Study Guide #13
Elections
Inevitably, experts, reporters and everyday people try to interpret the meaning of an election. The readings in this section of the course attempt to complicate your understanding of the meaning of elections, showing you that the interpretations of the media and of politicians are often quite dubious. Voters vote for a lot of reasons, and "sending a message" is only one of them, so that it's usually misguided to analyze a candidate election as a referendum on an issue or a set of issues.
Menand is a literature professor at Harvard, but he does a nice job of providing a basic introduction to political science scholarship on voting. Burton and Shea usefully contrast the political science approach to understanding elections from the perspectives of the news media and campaign professionals. Maisel provides a finely crafted study of the most important determinant of House elections: how potential "quality candidates" decide whether to run.
(Some of you have seen "The War Room," a documentary about the 1992 presidential election that focuses on the role of James Carville, a campaign consultant. For a critique of the role of consultants in politics, read Westbrook's recommended article, which suggests some of the ways in which consultants have degraded American politics. Remember Madison's claim that in an extended republic candidates for office would not be able to "employ the vicious arts by which campaigns are often conducted"? Guess he's spinning in his grave.)
When you finish each reading, see if you can answer the following questions:
Menand, "Did Voters Send a Message?"
Why is it difficult to say that voters "send a message about x" (social security, tax policy, abortion) in a presidential election?
Why is it unlikely that voters in 2004 were "sending a message" about moral values?
What "retrospective issue" do pollsters think moved the election most? (By the way, political science research using far more sophisticated methods supports this conclusion.)
Menand, "The Unpolitical Animal"
What was Philip Converse's main finding in his 1964 article? (Hint: What is an ideology?)
Menand discusses three "theories of democratic politics." (In fact as far as I know, everyone in political science embraces some version of theories two or three, mostly three.) The third is based on heuristics. What is a heuristic?
What heuristics do people use in voting? (In lecture I will label them "party" and "retrospective economic voting".)
In what ways are heuristics like retrospective economic voting irrational? (Hint: should incumbents be blamed for the weather too?)
Burton and Shea, “Campaign Strategy”
How do the authors explaining the diverging approaches to elections among political scientists, journalists and campaign practitioners? Is one group's perspective more correct than that of the others?
On what bases do political scientists tend to downgrade election campaigns as a source of vote choice? What factors are more influential in affecting voters according to the political scientists?
The authors claim that one virtue of the political science perspective is that it deflates the myth that elections are decided by collosal battles among competing candidates. Why do the authors consider this a myth?
What "biases" do most journalists share according to the authors? How do these biases influence election coverage?
How is politics coverage like sports coverage?
How does the perspective of campaign professionals differ from that of the journalists and the political scientists?
Maisel, "Quality Challengers"
The 1998 House elections were said to be "hotly contested." In how many races did the incumbent poll less than 55%?
Why are so many House races uncompetitive?
What is a "high quality candidate"? (Hint: needs to have both "strategic" and "personal" qualities.)
Maisel's study identifies many potential high quality candidates, a majority of whom are rated higher on personal qualities than the incumbent. Why do most high quality people "opt out"? (What exactly are they waiting for?)
What reforms does Maisel urge to encourage more high quality candidates to run?
Implications question: What does the Maisel article imply for those who seek to interpret the results of congressional elections? Is it likely that voters are "sending a message" about particular issues when they elect a majority-Republican or majority-Democrat House? (What is likely to determine whether Republicans or Democrats win a majority of seats?)