. He continues by suggesting that when voters participate in primary elections, they typically vote for the candidate they like better, but don’t necessarily keep in mind what candidate would be best for the future of the party. This approach to candidate selection can be harmful to the future of political parties and arguably, harmful to the political process in America. 

            As the primary elections approach quickly in the coming months, Americans wait in anticipate for the official announcements of candidacy of many candidates rumored to be running. Party organization and affiliation plays a huge role in the success of the candidate and if Rahat’s theory of democratization of elections is true, than whoever is seeking the nomination for either party needs to work on connecting with voters and securing the support of their electorate. Since Republican candidates are already fast at work visiting and speaking with voters in states across the country, it appears that if Hilary Clinton wishes to gain the nomination, she has a lot of ground to make up already. Likewise, whoever becomes a party favorite in 2016 from either side will likely have to juggle the appealing side of the voters and also the pressures of the party elites. By Brawn’s logic, it is in the best interest of potential candidates such as Hilary Clinton to not only be appealing to potential voters but also to appeal to party leaders in the process.   

Rand Paul: The Social Connectivity Difference

Recently, the New York Times reported on how Senator Rand Paul is pursuing a different strategy than many competitors as he prepares for a possible Presidential election run. The article discusses in detail how Mr. Paul is courting technology entrepreneurs at a festival in Austin, Texas. Austin itself is known as a bastion of liberal strength in the center of a conservative state. The attendees of the conference are expected to be people who usually vote with the Democratic Party. While most of Mr. Paul’s competitors are out speaking in New Hampshire, a state that has great importance for the Republican primary because it is traditionally first to hold its primary election, Mr. Paul is courting a different kind of voter in the hopes to build a new type of strategy for a Presidential bid, one that could shift the boundaries of the Republican party and what it means to vote Republican. In fact, Mr. Paul is so committed to this strategy that he has opened an office for his political-action committee in the center of downtown Austin.

            But what are the causes behind why a candidate might target certain groups of people in their campaign, while leaving other groups untouched? Political theory can help us understand this in general, as well as helping us understand Mr. Paul’s own un-orthodox campaign decisions. In “Mobilization Strategies of Democrats and Republicans” Professor Joseph Gershtenson explains and tests the many factors that affect whether a party decides to contact a voter or not. In explaining why parties choose to contact certain individuals over others, Gershtenson postulates four main considerations that he believes guide the party in its decision of who to contact. First, parties contact those who are already predisposed to participate (have participated in the past). Second, parties should avoid contacting those who support their opponents as this will cause them to mobilize and vote for their opponent. Third, parties should be more inclined to contact individuals who have social connections as they will achieve a greater effect by doing this. And finally, parties will contact people more in areas that have contested elections. Using statistical tests, he finds that factors that predict whether a party will contact someone include their partisan attachment, whether or not they voted in the previous election, and their income, education, and age among other factors. These findings confirm the four hypotheses that Gershtenson postulated.

            So how does this fit in with the behavior of potential Presidential candidates, and particularly the seemingly strange behavior of Senator Rand Paul? Although Mr. Paul is not a political party, he is likely to exhibit the same strategic behavior when contacting because his goal, like that of the party, is to win the election. His decision to attend a tech conference in Austin, Texas can largely be explained by the third consideration that Gershtenson hypothesizes. Namely, he is contacting and courting individuals who have powerful social connections. Mr. Paul aims to build the most connected, tech-savvy campaign in history and the tech industry as a whole is vital to his success in this area, both for the primary election and the following general election. By attempting to gain favor with this group early on, Mr. Paul is building a network of people that have a new kind of social connection that Gerhtenson did not anticipate in his study in 2003. Mr. Paul is betting that if he can gain the young, tech-savvy Democrat leaning audience of Austin, Texas, it will make waves with voters across the country because of the social media capacity that they can bring to his team.

            At the same time, Gershtenson’s theory does not fit perfectly with Mr. Paul’s behavior. Mr. Paul is attempting to convert a Democrat leaning audience into votes for himself. Gershtenson predicts in his research that such an activity is too costly and is often likely to simply motivate the voters to vote for an opponent in the election. Seeing the results of the coming primary election, and perhaps the general election, will be an interesting test of whether Gershtenson’s predictions hold, or whether Mr. Paul’s gamble will pay off.

Sources and Further Reading:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/us/politics/rand-paul-has-voters-ears-but-the-challenge-is-their-hearts.html?ref=politics&_r=0

http://theweek.com/articles/544573/jeb-bush-rand-paul-art-disagreeing-base

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rand-paul-breaks-ground-at-new-office-in-austin/

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/rand-paul-woos-donors-hackers-021406319.html

Mobilization Strategies of the Democrats and Republicans, 1956-2000

Joseph Gershtenson

Political Research Quarterly

Vol. 56, No. 3 (Sep., 2003) , pp. 293-308

Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of the University of Utah

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3219790

Political Position-Taking: Driven by Ideology or Parties?

                One of the biggest questions which researchers such as Gerald C. Wright and Brian F. Schaffner try to answer, is that of position-taking and voting: what influences members of congress (MCs) to vote cohesively? Is it because they feel united fundamentally and ideologically, or is it because the party is forcing them to?

                To explain this theory, Wright and Schaffner compare the Nebraska state legislature and the Kansas state senate. Nebraska provides a good case to look at what happens in the absence of party influence, because their legislature is unicameral (there is only one chamber, no house and senate) and it is nonpartisan. This means that candidates for office cannot run on a party ticket. They cannot explicitly say that they are a Democrat, Republican, or otherwise. This eliminates party influence. They use the Kansas senate because it is close enough in numbers to the Nebraska legislature, and it is a partisan legislature. Also, demographically, the states are similar. So Wright and Schaffner want to examine what happens when they take party out of the picture-how much cohesion is coming from unity or party discipline?

                First, they looked at ideological positions of individual candidates in both Nebraska and Kansas. They discovered that both are pretty cohesive, or grouped together on the conservative and liberal spectrum. Most Democrats were grouped together on the left, and most Republicans on the right-with some overlap in both Kansas and Nebraska. However, the results were different when looking at voting behavior in relation to the ideological spectrum. In Kansas, there was no overlap and the two political parties were tightly grouped together: Democrats all on the left, Republicans all on the right. In Nebraska, however, Republicans and Democrats were scattered all throughout the spectrum. There was virtually no grouping, suggesting that they voted however they felt they needed to vote because they weren’t responsible to their party, because political parties are irrelevant in the Nebraska legislature. This suggests that at least some, if not a lot, of cohesion comes from party discipline. If a party takes a side on a political issue, it is largely expected that members of that party will vote in favor of the party’s stance.

                In the 2015 Utah legislative session, the legislature faced a controversial issue: they had to choose whether to pass Medicaid expansion in Utah under Obamacare, or draft their own plan to provide coverage to those who cannot afford it. It was largely expected that Medicaid expansion would not pass, and it did not. The legislature opted to create a different plan, which would require funding through taxpayer money. If they had opted to expand Medicaid, the first two years would have been subsidized by the Federal Government and then would gradually be weaned off of government aid until Utah could support funding on its own.

                Based upon Wright and Schaffner’s findings, they would not find this result surprising: Utah’s legislature is dominantly Republican, and the Republican Party as a whole has taken the position to be vehemently opposed to Obamacare. In fact, plans to repeal Obamacare are already underway in the United States Congress:

“House Republicans on Tuesday will unveil a proposed budget for 2016 that partly privatizes Medicare, turns Medicaid into block grants to the states, repeals the Affordable Care Act and reaches balance in 10 years, challenging Republicans in Congress to make good on their promises to deeply cut federal spending.”, according to Jonathan Weisman of the New York Times. Even conservative groups are asserting that Republicans must stay true to their position on repealing Obamacare: “Republicans owe their majorities to their unwavering opposition to Obamacare, a reality that must be reflected in the budget,” Heritage Action stated. That puts more pressure on the party to enforce party discipline by providing incentives to vote in favor of repealing the health care plan. The GOP has even gone so far as to sue President Obama and his administration over Obamacare.

                It is not surprising, then, that the Utah State Legislature, comprised of staunch Republicans, would rather vote against Federal Aid in regards to expanding Medicaid coverage-part of Obama’s health care plan. The House even refused to listen to Governor Herbert’s Healthy Utah plan which would enable Medicaid expansion. The Republican’s are exhibiting behavior that researcher Jeffery A. Jenkins would refer to as “dying in their ideological boots”: once conservative, always conservative.

                So what does this mean for political parties? What does this “party discipline”, which forces legislators to vote along party lines, mean for politics? Wright and Schaffner contend that when parties adopt sides on these ideological issues, they are providing important information shortcuts for voters. They contend that partisanship in government is good for society. Without partisanship, it popular control of government (democracy) is undermined, according to Wright and Schaffner. It creates low voter turnout and disenfranchises the poor and uneducated by effectively removing those information shortcuts. 

Sources: 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/26/obama-lawyers-seek-dismissal-house-republicans-oba/

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/us/politics/house-republican-budget-overhauls-medicare-and-repeals-the-health-law.html?_r=0

http://www.sltrib.com/home/2284287-155/utah-legislature-wont-reach-deal-on

http://www.standard.net/Government/2015/02/25/Utah-Senate-passes-governor-s-Medicaid-expansion-plan-1

Net Neutrality and the Creation of a Partisan Issue

Parties influence many aspects of politics from candidate selection to policy formation. To quote the famous political scientist Schattssneider “…democracy is impossible save in terms of parties”. One important way that parties shape American democracy is in how they structure policies. A party intends to be divisive and at the same time appealing to the largest portion of voters. In short its main objective is to win elections. A key strategy that all parties’ use is to pick a side on a non debated policy and turn it into a partisan issue. By making something political they can use it to appeal to moderate voters who will give more support to the party because of its newly stated position on such an issue. The party’s goal is to gain new voters by adopting new policies that attract more voters without isolating their base. This is how and why net neutrality became a hot topic of debate and a partisan issue between Democrats and Republicans

            Net neutrality when it was first being debated was not a partisan issue. Most voters did not know what net neutrality was or how it impacted them. This therefore allowed parties to take a stance on the issue and attempt to persuade voters that their position was correct. The fact that voters were not informed on the topic meant that parties could present the information in a way that would influence them to support the party’s stance. These actions from parties can be explained by a political science theory, which suggests that parties shape constituents’ ideology. If parties had not taken a stance on net neutrality it is unlikely then that the constituents would have had a personal position regarding net neutrality. This is because as the theory suggests the less informed a voter is the more likely they will align themselves with a party’s platform and positions. A uniformed voter is also less likely to be passionate about something they know nothing about.  This therefore allows parties to divide the country and voters over an issue because of constituent’s loyalty to their party’s policy preferences. Thus by knowing which party a voter supports one could also predict their opinion regarding something like net neutrality.

            Now to explain how net neutrality became a partisan issue in the United States one only needs to be familiar with recent American politics. Once President Obama took a stance and supported net neutrality this caused the Republican Party to oppose it. This was partly because of their opposition towards the president and party because they could use it to attempt to gain political support. The opposition for net neutrality did not come from the Republican base but was instead from the party organization. In the end there was little parties could do because net neutrality remained protected by the FCC.  This issue however demonstrates how both parties were able to mobilize voters’ support and shape their ideology for their respective sides over a newly created policy concern. Personal ideology was shaped by the political parties and as a result voters shifted their positions to align with their party.

            Certain issues that become partisan like net neutrality do not always directly affect their constituents universally in the same way net neutrality does. The Key Stone Pipeline is an example of a policy that affects a small part of the country yet is a nationally debated issue. Political parties will seek anything that can be made partisan as long as it supports their ideals and will benefit them politically. Net neutrality is only a recent example of something non-partisan that was turned into a partisan issue. This is a strategy that parties have been using for decades and as long as parties exist will continue to use to help them win votes. As the next presidential election approaches it would be reasonable to assume that parties will raise new concerns and find new issues to debate so that they can energize and mobilize their supporters. What the future candidates and public will debate about will largely be determined by what policies parties chose to make partisan.     

Sources:

http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now

https://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/barack-obama-net-neutrality-112759.html

Wright and Schaffner 2002 Wright and Schaffner (Class Reading)

Carsey and Layman 2006 Carsey (Class Reading)

Voter Mobilization in 2014 – United States

                Being from North Carolina, I decided to write my latest blog post on something close to home. For the past few presidential and midterm elections, North Carolina has seen much more intense mobilization strategies than other states. North Carolina, like some other states that lie between the old south and the north, has had a significant increase in new groups of people moving into the big cities. Cities such as Charlotte, Raleigh, and Greensboro look much different than they did even 20 years ago. This new demographic has forced leaders and the parties to change their dynamics when attempting to mobilize voters for their party.

                The new saying is that leaders must “appeal to two North Carolinas¹.” There are different needs and methods that work for the old, rural towns, and there are other tactics that are more efficient at getting votes in the bigger, urban cities. My focus in this blog is on the minority voters and tactics that are used in order to get these voters to the polls. Minorities predominantly live in the larger cities of North Carolina. As we can see on the map, these larger cities almost always vote Democrat, and this was no surprise for the 2012 presidential election. The presidential elections are now closer than they used to be, and the past few have elections have had a different party winning than each previous election. This has encouraged the Democratic Party to target minority voters in hopes of getting them to the polls.

                With a recent legislation passing through the Republican legislature of North Carolina that would ban same-day voting and force people to need ID in order to vote, the Democrats increased efforts to mobilize minority voters in 2014. Not only are party leaders attempting to make contact with potential voters to get them to the polls, civic leaders are also helping citizens register, get a photo ID, and know when and where they can vote³. Also, church leaders are inviting their delegations to participate in civic activities. More than just contacting voters, Reverend William Barber encouraged dissatisfied minorities to participate in weekly protests, sit-ins, and civil disobedience backed by coalitions that were continually growing⁴. The group also implemented a “Moral Monday” that encouraged poor, minority voters to make it to the polls and elect a candidate that would stand for welfare programs, education, and equal voting rights. Though these groups did not endorse a specific candidate, it was clear that they inclined voters to choose Kay Hagan, the Democratic candidate for Senator. Unfortunately, all of these efforts did not get enough people to the polls. North Carolina saw one of the largest drop-off of Democratic and minority voters in the entire nation, and the Republican challenger won the election for Senator.

                In class, we covered an article by Gershetenson that discussed parties and their efforts to mobilize voters. The article discussed at length the choices that parties must make in order to maximize efficiency in contacting voters. In better terms, how could parties target potential voters and get them to the polls? We discussed in class that both parties typically try and contact those that have similar ideologies to their own party. Other than this factor, parties also tend to go after the same type of people. Voters and those contacted by parties are more educated, are wealthier, are older, and have voted in previous elections. It was found that these types of people vote more often and are, therefore, contacted by the parties and encouraged to vote.

                With this in mind, it is not surprising that the voter mobilization tactics of the Democratic Party and other civic leaders was not successful. The first error they made was investing too much time and money into one group of people. Even if all of the people targeted in these ideas made it to the polls, it probably would not have been enough to change the election. The biggest mistake, however, was attempting to mobilize people that did not fit Gershetenson’s description. The 2014 efforts were towards less-educated, poorer, younger people that had never voted before. Because of their poor mobilization efforts, the Democrats failed to reach many other potential voters and ultimately lost a Senate seat in North Carolina.

Sources:

¹ http://www.politicsnc.com/category/demographic-trends/

² http://jointcenter.org/sites/default/files/Joint%20Center%202014%20Black%20Turnout%2010-29-14_0.pdf

³ http://www.southernstudies.org/2014/08/after-loss-in-court-nc-voting-rights-activists-tur.html

⁴ http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/katrina-vanden-heuvel-in-nc-populist-mobilization-buoys-democrat-kay-hagan/2014/10/14/49057624-52e8-11e4-892e-602188e70e9c_story.html