American Popular
Election: The United States has not achieved a Quorum for Democracy since 1900
HA-29-10-10
By Anthony J.
Sanders
Contribute
to Health and Democracy
Part One: 66% Voting Age Population Turnout Quorum
Part Two: Restrictions on
Voter Eligibility
Part Three: Incumbent
Democratic-Republican Two Party System
Stage One: Hamiltonian
Federalists defeated by the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans 1788-1820
Stage Two: Jacksonian Democrats and the Whigs 1820-1856
Stage Three: Progressive
Republican Era 1860-1896
Stage Four: Republican
Populism 1900-1928
Stage Five: New Deal
Democrats 1932-1968
Stage Six: Split Ticket
Voting 1972-present
Part Four: Evolution of the Federal Corrupt Practices
Campaign Act
Part Five: Vote for Me: An Aspiring Young Multi-party
Democracy at 222
Part One: 66% Voter Age Population Turnout
Quorum
On Tuesday, 2 November 2010, voters in the United States will elect members of the 112th United States Congress, including all members of the United States House of Representatives and almost one-third of the United States Senate (IFES ’10). The Democratic and Republican (DR) bipartisan system holds all public offices at all levels of government in a nearly totalitarian grip. In 2005 ninety-nine of the one hundred U.S. senators were either republicans or Democrats, 434 of the 435 representatives in the House of Representatives are affiliated with one of the two major parties, all fifty of the state governors and more than 7,350 of the approximately 7,400 state legislators elected in partisan elections ran under major party labels (Maisel & Buckley ’05:267). Fifty-eight percent of Americans believe a third major political party is needed because the Republican and Democratic Parties do a poor job of representing the American people. Independents, express a greater degree of support (74%) for a third party, but 47% of Republicans and 45% of Democrats also expressed a desire for the creation of a third party. Sixty-two percent of those who describe themselves as Tea Party supporters would like a third major party formed, but so do 59% of those who are neutral toward the Tea Party movement. (Jones ’10). Congressional approval, averaging 35%, dipped to 16% in March 2010, Presidents usually enjoy a higher job approval rating, averaging around 50%, between 20-90% (Newport ’09). Overall Gallup's annual Governance poll finds a continued deterioration in public confidence in U.S. government institutions. Just 26% of Americans say they are satisfied with the way the nation is being governed, the lowest in the eight-year history of the Governance poll and tying a 1973 Gallup reading, as the lowest in the poll’s 34 year history (Jones ’08).
The
legitimacy of a democracy depends upon voter participation. In a democracy the people are sovereign. As a rule of thumb, endorsed by the now
defunct Election World website, a minimum of 2/3 voter participation is needed
to qualify as a popular democracy (Huntley ’98). Therefore, according to the US Census Bureau
Bicentennial Edition statistics, the United States has not technically
qualified as a popular democracy since 1900 when voter participation was 73.2
percent. The 2008 president election,
typically at least 10 percentage points more popular than midterm elections
such as the 2010 congressional election, garnered only 56.8 percent turnout -
the highest turnout rate since 1968 when it was 60.6 percent. For a while though, in the Civil War and
Reconstruction era between 1840 and 1900 US voter participation was between
69.6 percent in 1952 and 81.8 percent in 1876 including the newly eligible
black voters under the XV Amendment of 1870, 1900 was the last election to
enjoy 66% turnout. Equal suffrage for
women under the XIX Amendment of 1920 was more problematic and the presidential
elections of 1920 with 49.2 percent turnout and 1924 with 48.9 percent turnout
were the lowest presidential election, since the first popular presidential election
1824, with the exception of 1996 (49.1%), that reinstated Clinton with a
mandate to balance the budget. The XVI
Amendment of 1971 to allow all people 18 or older to vote similarly had a
negative impact on voter turnout pushing voting age turnout in the presidential
elections forever below the 60 percent enjoyed throughout the 1950s and ‘60s
(Morton & Barabba ’70). Turnout in the once awed European democracies is over 75 percent
in Great Britain and France, over 80 percent in west Germany, the Low Countries
and Scandinavia, over 90 percent in Italy.
Currently the United States ranks twentieth among twenty-one democracies
in turnout as a percentage of the voting-age population (only Switzerland is
worse). If people are too intimidated or
apathetic to come to the polls this indicates the government is either too
abusive or too negligent to elect a representative government, which means the
government should not be expansive but self-determinant. Fifty million additional American would have
had to vote in 1984 to bring turnout back to nineteenth-century levels
(Schlesinger 99: 256)
Turnout of
Voting Age Population in Presidential Election Years 1824-2008
2012 |
2008 |
2004 |
2000 |
1996 |
1992 |
? |
56.8% |
55.3% |
51.3% |
49.1% |
55.1% |
1988 |
1984 |
1980 |
1976 |
1972 |
1968 |
50.1% |
53.1% |
52.6% |
53.6% |
55.2% |
60.6% |
1964 |
1960 |
1956 |
1952 |
1948 |
1944 |
61.7% |
64.0% |
60.6% |
63.3% |
53.0% |
55.9% |
1940 |
1936 |
1932 |
1928 |
1924 |
1920 |
62.5% |
61.0% |
56.9% |
56.9% |
48.9% |
49.2% |
1916 |
1912 |
1908 |
1904 |
1900 |
1896 |
61.6% |
58.8% |
65.4% |
65.2% |
73.2% |
79.3% |
1892 |
1888 |
1884 |
1880 |
1876 |
1872 |
74.7% |
79.3% |
77.5% |
79.4% |
81.8% |
71.3% |
1868 |
1864 |
1860 |
1856 |
1852 |
1848 |
78.1% |
73.8% |
81.2% |
78.9% |
69.6% |
72.7% |
1844 |
1840 |
1836 |
1832 |
1828 |
1824 |
78.9% |
80.2% |
57.8% |
55.4% |
57.6% |
26.9% |
Source: Series Y 27-78 Morton, Rogers
C.B. Secretary of Commerce; Barabba, Vincent P.
Director of the Bureau of the Census. Historical Statistics of the United
States: Colonial Times to 1970. Bicentennial
Edition pg. 1071-1072
Voter participation is actually a function of
three factors- eligibility, registration and turnout. The first is who is eligible to register to
vote? The second factor involves how
many eligible people bother to register.
The third factor is the decision of those eligible and registered to
turn out to cast their ballot on Election Day.
Turnout is often expressed as a percentage of registered voters who
actually turn out and vote. Voter age population
(VAP) rates are however the standard by which elections are judged, VAP rate is
the percentage of voting age population (VAP) who votes. States vary tremendously in their turnout
rates. In the 2000 election, eleven
states had turnout rates greater than 60 percent of the voting age population,
led by Minnesota, at 68.8 percent, and Maine, at 67.3 percent, at the other
extreme sixteen states had turnout rates less than 50 percent of the voting age
population, with Arizona, Georgia, Hawaii, Nevada and Texas all below 45
percent. The debate over ease of
registration has been heated. Turnout
during congressional election years is typically under 40 percent (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 80 & 89). A factor that can overturn elections is a
percentage of invalid votes exceeding 0.7% in the Parliament and 2% in the
presidential election. Out of the past
20 biannual elections between 1968 and 2008 only two of the ten presidential
elections resulted in turnout of registered voters less than 66% but in the ten
mid-term elections has not achieved 66% turnout since 1970. The turnout of registered voters is not
typically used as the gauge of voter participation, however the voter turnout
of registered in the United States between 1968 and 2008 does indicate a
democratic belief in the President exclusively amongst registered party members
or independents. As a percentage of
voter age population (VAP) turnout during the 36 biannual elections between
1946 and 2008 not once has the USA achieved the requisite 66% participation of
the VAP. Not since the election of 1900
has US voter participation achieved 66% of the VAP (Morton & Barraba ’70: 1071-1072).
Parliamentary Election Turnout
United States of America 1946- 2006
The year the election took place
or a law was passed, etc |
Total vote The total number of votes cast in
the relevant election. Total vote includes valid and invalid votes, as well
as blank votes in cases where these are separated from invalid votes. |
Voter Turn- The voter turnout as defined as
the percentage of registered voters who actually voted |
Registration The number of registered voters.
The figure represents the number of names on the voters' register at the time
that the registration process closes (cut-off date), as reported by the electoral
management body. |
Registration as a percent of
voting age population (VAP) |
Voting age population The voting age population (VAP)
includes all citizens above the legal voting age |
VAP Turn- The voter turnout as defined as the
percentage of the voting age population that actually voted |
Population The total population |
2008 |
131,313,820 |
89.75% |
146,311,000 |
65% |
225,080,141 |
58.34% |
303,824,640 |
2006 |
82,121,411 |
47.52% |
172,805,006 |
78.5% |
220,043,054 |
37.32% |
298,444,215 |
2004 |
121,862,329 |
68.75% |
177,265,030 |
82.5% |
215,080,198 |
56.66% |
293,027,571 |
2002 |
73,844,526 |
45.31% |
162,993,315 |
77.4% |
210,464,504 |
35.09% |
278,058,881 |
2000 |
99,738,383 |
63.76% |
156,421,311 |
73.1% |
213,954,023 |
46.62% |
284,970,789 |
1998 |
73,117,022 |
51.55% |
141,850,558 |
67.4% |
210,446,120 |
34.74% |
280,298,524 |
1996 |
96,456,345 |
65.97% |
146,211,960 |
74.4% |
196,511,000 |
49.08% |
265,679,000 |
1994 |
75,105,860 |
57.64% |
130,292,822 |
67.3% |
193,650,000 |
38.78% |
262,090,745 |
1992 |
104,405,155 |
78.02% |
133,821,178 |
70.6% |
189,529,000 |
55.09% |
255,407,000 |
1990 |
67,859,189 |
56.03% |
121,105,630 |
65.2% |
185,812,000 |
36.52% |
248,709,873 |
1988 |
91,594,693 |
72.48% |
126,379,628 |
69.1% |
182,778,000 |
50.11% |
245,057,000 |
1986 |
64,991,128 |
54.89% |
118,399,984 |
66.3% |
178,566,000 |
36.40% |
239,529,693 |
1984 |
92,652,680 |
74.63% |
124,150,614 |
71.2% |
174,466,000 |
53.11% |
236,681,000 |
1982 |
67,615,576 |
61.10% |
110,671,225 |
65.2% |
169,938,000 |
39.79% |
233,697,676 |
1980 |
86,515,221 |
76.53% |
113,043,734 |
68.7% |
164,597,000 |
52.56% |
227,738,000 |
1978 |
58,917,938 |
57.04% |
103,291,265 |
65.2% |
158,373,000 |
37.20% |
221,537,514 |
1976 |
81,555,789 |
77.64% |
105,037,989 |
68.9% |
152,309,190 |
53.55% |
218,035,000 |
1974 |
55,943,834 |
58.15% |
96,199,020 |
65.8% |
146,336,000 |
38.23% |
214,305,134 |
1972 |
77,718,554 |
79.85% |
97,328,541 |
69.1% |
140,776,000 |
55.21% |
208,840,000 |
1970 |
58,014,338 |
70.32% |
82,496,747 |
66.3% |
124,498,000 |
46.60% |
203,211,926 |
1968 |
73,211,875 |
89.66% |
81,658,180 |
67.9% |
120,328,186 |
60.84% |
200,710,000 |
1966 |
56,188,046 |
|
116,132,000 |
48.38% |
197,730,744 |
||
1964 |
70,644,592 |
|
114,090,000 |
61.92% |
192,119,000 |
||
1962 |
53,141,227 |
|
112,423,000 |
47.27% |
186,512,143 |
||
1960 |
68,838,204 |
|
109,159,000 |
63.06% |
180,684,000 |
||
1958 |
45,966,070 |
|
103,221,000 |
44.53% |
175,038,232 |
||
1956 |
58,434,811 |
|
106,408,890 |
54.92% |
168,903,000 |
||
1954 |
42,509,905 |
|
98,527,000 |
43.15% |
162,725,667 |
||
1952 |
57,582,333 |
|
96,466,000 |
59.69% |
157,022,000 |
||
1950 |
40,253,267 |
|
94,403,000 |
42.64% |
151,325,798 |
||
1948 |
45,839,622 |
|
95,310,150 |
48.10% |
146,631,000 |
||
1946 |
34,279,158 |
|
88,388,000 |
38.78% |
142,049,065 |
Source:
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. County View:
United States 2009
Overall in 2008 225 million people were of
voting age, 74% of the total population of 303.8 million. 65% these 225 million adults, 146.3 million
registered to vote, 48.1% of the total.
Of those registered 131.3 million actually voted, a turnout of 89.75%,
the highest since the International Institute of Democracy and Electoral
Assistance (IDEA) began tracking this measure of voter turnout as a percentage
of registered voters in 1968. It is also
remarkable that voter registration declined significantly from 172.8 million to
146.3 million, 15.6% between the midterm election of 2006 and the presidential
election of 2008. There is not normally
much difference in voter registration between presidential and midterm elections,
voter registration has progressively increased in all but 8 of the past 20
biannual elections since 1968, with the exception of the midterm elections of
1974, 1978, 1982, 1986, 1990, 1994, 1998 and 2008. The 2008 presidential election was the first election
to ever register a decline in voter registration from the previous presidential
election and the first to register a decline from the previous midterm
election. Numerically voter registration
in the 2008 election regressed a decade to 1998-2000 levels. The 2008 presidential election had the lowest
rate of registration of voter age population (VAP), at 65% since records began
being collected in by IDEA in 1968, only in 1982 did it drop so
low as 65.2%, so soon after the high of 82.5% in the 2004 presidential election
when the HAVA of 2002 was enforced.
Otherwise voter age population (VAP) turnout rate, denied the vote of
convicted felons by many states, was 58.34%.
The 2008 election is remarkable, for electing a black man to the White
House by a landslide, for his record campaign finance contribution, low voter
registration and high turnout of registered voters.
General Election VAP Turnout Rates,
State by State 2000-2008
State |
VAP |
VAP 2006 |
VAP 2004 |
VAP
2002 |
VAP
2000 |
|
VAP
2008 |
VAP 2006 |
VAP 2004 |
VAP 2002 |
VAP
2000 |
United
States |
56.9% |
37.1% |
55.4% |
36.3% |
50.0% |
Missouri |
64.5% |
48.1% |
62.9% |
43.9% |
56.2% |
Alabama |
59.0% |
35.9% |
55.2% |
40.4% |
50.1% |
Montana |
65.6% |
55.6% |
63.4% |
47.7% |
60.6% |
Alaska |
64.0% |
47.8% |
65.2% |
51.0% |
65.0% |
Nebraska |
59.9% |
45.1% |
59.8% |
37.3% |
55.0% |
Arizona |
47.7% |
33.3% |
47.0% |
30.7% |
40.2% |
Nevada |
49.7% |
31.1% |
47.3% |
31.1% |
40.2% |
Arkansas |
50.1% |
36.5% |
51.0% |
39.7% |
46.0% |
New
Hampshire |
69.0% |
39.9% |
68.4% |
46.0% |
60.7% |
California |
49.7% |
32.2% |
47.1% |
29.0% |
44.1% |
New
Jersey |
58.4% |
34.1% |
55.2% |
32.6% |
50.1% |
Colorado |
64.1% |
43.1% |
61.2% |
42.0% |
53.7% |
New
Mexico |
55.8% |
38.6% |
53.9% |
35.7% |
45.4% |
Connecticut |
61.1% |
42.5% |
59.7% |
38.9% |
56.6% |
New
York |
50.8% |
30.3% |
50.2% |
31.4% |
47.5% |
Delaware |
61.3% |
39.0% |
59.4% |
37.9% |
54.9% |
North
Carolina |
61.3% |
28.7% |
53.9% |
37.2% |
47.5% |
District
of Columbia |
55.4% |
25.5% |
48.9% |
27.1% |
43.9% |
North
Dakota |
63.3% |
44.1% |
63.8% |
47.6% |
59.7% |
Florida |
58.3% |
34.3% |
56.1% |
39.5% |
47.9% |
Ohio |
64.7% |
46.3% |
65.1% |
37.6% |
55.4% |
Georgia |
54.7% |
30.7% |
50.0% |
32.2% |
42.4% |
Oklahoma |
53.2% |
34.3% |
55.3% |
39.6% |
48.0% |
Hawaii |
45.4% |
34.6% |
44.1% |
40.2% |
39.9% |
Oregon |
62.5% |
48.4% |
66.8% |
47.2% |
59.1% |
Idaho |
58.7% |
42.0% |
58.7% |
42.0% |
53.5% |
Pennsylvania |
61.4% |
42.6% |
60.6% |
37.3% |
52.3% |
Illinois |
57.0% |
36.3% |
55.7% |
37.7% |
51.4% |
Rhode
Island |
57.2% |
46.7% |
52.9% |
40.1% |
50.7% |
Indiana |
57.2% |
35.2% |
53.0% |
33.3% |
48.3% |
South
Carolina |
55.8% |
33.1% |
50.7% |
35.6% |
45.7% |
Iowa |
67.2% |
46.3% |
67.4% |
45.7% |
59.6% |
South
Dakota |
62.8% |
56.4% |
66.9% |
59.7% |
56.9% |
Kansas |
58.8% |
41.1% |
58.3% |
41.4% |
54.0% |
Tennessee |
54.5% |
39.5% |
54.1% |
37.3% |
48.1% |
Kentucky |
55.7% |
39.0% |
56.9% |
36.4% |
50.4% |
Texas |
45.8% |
25.8% |
45.4% |
28.8% |
42.4% |
Louisiana |
58.6% |
28.3% |
58.5% |
37.8% |
54.2% |
Utah |
50.4% |
31.8% |
54.7% |
35.0% |
50.3% |
Maine |
70.0% |
53.3% |
72.6% |
50.1% |
66.4% |
Vermont |
65.9% |
53.8% |
65.0% |
48.1% |
63.1% |
Maryland |
61.0% |
42.2% |
57.2% |
41.6% |
51.0% |
Virginia |
62.2% |
40.6% |
56.2% |
26.9% |
50.9% |
Massachusetts |
60.1% |
44.4% |
58.7% |
44.4% |
55.4% |
Washington |
60.3% |
42.7% |
60.8% |
37.9% |
56.2% |
Michigan |
65.7% |
49.9% |
63.9% |
42.3% |
57.3% |
West
Virginia |
49.9% |
32.3% |
53.4% |
30.8% |
46.1% |
Minnesota |
73.1% |
56.4% |
73.9% |
59.7% |
66.4% |
Wisconsin |
69.0% |
50.8% |
71.6% |
43.2% |
64.5% |
Mississippi |
59.3% |
28.5% |
54.2% |
29.2% |
47.8% |
Wyoming |
62.6% |
49.4% |
63.7% |
49.2% |
58.2% |
Source: United
States Election Project. General Elections 2000-2008. October 2010
State-by-state in the five biannual elections
between 2000 and 2008, turnout is much higher during presidential elections
than midterm elections. Not a single
state achieved a 66% quorum during midterm elections, however during the
Presidential elections a few states qualify every year. Average national VAP turnout in midterm
elections of 2006 was 37.1% with a high of 56.4% in Minnesota and low of 25.5%
in the District of Columbia, and in 2002, 36.3%, with a high of 59.7% in
Minnesota and low of 26.9% in Virginia.
In the 2008 presidential election average participation was 56.9%
however five states, Minnesota with 73.1%, Maine with 70.0%, Wisconsin and New
Hampshire with 69.0% and Iowa with 67.2% achieved the 66% supermajority VAP
turnout needed for a quorum. In 2004
average national participation was 55.4% nonetheless seven states achieved the
quorum, the same states as 2008, plus Oregon with 66.8% and South Dakota with
66.9%. In the 2000 presidential election
voting age turnout was 50.0%, only two states, Maine and Minnesota with 66.4%
VAP turnout were popular. Hawaii
consistently had the lowest VAP turnout in presidential elections with 45.4% in
2008, 44.1% in 2004 and 39.9% in 2000.
Americans have become more involved in the electoral process since a low
of in 1996 and 2000. Americans however
do not participate at the desired rates.
Voting Age Population Turnout in Recent Parliamentary Election in 21
Most Populous Aspiring Democracies
Country |
VAP Turnout - Parliamentary The voter turnout as defined as
the percentage of the voting age population that actually voted in the
parliamentary elections |
VAP Turnout - Presidential The voter turnout as defined as the
percentage of the voting age population that actually voted in the
presidential elections |
Country |
VAP Turnout - Parliamentary The voter turnout as defined as
the percentage of the voting age population that actually voted in the
parliamentary elections. |
VAP Turnout - Presidential The voter turnout as defined as
the percentage of the voting age population that actually voted in the
presidential elections |
87.60% (2004) |
74.77% (2004) |
61.91% (2007) |
62.22% (2004) |
||
83.54% (2006) |
83.57% (2006) |
60.57% (2004) |
|
||
79.13% (2008) |
|
58.32% (2005) |
|
||
76.23% (2007) |
|
54.87% (2007) |
|
||
73.99% (2007) |
|
54.52% (2007) |
76.75% (2007) |
||
71.99% (2005) |
|
54.08% (2008) |
67.62% (2005) |
||
66.62% (2005) |
|
46.63% (2003) |
65.33% (2003) |
||
66.19% (2005) |
|
46.59% (2008) |
64.17% (2007) |
||
64.57% (1996) |
53.10% (1986) |
38.77% (2008) |
|
||
63.62% (2006) |
63.26% (2006) |
37.32% (2006) |
58.23% (2008) |
||
|
|
|
19.75% (2005) |
16.41% (2005) |
Source:
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Voter Turnout
With
37.32% voter age population (VAP) turnout during the United States
parliamentary elections of 2006 ranked 169th out of 188 nations
using recent election data recorded by the International Institute for
Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA).
41%, 77 nations of the 188 had VAP turnout greater than the arbitrary
66% in their most recent parliamentary election. Vietnam reported VAP turnout of 100.79%,
either their children are voting or they are having technical
difficulties. Rwanda had 93.6% VAP
turnout, Indonesia 87.6%, Belgium 86%, Peru 84.1%, Denmark 83.2% while Japan
hangs on with 66.62%. While it might be
difficult to achieve 66% voter turnout, 41% of nations do, and 59% do not. China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and the
United Nations are conspicuously absent from the electoral statistics. India, often called the world’s largest
democracy, ranked 100th with 60.57% VAP turnout. Technically, the world’s largest popular
democracy is Indonesia with 87.6% of adults.
Of the 21 most populous aspiring democracies only 8 actually qualified
with more than 66% of the vote. Out of
106 nations the U.S. Presidential election of 2008 VAP turnout, usually much
higher than in the mid-terms, was 70th place, with 58.2% VAP
turnout, Afghanistan placed 71st at 57.9%, only 47, 44.3% of
participating nations, garnered the 66% supermajority of VAP turnout needed to
qualify as popular democracies. The US
Parliamentary elections ranked 20th out of the 21 most populous
aspiring democratic nations, only Egypt, a major recipient of US foreign
military assistance had lower turnout in their parliamentary elections. The United States scored much higher in the
presidential election of 2008 with 58.23% VAP turnout, 17th out of
21, while Brazil took first place with 83.57% while fewer Indonesians 74.77%
voted for their President than Parliament 87.60%. While the presidential election increases
voter turnout in some countries, France and Iran are the only nations whose
presidential elections helped the nation to achieve a passing VAP turnout, in
Mexico, Egypt and Indonesia turnout was lower during the Presidential than
Parliamentary election (IDEA ’09).
There is a saying that “people
get the government they vote for.” The implication of the maxim is that if
undesirable or unwise legislation is enacted, if executive branch officials are
inept or ineffective, or if the government is beset with widespread corruption,
then such unfortunate results are the consequence of the electorate’s decision
regarding whom to trust with the powers and prestige of public office. No right is more precious in a free country
than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under
which, as good citizens, we must live (Kant 1795 §2.1). However, when governments and political
parties have monopolized and manipulated all the options, voting becomes
counterproductive to the voter. It is argued that voting is a civic duty and
that the state can expect patriotic citizens to invest a certain amount of
effort toward that duty. By not voting however,
a citizen is expressing that they do not support the political system and
either fear or dislike it so much they do not want to be exposed it. If sufficient number of voters turnout to
support the government, then the legitimacy of the democracy to embark on
expansionist policies, is not typically questioned. However, if less than 66% of the VAP turnout,
the electorate has clearly expressed that they want the government to be less
intrusive. Secretaries of State aim to
ensure that the voting process is accessible to voters and also work to secure
the integrity of the ballot box against fraud, waste and abuse. Elections must be conducted in an orderly
fashion to guarantee a free and fair election that validly reflects the choice
of the electorate (Blackwell ’09: 107-123).
Democracy is only a form of despotism, where the executive power is
established by the election of a tyranny of the majority, therefore a
republican constitution must establish principles to ensure firstly, the
freedom of the members of a society, secondly, dependence of all upon a single common
legislation, as subjects, and, thirdly, by the law of their equality, as
citizens. A republican constitution gives a favorable prospect for the desired
consequence, i.e., perpetual peace (Kant 1795 §2.1).
Democratic peace theory is that
democracies do not make more upon each other, nor do they commit genocide
against their own citizens. If the
United States wishes to improve their low VAP turnout the USA must not make war
or abuse their citizens and come to identify their nation not as a democracy
but as an aspiring democracy (MD §34). The National Voter Registration Act of
1993, and the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), have facilitated voter
registration and the ability to cast ballots with little success. The Acts had
four official purposes: (1) to establish procedures that will increase the
number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal
office; (2) to make it possible for Federal, State, and local governments to
implement this Act in a manner that enhances the participation of eligible
citizens as voters in elections for Federal office; (3) to protect the
integrity of the electoral process; and (4) to ensure that accurate and current
voter registration rolls are maintained (Blackwell & Klukowski
’09:114). The NVRA of 1993 actually led
to the lowest percentage turnout of voting age population since 1924 in the
presidential election of 1996. HAVA of
2002, on the other hand, may have brought some people to the polls. In crafting a strategy to improve voter
participation the federal government must be sure that it not only reminds
citizens of their right to vote but protects the integrity of the ballot box
and voter registries against intimidation and injustice. People don’t want to the come to the polls for
two reasons. One, because they fear
having their identity stolen by abusive officials. And two, with the nearly absolute Democratic
and Republican monopoly of political parties at nearly every level of
government voting would do no good because all votes just perpetuate the
bipartisan system. The reason for the
decline in participation since 1900 is the taxman became more oppressive with
the epidemiologic surveillance of the U.S. Census Bureau of 1900, income tax of
1916 and prohibition of 1919.
Part Two:
Restrictions on Voter Eligibility
The federal constitution forbids
age or gender restrictions on voting rights for any citizen of at least 18
years, though some states restrict specific groups including those convicted of
felonies. Registration is
self-initiated and not compulsory. Most states require citizens to register by
some deadline well in advance of an election, though a few permit same day or
Election Day registration, and one
does not conduct registration at
all. State-level officials (Board of
Elections or Secretary of State) design registration
forms and determine requirements, but most election boards use continuous voter
registries maintained by local governments.
Two populations, people under 18 and convicted
felons are the two remaining populations to be legally disenfranchised from the
polling booth. No state in the world
allows children to vote. Four states (Maine,
Massachusetts, Utah, Vermont) do not disenfranchise
convicted felons. In forty-six states and the District of Columbia, criminal
disenfranchisement laws deny the vote to all convicted adults in prison.
Thirty-two states also disenfranchise felons on parole; twenty-nine
disenfranchise those on probation. And, due to laws that may be unique in the
world, and in violation of the “no previous condition of servitude” clause of
the XV Amendment, in fourteen states even ex-offenders who have fully served
their sentences remain barred for life from voting, although their crime had
nothing to do with electoral fraud.
These restrictions cut into the third party vote and overall VAP
turnout. An estimated 3.9 million
Americans, or one in fifty adults, have currently or permanently lost the
ability to vote because of a felony conviction, an estimated 1.7% of the voting
age population, 3% of voter turnout (JD §264: 882-887). The U.S. foreign-born population is 36.5 million,
with 14.4 million naturalized citizens. Research documents that naturalized
citizens are less likely to register and vote than native citizens (Crissey ’08).
Impact of Felon Disenfranchisement
on Voter Age and Voting Eligible Populations under State Voting Law 2008
State |
Total Turnout |
Voting Age Population |
VAP Turnout Rate |
Voting Eligible Population |
VEP Turnout Rate |
Non- Citizen |
Prison |
Probation |
Parole |
Total Ineligible Felons |
Overseas Eligible |
Alabama |
2,105,622 |
3,558,576 |
59.0% |
3,418,204 |
61.6% |
2.2% |
30,508 |
53,252 |
8,042 |
61,155 |
74,079 |
Alaska |
327,341 |
510,020 |
64.0% |
481,716 |
68.0% |
3.7% |
5,014 |
6,708 |
1,732 |
9,234 |
60,686 |
Arizona |
2,320,851 |
4,809,400 |
47.7% |
4,165,988 |
55.7% |
11.6% |
39,589 |
82,232 |
7,534 |
84,472 |
90,036 |
Arkansas |
1,095,958 |
2,167,235 |
50.1% |
2,064,173 |
53.1% |
2.9% |
14,716 |
31,169 |
19,908 |
40,255 |
43,963 |
California |
13,743,177 |
27,279,556 |
49.7% |
22,153,555 |
62.0% |
17.9% |
173,670 |
0 |
120,753 |
234,047 |
486,207 |
Colorado |
2,422,236 |
3,748,718 |
64.1% |
3,419,539 |
70.8% |
8.0% |
23,274 |
0 |
11,654 |
29,101 |
71,854 |
Connecticut |
|
2,695,793 |
61.1% |
2,443,533 |
|
8.5% |
20,661 |
0 |
2,328 |
21,825 |
45,799 |
Delaware |
413,562 |
672,304 |
61.3% |
620,448 |
66.7% |
5.3% |
7,075 |
17,216 |
551 |
15,959 |
12,658 |
District
of Columbia |
266,871 |
479,880 |
55.4% |
430,690 |
62.0% |
10.3% |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6,916 |
Florida |
8,453,743 |
14,395,399 |
58.3% |
12,542,585 |
67.4% |
11.2% |
102,388 |
279,760 |
4,528 |
244,532 |
451,907 |
Georgia |
3,940,705 |
7,169,980 |
54.7% |
6,380,404 |
61.8% |
7.3% |
52,719 |
397,081 |
23,448 |
262,984 |
141,001 |
Hawaii |
456,064 |
1,000,026 |
45.4% |
897,488 |
50.8% |
9.7% |
5,955 |
0 |
0 |
5,955 |
20,090 |
Idaho |
667,506 |
1,116,659 |
58.7% |
1,028,291 |
64.9% |
4.9% |
7,290 |
49,513 |
3,361 |
33,727 |
26,779 |
Illinois |
5,578,195 |
9,684,345 |
57.0% |
8,743,436 |
63.8% |
9.2% |
45,474 |
0 |
0 |
45,474 |
200,530 |
Indiana |
2,805,986 |
4,808,900 |
57.2% |
4,636,209 |
60.5% |
3.0% |
28,322 |
0 |
0 |
28,322 |
89,605 |
Iowa |
1,543,662 |
2,285,881 |
67.2% |
2,203,793 |
70.0% |
2.6% |
8,766 |
22,958 |
3,159 |
21,825 |
43,108 |
Kansas |
1,264,208 |
2,102,464 |
58.8% |
1,994,038 |
63.4% |
4.2% |
8,539 |
16,263 |
4,958 |
19,150 |
42,495 |
Kentucky |
1,858,578 |
3,281,251 |
55.7% |
3,156,184 |
58.9% |
2.2% |
21,706 |
51,035 |
12,277 |
53,362 |
58,518 |
Louisiana |
1,979,852 |
3,343,411 |
58.6% |
3,206,903 |
61.7% |
2.0% |
38,381 |
40,025 |
24,636 |
70,712 |
68,285 |
Maine |
744,456 |
1,045,008 |
70.0% |
1,031,496 |
72.2% |
1.3% |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
21,362 |
Maryland |
2,651,428 |
4,317,486 |
61.0% |
3,901,736 |
68.0% |
7.8% |
23,324 |
96,360 |
13,220 |
78,114 |
77,074 |
Massachusetts |
3,102,995 |
5,123,478 |
60.1% |
4,672,376 |
66.4% |
8.6% |
11,408 |
0 |
0 |
11,408 |
77,830 |
Michigan |
5,039,080 |
7,613,003 |
65.7% |
7,311,245 |
68.9% |
3.3% |
48,738 |
0 |
0 |
48,738 |
163,673 |
Minnesota |
2,921,147 |
3,980,782 |
73.1% |
3,744,757 |
78.0% |
4.0% |
9,910 |
127,627 |
5,081 |
76,264 |
70,063 |
Mississippi |
|
2,176,453 |
59.3% |
2,099,663 |
|
1.9% |
22,754 |
22,267 |
2,922 |
35,349 |
45,082 |
Missouri |
2,992,023 |
4,533,017 |
64.5% |
4,352,278 |
68.7% |
2.5% |
30,186 |
57,360 |
20,683 |
69,208 |
96,710 |
Montana |
497,599 |
750,159 |
65.6% |
736,697 |
67.5% |
1.3% |
3,545 |
0 |
0 |
3,545 |
22,898 |
Nebraska |
811,923 |
1,337,385 |
59.9% |
1,264,519 |
64.2% |
4.3% |
4,520 |
19,606 |
846 |
14,746 |
27,311 |
Nevada |
970,019 |
1,946,641 |
49.7% |
1,650,759 |
58.8% |
14.1% |
12,743 |
13,337 |
3,908 |
21,366 |
45,656 |
New
Hampshire |
719,643 |
1,030,415 |
69.0% |
1,000,628 |
71.9% |
2.6% |
2,702 |
0 |
0 |
2,702 |
25,558 |
New
Jersey |
3,910,220 |
6,627,332 |
58.4% |
5,755,371 |
67.9% |
11.7% |
25,953 |
128,737 |
15,849 |
98,246 |
110,559 |
New
Mexico |
833,365 |
1,486,830 |
55.8% |
1,345,199 |
62.0% |
8.3% |
6,402 |
20,883 |
3,724 |
18,706 |
31,444 |
New
York |
7,721,718 |
15,048,837 |
50.8% |
13,099,560 |
58.9% |
12.4% |
60,347 |
0 |
52,225 |
86,460 |
263,787 |
North
Carolina |
4,354,571 |
7,029,536 |
61.3% |
6,521,263 |
66.8% |
5.9% |
39,482 |
109,678 |
3,409 |
96,026 |
133,483 |
North
Dakota |
321,133 |
499,894 |
63.3% |
492,052 |
65.3% |
1.3% |
1,452 |
0 |
0 |
1,452 |
11,179 |
Ohio |
5,773,387 |
8,802,396 |
64.7% |
8,557,033 |
67.5% |
2.2% |
51,686 |
0 |
0 |
51,686 |
174,703 |
Oklahoma |
1,474,694 |
2,747,092 |
53.2% |
2,596,910 |
56.8% |
4.0% |
25,864 |
27,940 |
3,073 |
41,371 |
57,046 |
Oregon |
1,845,251 |
2,925,885 |
62.5% |
2,709,299 |
68.1% |
6.9% |
14,167 |
0 |
0 |
14,167 |
63,480 |
Pennsylvania |
|
9,790,263 |
61.4% |
9,435,272 |
|
3.1% |
49,215 |
0 |
0 |
49,215 |
203,791 |
Rhode
Island |
475,428 |
824,604 |
57.2% |
762,509 |
62.4% |
7.0% |
4,045 |
0 |
0 |
4,045 |
13,827 |
South
Carolina |
1,927,153 |
3,445,524 |
55.8% |
3,284,019 |
58.7% |
3.4% |
24,326 |
41,254 |
1,947 |
45,927 |
72,241 |
South
Dakota |
387,449 |
608,222 |
62.8% |
596,337 |
65.0% |
1.2% |
3,342 |
0 |
2,720 |
4,702 |
20,144 |
Tennessee |
2,618,238 |
4,767,143 |
54.5% |
4,558,557 |
57.4% |
3.1% |
27,228 |
58,109 |
10,578 |
61,572 |
127,930 |
Texas |
|
17,654,414 |
45.8% |
14,841,794 |
|
13.5% |
172,506 |
427,080 |
102,921 |
437,507 |
549,216 |
Utah |
971,185 |
1,889,690 |
50.4% |
1,746,298 |
55.6% |
7.2% |
6,552 |
0 |
0 |
6,552 |
31,783 |
Vermont |
326,822 |
493,436 |
65.9% |
483,487 |
67.6% |
2.0% |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
10,546 |
Virginia |
3,753,059 |
5,982,805 |
62.2% |
5,518,704 |
68.0% |
6.6% |
38,276 |
53,614 |
4,471 |
67,319 |
124,689 |
Washington |
3,071,587 |
5,036,901 |
60.3% |
4,564,797 |
67.3% |
7.8% |
17,926 |
113,134 |
11,768 |
80,377 |
138,296 |
West
Virginia |
731,691 |
1,429,429 |
49.9% |
1,407,009 |
52.0% |
0.8% |
6,059 |
8,283 |
2,005 |
11,203 |
33,788 |
Wisconsin |
2,997,086 |
4,322,269 |
69.0% |
4,135,627 |
72.5% |
3.0% |
23,379 |
50,418 |
18,105 |
57,641 |
78,721 |
Wyoming |
256,035 |
406,742 |
62.6% |
394,627 |
64.9% |
1.7% |
2,084 |
5,438 |
727 |
5,167 |
13,832 |
U.S. Total |
132,645,504 |
230,782,870 |
56.9% |
213,231,835 |
62.2% |
8.4% |
1,605,448 |
2,451,085 |
627,680 |
3,144,831 |
4,972,217 |
Source: United States Election Project. General Elections
2008. October 2010
The impact of various factors, such a felony disenfranchisement laws,
non-citizenship and overseas eligibility need to be analyzed. In the 2008 election of the
230.8 million people of voting age and 132.6 million showed up to vote between
56.9%-57.5% allowed by the 8.4% margin of non-citizens. Only 213.2 million of the
230.8 million voter age population, in 2008 were
eligible to vote, 17.6 million votes were disqualified either because they were
one of the 20 million non-citizens, not all of them permanent residents, or
they were among the 3.1 million convicted felons disenfranchised by state law,
or the ballot was unreadable. There are
nearly 5 million overseas votes (US Election Project ’08). The disenfranchisement
of felons weighs particularly heavily upon the 1.4
million African American men, or 13 percent of the black adult male population,
are disenfranchised, reflecting a rate of disenfranchisement that is seven
times the national average. More than one-third (36 percent) of the total
disenfranchised population are black men. Ten states disenfranchise more than
one in five adult black men; in seven of these states, one in four black men
are permanently disenfranchised.
Given current rates of incarceration, three in ten of the next generation of
black men will be disenfranchised at some point in their lifetime. In states
with the most restrictive voting laws, 40 percent of African American men are
likely to be permanently
disenfranchised (Human Rights Watch ’98; JD §264: 882-887). The United States really needs to review the
previous condition of servitude clause of the XV Amendment reinstate the right
to vote to people who have served their sentence, and consider reinstating it
to all 3.1 million people have been denied the right to vote on the grounds
that were sentenced to prison, probation and parole. This reform would be more likely to improve
than detract from voter turnout because felon disenfranchisement is more of a
continuation of the black slavery issue than the overprotection of women and
children
In colonial times only those white males who owned land were empowered
to vote. The first step in expanding the
franchise involved eliminating the property requirement that only taxpayers
could vote. This reform happened on a
state-by-state basis, starting before the ratification of the Constitution,
when Vermont granted universal male suffrage in 1777 and when South Carolina
substituted a taxpayer requirement for a property-holding requirement. In 1789
only white males who owned property were generally eligible to vote, only
around one in thirty Americans. At independence, the newly
formed states rejected some of the civil disabilities inherited from Europe;
criminal disenfranchisement was among those retained. In the mid-nineteenth
century, nineteen of the thirty-four existing states excluded serious offenders
from the franchise. Convicted felons
were not the only people excluded from the vote. Suffrage was extremely limited
in the new country: women, African Americans, illiterates, and people without
property were also among those unable to vote.
Before the Civil
War the United States Constitution did not provide specific protections for
voting. Qualifications for voting were matters which neither the Constitution
nor federal laws governed. At that time, although a few northern states
permitted a small number of free black men to register and vote, slavery and
restrictive state laws and practices led the franchise to be exercised almost
exclusively by white males. The history of equal suffrage has four
phases, first, an increase in white male eligibility, enfranchisement of black
citizens, enfranchisement of women, and enfranchisement of those between the
ages of eighteen and twenty-one. The
property qualification finally disappeared when Virginia eliminated it in 1850
(Morton & Barabbas ’70: 1071-1072). It is possible a compromise between
the North and South could have been reached allowing the Republican Party to
enroll southern blacks as members of their party pursuant to voting and Union
rights. A great many people participated
in the political process during this time known as the Gilded Age of political
parties, the only era to consistently achieve the 66% quorum, hoping to
influence the system and be rewarded by philanthropic parties.
Shortly after the end of the Civil War
Congress enacted the Military Reconstruction Act of 1867, which allowed former
Confederate States to be readmitted to the Union if they adopted new state
constitutions that permitted universal male suffrage, and militarily occupied
the Southern States. The 14th Amendment, which conferred citizenship to all
persons born or naturalized in the United States, was ratified in 1868. The Fifteenth Amendment to the constitution,
ratified in 1870, provided specifically that the “right to vote shall not be
denied or abridged on the basis of race, color or previous condition of
servitude”. This superseded state laws that
had directly prohibited black voting. Congress then enacted the Enforcement Act
of 1870, which contained criminal penalties for interference with the right to
vote, and the Force Act of 1871, which provided for federal election oversight. As a result, in the former Confederate
States, where new black citizens in some cases comprised outright or near
majorities of the eligible voting population, hundreds of thousands -- perhaps
one million -- recently-freed slaves registered to vote. Black candidates began
for the first time to be elected to state, local and federal offices and to
play a meaningful role in their governments (Maisel
& Buckley ’05: 70). By 1877 about 2,000
black men had won local, state, and federal offices in the former Confederate
states. As
many as a million blacks registered to vote and voter age participation
remained above 66% from 1860-1896 (Morton & Barabbas ’70: 1071-1072).
Electoral
success changed when Reconstruction ended in 1877 and federal troops withdrew
from the old Confederacy. The extension of the franchise to black citizens was
strongly resisted and the prisons never reviewed. With federal troops no longer
present to protect the rights of black citizens, white supremacy quickly
returned to the old Confederate states. Among
others, the Ku Klux Klan, the Knights of the White Camellia, and other
terrorist organizations attempted to prevent the 15th Amendment from being
enforced by violence and intimidation. Two decisions in 1876 by the Supreme
Court narrowed the scope of enforcement under the Enforcement Act and the Force
Act, and, together with the end of Reconstruction marked by the removal of
federal troops after the Hayes-Tilden Compromise of 1877, resulted in a climate
in which violence could be used to depress black voter turnout and fraud could
be used to undo the effect of lawfully cast votes. Once whites regained control of the state
legislatures using these tactics, a process known as "Redemption,"
they used gerrymandering of election districts to further reduce black voting
strength and minimize the number of black elected officials. In the 1890s,
these states began to amend their constitutions and to enact a series of laws
intended to re-establish and entrench white political supremacy. Such disfranchising laws included poll taxes,
literacy tests, vouchers of "good character," and disqualification
for "crimes of moral turpitude." These laws were
"color-blind" on their face, but were designed to exclude black
citizens disproportionately by allowing white election officials to apply the
procedures selectively. Other laws and practices, such as the "white
primary," attempted to evade the 15th Amendment by allowing
"private" political parties to conduct elections and establish
qualifications for their members (Maisel &
Buckley ’05: 70).
The
Southern states experimented with numerous additional restrictions to limit
black participation in politics, many of which were struck down by federal
courts over the next decades. As a
result of these efforts, in the former Confederate states nearly all black
citizens were disenfranchised by 1910. The
problem of racial discrimination in voting, by white Southern legislators
legally limiting blacks from voting with Jim Crow laws, including literacy
tests, tests on interpreting the Constitution, whites
only primaries, poll taxes and residency requirements. By 1960 fewer than 10 percent of the African
American citizens in Mississippi were registered to vote. The
process of restoring the rights taken stolen by these tactics would take many
decades. In Guinn v. United
States, 238 U.S. 347 (1915), the Supreme Court held that voter registration
requirements containing "grandfather clauses," which made voter
registration in part dependent upon whether the applicant was descended from
men enfranchised before enactment of the 15th Amendment violated that amendment. In Smith v. Allright
321 U.S. 649 (1944) the Supreme Court ruled that primaries that the Texas
whites only primary was unconstitutional. By the 1960s all but five states had
eliminated even nominal poll taxes (Maisel &
Buckley ’05: 73-74). In Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964), the
Supreme Court established the one-person, one-vote principle (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 71). In Richardson v. Ramirez 418 U.S. 24,
41-55 (1974) the Court rejected
the argument that the disenfranchisement of felons violates the Equal
Protection Clause, ruling felon disenfranchisement is a matter of state policy
(Blackwell ’09:113).
Black Voter Registration in Southern States 1960-2000
State |
1960 |
1970 |
1980 |
1990 |
2000 |
Alabama |
13.7 |
66.0 |
55.8 |
71.8 |
72.0 |
Arkansas |
38.0 |
82.3 |
57.2 |
62.4 |
60.0 |
Florida |
39.4 |
55.3 |
58.3 |
54.7 |
52.7 |
Georgia |
29.3 |
57.2 |
48.6 |
53.9 |
66.3 |
Louisiana |
31.1 |
57.4 |
60.7 |
82.3 |
73.5 |
Mississippi |
5.2 |
71.0 |
62.3 |
78.5 |
73.7 |
North Carolina |
39.1 |
51.3 |
51.3 |
64.0 |
62.9 |
South Carolina |
13.7 |
56.1 |
53.7 |
62.0 |
68.6 |
Tennessee |
59.1 |
71.6 |
64.0 |
77.4 |
64.9 |
Texas |
35.5 |
72.6 |
56.0 |
63.5 |
69.5 |
Virginia |
23.1 |
57.0 |
53.2 |
64.5 |
58.0 |
Average |
29.7 |
63.4 |
56.5 |
66.8 |
65.66 |
Source: Table 3.1
pg. 76 Maisel & Buckley ‘05
The Constitution requires a
national census to be conducted once per decade, and this mandate serves as the
basis for apportioning seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. For each
state, the number of people in each constituent congressional district must be
precisely equal (Blackwell & Klukowski ’09). Congress
passed legislation in 1957, 1960, and 1964 that contained voting-related
provisions. The 1957 Act created the Civil Rights Division within the
Department of Justice and the Commission on Civil Rights; the Attorney General
was given authority to intervene in and institute lawsuits seeking injunctive
relief against violations of the 15th Amendment. The 1960 Act permitted federal
courts to appoint voting referees to conduct voter registration following a
judicial finding of voting discrimination.
In the early 1960s, the Supreme Court also overcame its reluctance to
apply the Constitution to unfair redistricting practices. In Baker v. Carr,
369 U.S. 186 (1962), the Supreme Court recognized that grossly mal-apportioned
state legislative districts could seriously undervalue -- or dilute -- the
voting strength of the residents of overpopulated districts while overvaluing
the voting strength of residents of under-populated districts. The 1964 Act
also contained several relatively minor voting-related provisions. In 1971, 13 individuals created the Congressional Black
Caucus (CBC). Between 1970 and 1992, the
number of African Americans serving in state legislatures increased 274 percent
(from 168 to 463). According to 2003 figures from the National Conference of
State Legislators, 595 African Americans held seats in the upper or lower house
in state legislatures, accounting for 8.1 percent of all. in 1970 there were
only 15 black women state legislators—accounting for less than 10 percent of
all African-American state legislators. By 1992, the number of black women
state legislators had increased to 131, or roughly 28 percent of all black
state legislators. As with other women in Congress, legislative experience at
the state level provided a vehicle for election to the U.S. Congress. In 1971,
there was only one African-American woman in Congress—Shirley Chisholm of New
York—among a total of 14 blacks in Congress. By late 2007, African-American
women accounted for nearly one-third of all the sitting black Members of
Congress.
Apportionment of Representatives among
the States 1790-1970
Year |
Congress |
Population Base (1,000) |
Number of States |
Number of Repre-sentatives |
Date of Act |
Apportionment Population per
Representative |
1970 |
93rd
|
203,053 |
50 |
435 |
|
469,088 |
1960 |
88th
-92nd |
178,559 |
50 |
435 |
|
410,5481 |
1950 |
83rd
-87th |
149,895 |
48 |
435 |
|
334,587 |
1940 |
78th
– 82nd |
131,006 |
48 |
435 |
November
15, 1941 |
301,164 |
1930 |
73rd
– 77th |
122,093 |
48 |
435 |
June
18, 1929 |
280,675 |
1920 |
No
re-app. |
|
48 |
435 |
|
|
1910 |
63rd
– 72nd |
91,604 |
48 |
435 |
August
8, 1911 |
210,583 |
1900 |
58th – 62nd |
74,568 |
45 |
386 |
January
16, 1901 |
193,167 |
1890 |
53rd
– 57th |
61,909 |
44 |
356 |
February
7, 1891 |
173,901 |
1880 |
48th
– 52nd |
49,371 |
38 |
325 |
February
25, 1882 |
151,912 |
1870 |
43rd
– 47th |
38,116 |
37 |
292 |
February
2, 1872 |
130,538 |
1860 |
38th
– 42nd |
29,550 |
34 |
241 |
March
4, 1862 |
122,614 |
1850 |
33rd
– 37th |
21,767 |
31 |
234 |
July
30, 1852 |
93,020 |
1840 |
28th
-32nd |
15,908 |
25 |
223 |
June
25, 1842 |
71,338 |
1830 |
23rd
– 27th |
11,981 |
24 |
240 |
May
22, 1832 |
49,712 |
1820 |
18th
-22nd |
8,972 |
24 |
213 |
March
7, 1822 |
42,124 |
1810 |
13th
– 17th |
6,584 |
17 |
181 |
December
21, 1811 |
36,377 |
1800 |
8th
-12th |
4,880 |
16 |
141 |
January
14, 1802 |
34,609 |
1790 |
3rd
– 7th 1st
– 2nd |
3,616 ---- |
15 13 |
105 65 |
April
14, 1792 Constitution
1789 |
34,436 30,000 |
Source: Series Y 215-219 Morton, Rogers
C.B. Secretary of Commerce; Barabba, Vincent P.
Director of the Bureau of the Census. Historical Statistics of the United
States: Colonial Times to 1970. Bicentennial
Edition pg. 1084
Women first came together in the famous
conference at Seneca Falls, New York in 1848 to asset their own rights. From that point until the successful adoption
of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920, women suffragists waged a valiant,
prolonged, often brilliant and frequently frustrating battle to win the right
to vote. Women were first given the
right to vote on school issues in the frontier states in the 1890s. Wyoming had granted women the right to vote
on all matters in 1869 and in applying for admission to the Union, Wyoming included
women’s suffrage in its constitution, Congress however did not admit Wyoming
until 1890 as the first state with universal female suffrage. Other Western states followed Wyoming’s lead,
in at least partial recognition of the important and equal role women played in
the settlement of the frontier, but the progress was slow and often
frustrating. By 1916
women’s suffrage was included in both party platforms, though the suffragists
still wanted state action. In 1917 women
turned to more militant actions, picketing the White House and delivering
petitions to the president. Some were
jailed, others replaced them. When
female prisoners were force fed, the press had a field day. More women came to Washington and the jails
became more crowded. The women’s
suffrage amendment passed the House in the second session of the Sixty-fifth
Congress, but it failed to achieve the two-thirds vote necessary in the
Senate. More women came to Washington,
more picketed, more were jailed, and more hunger strikes ensued. Finally President Wilson was won over to the
cause. Then the Republican controlled
House passed the measure in 1919, Wilson pressured his fellow Democrats in the
Senate to enact women’s suffrage. At
long last, in August 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified by
three-quarters of the states, and women won the right to vote in all
elections. No further legal barrier
could be used to prevent women from voting (Maisel
& Buckley ’05: 78-79).
Voter Turnout in Presidential Elections, by Gender, 1964-2008
Source: Center for
American Women and Politics. Gender Differences in Voter
Turnout. Eagleton Institute of Politics. Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. November
2009
The
women and children of the 20th century were not as well received as
the freed blacks of the Gilded Age.
Voter turnout for women remained low in the years immediately after
enfranchisement. Voter participation in
1920 and 1924 was the lowest voter participation in history at 49.2% and 48.9%
respectively, probably as the result of the restrictions on freedom imposed by
the XVIII Amendment prohibition of alcohol one year from 1919. Despite the adversity, the number of female
voters steadily increased, exceeding the male number by 1964, and leveled off
in 1972, at a turnout level only slightly below that of men. Since 1980 turnout rates of women voters have
exceeded the rates for men in every national election. Today, women
still constitute only 19 per cent of the members of parliaments around the
world. In the United States House of
Representatives 73 of 435 seats, only 16.8% were filled by women. In the Senate only 15 seats, 15% were
occupied by women. This is below
international mean. No woman has ever
been elected President or Vice President although many unsuccessful challengers
have nominated women as their Vice-Presidential candidate. Female candidates suffer no electoral or
fund-raising disadvantage compared to male candidates. A gender related
fund-raising disadvantage may have existed in Congressional elections prior to
the mid-eighties, but this seems to have disappeared or even reversed in recent
years. Since 1984, female candidates for
the House have been slightly more successful than males at raising funds and at
least as successful in raising PAC contributions, large contributions and even
early contributions. At the state level,
female candidates also raise more money than their male counterparts. Consequently, the current dearth of female
office holders is thought to be primarily the result of prior barriers to women
entering politics, the effects of which are still realized today because of the
generic incumbency advantage. Older and
more male-dominated cohorts are being replaced by younger and less
male-dominated cohorts (Milyo & Schosberg ’00: 2).
2004 Voter Turnout by Age
Age Group |
Turnout |
18 – 24 |
47% |
25 - 34 |
56% |
35 - 44 |
64% |
45 - 54 |
69% |
55 - 64 |
73% |
65 and older |
71% |
Source:
Old Enough to Fight but Not Old Enough to Vote: The 26th Amendment. The Free Library. Scholastic Inc. 2008
During World War II, when eighteen year olds were conscripted into
military service, many people believed that the voting age should be lowered to
eighteen. In 1943 Georgia lowered its
voting age to eighteen, but no other state followed suit. President Eisenhower expressed support for
eighteen-year-old voters during his first term (1953-1957), but only Kentucky
amended its constitution to effect that change.
When Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union in the late 1950s,
their constitutions called for voting ages of nineteen and twenty,
respectively. No further changes ensued
until the United States became embroiled in the Vietnam War. The cries were heard, “old enough to die but
not old enough to vote.” In response
Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1970, one provision of which made
eighteen year olds eligible to vote in all national, state, and local
elections. In Oregon v. Mitchell 400 U.S. 112 (1970) the Supreme Court struck
down this provision, asserting that Congress could not constitutionally take
such actions for state and local elections.
In response Congress passed and the requisite 37 states ratified, the
Twenty-sixth Amendment, making eighteen the minimum voting age for all
elections (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 85). In 1974 the US abolished the draft and became
a volunteer military. 11 million 18 – 20 year olds gained the right to vote and
between 1970 and 1972 the voter age population increased by 16.3 million from
124.5 million to 140.8 million, 13.1% growth.
Between 1972 and 1974 growth in VAP was 3.9% and between 1968 and 1970
3.5% close to the birth rate. The 26th
Amendment set voter age participation back ten percentage points from the
60-70% in the 1960s presidential elections and 40-50% in midterm elections to
the 50-60% in all subsequent presidential elections and the 30-40% in
congressional elections (IDEA ’09).
Young voters are easy to register but least likely to show up to the
polls, of any age group.
The easing of voting restrictions has a checkered history. Property requirement were eased and during
Reconstruction former Confederate states were obligated to enfranchise black
voters in their constitutions, the XV amendments guaranteed blacks the right to
vote and participated in politics. Voter
participation was never higher between 1860 and 1900 voter participation did
not fall below 71.3%. However
when Union occupying forces left southern states legislated a Redemption and by
1890 few blacks were registered to vote. Segregation cast a pall over the elections
and since 1900 no national election has achieved a 66% turnout. By 1900 the voting franchise had been tainted
by apartheid and to assure a fear for one’s health the U.S. Census Bureau began
keeping accurate epidemiologic statistics.
Women’s suffrage, the XIX amendment of 1920, was falsely associated with
the cruel prohibition of alcohol of the XVIII amendment of 1919-20, and 1920
and 1924 had the lowest voter participation rates of the 20th
century. The U.S. Census Bureau uniquely
did not even bother to re-apportion the districts in 1920. The admission of an estimated 33.9 million
women doubled the size of the voting age population from 27 million males in
1910 to 60.9 million men and women in 1920 a 226% increase (U.S. Census ’48 : 1). It took a
while for voter turnout to pick back up as a percentage but by 1964 there were
numerically more women registered to vote than men, by the 1972 women had equal
turnout rates and since 1980 more women have turned out to vote than men. The XVI amendment of 1971 allowed 11 million
people ages 18-20 to vote at the polls, but these youths have the lowest participation
rates of any age group, and subsequently voter participation has dropped 10
percentage points. The enfranchisement
of convicted felons offers to expand the electorate by 3.1 million votes. Extending the right to vote to people under 18 would increase the voting age population by 74.6
million, 32%. These captive populations
would be particularly easy to motivate to go to the polls. The penal system would stay out of the
electoral process. Third parties could
appeal for prison votes. Probation
officers could give out election material.
Parents could vote for their infants so long as they had identification
and were registered to vote. Only
genuine third party option would be as likely to foster voter turnout.
Part Three:
Incumbent Democratic-Republican Two Party Electoral System
We elect one president of the United States,
fifty governors, one hundred senators, 435 members of Congress, 1,984 state
senators, 5,440 state representatives, thousands of mayors, city council
members, county commissioners, judges of probate, clerks of court, water
district commissioners and other public officeholders. In 2005 ninety-nine of the one hundred U.S.
senators are either republicans or Democrats, 434 of the 435 representatives in
the House of Representatives are affiliated with one of the two major parties,
all fifty of the state governors and more than 7,350 of the approximately 7,400
state legislators elected in partisan elections ran under major party labels (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 267). Although federal officials get most of the
attention, state and local officials often make decisions that have more direct
impact on our daily lives. State and
local officials holding some elective office are also qualified candidates for
higher office (Maisel & Buckley ’05:
200-201). The States have the
constitutional responsibility for delivering the vast array of governmental
programs and services that characterize life in the United States. There are about 85,000 local governments in
the United States. One of the usual
responsibilities of nearly every county government is the conducting of
elections. Sometimes, local governments
supplement their finances with federal aid (Dover ’03: 67). The distribution of power within the American
federal system places extensive responsibilities at the local level, yet the
structure of public finance leaves those local governments with only limited
funding to carry out their numerous responsibilities. The federal government dominates the most
lucrative types of taxation, while the states rely upon the ones that follow in
their ability to produce revenue. Local
governments, such as counties, are often left with the least-productive types
of taxation to finance their myriad activities (Dover ’03: 68).
Nearly two-thirds of U.S. cities with a
population of over five thousand hold nonpartisan elections to determine who
will hold local offices. The movement
toward nonpartisan government was part of Progressive era reforms,
advocates of nonpartisan local government feel that running a local government
should be more like administering a business than playing partisan
politics. Frequently they cited the
corruption and the inefficiency of partisan politics as, “There is no
Democratic or Republican way to clean a street”. Critics contend that nonpartisan elections
tend to draw fewer voters because citizens do not care who wins these elections
and because elections without the cue of party often confuse voters (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 473). States have also delegated
considerable power to the people in regards to initiatives and referendums. The California recall process begins with an
official “Notice of Intention to Recall”, signed by at least sixty-five voters,
filed with the California secretary of state’s office, whereby the lieutenant
governors will set the date of the recall election within sixty to eighty days
(Maisel & Buckley ’05: 262). In Maine organized parties rarely have enough
strength to help state legislative candidates significantly, however, in states
such as Minnesota, party organizations practically run the campaign for
candidates. In Massachusetts in 1998
eighteen of the forty seats in the state senate were won without any major
party opposition, 45 percent, 68 out of 160 house members won reelection with
no opponent, 42.5 percent. In Florida in
the 1998 elections for representative to the state house of representatives,
Democratic candidates ran unopposed by Republican opponents in 37 of 120
races. Republican candidates faced no
major party opposition in twenty races (Maisel &
Buckley ’05: 25).
The modern two party system evolved in six
distinct party systems in American political history, Jeffersonian
Democratic-Republican, Jachsonian Democrats,
Progressive Republican Era, Republican Populist, New Deal Democrats and the
modern age of split ticket voting whereupon informed voters divide their vote
so that the President’s party does not also hold a majority in Congress (Maisel &
Buckley ’05: Xxiii). The Founder
envisioned directly elected Representatives connected to their populace and two
Senators selected by the state parties.
The other elected officials of the federal government were chosen
through a filtering process. The
elaborate mechanism for choosing the president has given the office a great
deal of independence from the ruling party (Maisel
& Buckley ’05: 10-11). The Electoral
College was created in 1787 as part of the original writing of the national
constitution. Some convention delegates
wanted the president chosen by a direct popular vote of the people, while
others preferred a more indirect method, choice by Congress,
the electoral college was a compromise.
The House of Representatives would choose the president if the Electoral
College failed in its designated task.
One unusual feature of the Electoral College was the method designated
for choosing the vice president, now deferring to the Presidential candidate’s
counsel. Originally the vice president
would be the second highest vote getter in the Electoral College and would have
the responsibility of presiding over the Senate. Electors were each given two votes for
someone not of their state (Dover ’03: 23-25). The Electoral College helped to
produce a clear winner in three elections.
In the elections of 1860, 1912 and 1992, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson
and Bill Clinton, respectively, finished first in the popular vote in campaigns
in which there were more than two major candidates. Lincoln attained 39.8 percent of the popular
vote, Wilson 41.8 percent and Clinton 43.4 percent. None of these are convincing victories. The distributions of electoral votes in these
elections provided more convincing evidence for claims of victory. Lincoln attained 180 votes of the 303 that
were cast in 1860; Wilson garnered 435 out of 531 while Clinton won 370 votes
from the grand total of 538 that comprised the electoral college of 1992. The size of these electoral vote triumphs
allowed these presidents to claim popular mandates when their actual votes may
have suggested otherwise (Dover ’03: 33).
The ability of the president to lead his own
party in Congress, to win support in the other party, or to coalesce opposition
measured by presidential support scores and presidential opposition scores
changes. Poor showing in public opinion
polls certainly works against the president’s credibility as a leader to his
fellow partisans in Congress. But
increased popularity does not necessarily equate legislative success. American is not a parliamentary
democracy. Congress is a separate branch
of government, representatives and senators have separate electoral bases from
the president. Therefore, the ability of
the president to lead his party in Congress will depend on two criteria, first,
institutional constraints, where his agenda falls relative to the preferences
of his party’s majority, second external factors from scandal to war to the economy,
all of which affect the ability of a president to persuade even members of his
own party to follow his lead (Maisel & Buckley
’05: 465). Vice presidential running
mates for major-party candidates are officially nominated by the two parties’
conventions. But the choices are made by
the presidential candidate. The vice
presidential nominee can help or hurt the ticket. Certainly the nominee is evaluated in party
on this choice, the first important decision he has to make after confirmation as
his party’s standard bearer. The process for choosing vice presidential
candidates is not a formal one, but it has been a careful and organized one (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 325 & 326). The party leadership roles of majority leader
and minority leader and majority whip and minority whip developed out of the
intense partisan conflict at the turn of the 20th century. Although Speakers are officially elected by
the entire House, the vote to elect them is essentially party line. Each party’s caucus, a meeting of all party
members, nominates a candidate for Speaker.
The Speaker’s right hand is the majority leader. Elected by members of his or her own party to
handle the day-to-day leadership of the party, the majority leader schedules
legislation, coordinates committee work, and negotiates with the president, the
House minority leader, and the Senate leadership. The goal of a majority leader is to build and
maintain voting coalitions and essentially to keep peace in the family. Next in line in the party hierarchy are the
whips, their job is to link the rank and file to the party leadership. They are the information disseminators, in
house pollsters, and vote counters. They
make the party position known to all members of the caucus, assess who is for,
against, or on the fence on any given piece of legislation and try to persuade
reluctant members to follow the party line and report back to the Speaker and
the majority and minority leaders with the expected vote tallies (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 438). Nancy Pelosi is a generous
fund raiser, she gave $1 million in 2002 to her colleagues for their reelection
bids, more than any other House Democrat (Maisel
& Buckley ’05: 447).
The incumbent has a distinct advantage. In only six elections since World War II have
fewer than 90 percent of those seeking reelection been reelected. Over 90 percent of House incumbents seeking
to return are successful in election after election. The average reelection rate for incumbents
seeking reelection in the last three elections was over 97 percent. Senators too are rarely defeated (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 471).
State legislators seeking reelection also win
virtually all of the time (Maisel & Buckley ’05:
258). Incumbent presidents do not have
to prove that they are capable of handling the office or that they have the
requisite background and experience, they have held the job for four years. What is better experience for being president
than having been president? Incumbent
presidents have a political organization in place (Maisel
& Buckley ’05: 369). Incumbents are
winning because challengers are poor campaigners. When challengers run good campaigns,
incumbents can lost. But good
challengers appear too infrequently for too many important offices. The lack of good challengers and good
campaigns insulate incumbents in congressional races, the same factors insulate
those incumbents seeking reelection to less visible and less attractive offices
as well (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 260). Early in the
twentieth century, Presidents Taft, Hoover and Bush I lost bids for reelection,
but these defeats are easily explained.
Taft lost because former president Theodore Roosevelt ran as a
third-party candidate, as the candidate of his famous Bull Moose Party splitting
the Republican vote, allowing Woodrow Wilson to win with less than a
majority. Hoover lost because the voting
public blamed him for the Great Depression.
Bush lost votes on the economy to Perot.
Each loss took place before the electronic media multiplied the
advantages of incumbency (Maisel & Buckley ’05:
369). Nearly 90 percent of respondents
report having had some contact with their congressional leaders, almost a
quarter had personally met their representatives, and almost three quarters had
received mail from their representative in Washington. Challengers are not known at all, voters do
not choose between two candidates on equal footing but between one who is well
known and positively viewed and another who has to fight to be viewed at all (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 80 & 89).
The most prevalent rules call for candidates
to run in their party’s primary if they meet certain fairly simple
criteria. First, the prospective
candidate must be a registered member of the political party whose nomination
he or she seeks. Second, candidates must
meet some sort of test to gain access to the ballot. Often this test involves gathering a certain
number of signatures on a petition. The
number of signatures necessary and who is eligible to sign are important
factors. In Tennessee, only 25
signatures are required for most offices.
In Maine a percentage of those voting in the last election are needed,
only registered party members may sign petitions, and they must sign a petition
that contains only the names of party members from their home town (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 208). Despite the lip service given to the basic
principle of majority rule, majority rule is an exception in American
politics. Most elections in America, and certainly most primaries are determined by
plurality rule. That is, the person with
the most votes, not necessarily 50 percent plus at least one, in the primary
wins the nomination (Maisel & Buckley ’05:
217). Politicians generally like to
avoid hotly contested primaries.
However, under certain circumstances, such as when a candidate is not
well known and/or a candidates organization has not tested, a little primary can
be a good thing (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 230).
Credential disputes are the most easily understood. In party rules and in the call to the
convention, each party establishes the procedures through which delegates are
to be chose. In most cases no one challenges
the delegates presenting themselves as representing a certain state. Each party appoints a Credentials Committee
that hears challenges to proposed delegations and rules on the disputes. The report of the Credentials Committee is
the first order of official business before the nominating convention. Credentials, and rules disputes which can
determine who wins and who loses, are seen as critical matters. The whips
inform the delegates and the delegates fall into line (Maisel
& Buckley ’05: 321 &324).
After the national conventions, party members
sometimes even reject the top candidate of their party and cross over to split
their ballots at election time. Only
party regulars can more or less be counted on to vote the straight ticket. Many
people find choosing between the parties a hard decision, or may reject
both. Many don’t bother to register, or
frustrated, they leave a blank or register Independent. Unwillingness to join one side disregards the
fact that the membership of a major party includes a surprising diversity of
conservatives, moderates, liberals, pro and anti-government, pro-regulation and
deregulation, internationalist and isolationist and other attributes that
divide people. Both the rise of blind
allegiance to Party and rejection of Party have gotten out of hand. Asked about their orientation in 2002,
Americans replied that they were Moderate (40%), Conservative (36%) and Liberal
(19%). Liberal is the meaning of recent
years, not the 19th century one which was rooted in freedom from
government authority. Being Independent
takes one out of the party arena and may seem to reduce stress and strain, but
it excludes one from party primaries in many, but not all states. It facilitates tuning out of the kinds of
meaningful disputes over issues that perennially occupy those who affiliate
with a Party. It also diminishes the
percentage of the electorate who participate in our primary elections. While Independents tend to revel in their
freedom form the controls of Party, they actually prevent themselves from
having much to do with the orientation of the American System of Government,
whose power is rooted in political parties and those who work effectively
within the party machinery. After all, a political party is at its core an
organization that consists of individuals, leaders and followers alike, at
national, state, and local levels (Bornet ’04:
10-11).
A party system is a pattern of interaction in
which two or more political parties compete for office or power in government
and for the support of the electorate, and must therefore take one another into
account in their behavior in government and in election contests. The American national party system is
generally classified as a competitive two party-system. The Democratic and Republican parties compete
with each other for national offices; each has a chance of winning. Minor parties may be on the ballot from time
to time, but they neither persist nor have they had much of a chance of
winning. In the 1992 presidential
election, and to a lesser extent in the 1996 campaign, Ross Perot’s third party
threatened the hegemony of the Democratic and Republican (DR) parties. But in the final analysis his effort to
undermine the two-party system fell short.
Thus our national system remains the competitive two party-system. It is decentralized in the sense that local
and state politics are not generally disciplined (Maisel
& Buckley ’05: 15 & 17). Theoretically
the Democrat and Republican parties are organized in each of the roughly
190,000 precincts in the United States.
Oftentimes, only one party has a precinct. In the 1980s and 1990s the Christian right
motivated their members to show up for local precinct committee meetings in
their areas and to attend the nominating caucuses to promote conservative
candidates. This grassroots strategy
eventually led to conservative control of local Republican party organizations
in states such as Texas and Minnesota and has continued to provide a critical
base of electoral support for GOP candidates (Maisel
& Buckley ’05: 59). Today, state party central committees operate for both
parties in each of the fifty states, and the means of choosing committee
members is set by state law. Those who
favor strong party organization believe that the state should interfere as
little as possible with the internal working of political parties. Effective state party chairs not only lead
the state committee, they define its tasks and setting its goals, they also act
as the linchpin between grassroots party and the national party. The average budget for state parties rose
nearly five times, to nearly $300,000 annually, between 1961 and 1979. By 1984 the average had risen to nearly $350,000
with the largest state budgets reaching $2.5 million and with only a quarter of
the party committees operating with budgets of less than $100,000. State parties
recruit and de-cruit candidates for local and state
offices. State parties are continually
at work to increase turnout in both primary and general elections. At the national level there are the
Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Republican National Committee (RNC)
(Maisel & Buckley ’05: 61-63).
In Federalist 10 (1787) Madison warns of the
mischief of faction, reasoning that many groups must be allowed to flourish so
that no one group becomes too powerful.
Such was the concept of party at the time the Constitution was drafted
to the tune of “taxation without representation is tyranny!” The major American political parties exist,
as do other political organizations, to organize large numbers of individuals
behind attempts to influence the selection of public officials and the
decisions these officials subsequently make in office. The differences between parties and other
political organizations are often slender.
We may define “political party” generally as the articulate organization
of society’s active political agents, those who are concerned with the control
of governmental power and who compete for popular support with another group or
groups holding divergent views (Maisel & Buckley
’05: 14). The Democratic Party traces its origins back to Thomas Jefferson’s
Democratic-Republican Party that murdered the Federalist Party. President Andrew Jackson split with the party
retaining only the name Democrat. By the
1830s hundreds of delegates from state party affiliates would convene to
nominate the candidates (Dover ’03: 27).
The Republican Party emerged as the foe of the expansion of slavery into
the territories and won the Presidency in 1860 with Abraham Lincoln, who served
as president and commander in chief during the four years of the Civil War. It was the Republicans who pushed for the
adoption of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments
during Reconstruction but they took their Union pensions and ran from the
racial discrimination that swept the nation until the middle of the 20th
century. Modern political parties were
in their infancy at the dawn of the nineteenth century. The Republican Party, reliant upon the
military occupation of the former Confederate states, was dominating the
American political landscape at the dawn of the twentieth century (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 468). In the beginning of the 20th
century Republicans vacillated between Progressivism, trust busting, government
regulation of business and Conservatism, pro-business and protective
tariffs. Republicans held office for the
entire post-Civil War era with the exception of Grover Cleveland’s
non-consecutive terms, and Woodrow Wilson’s two terms. The New Deal Democrats elected FDR by a
landslide for four consecutive terms, and usually held the presidency and
majority until the 70s (Bornet ’04: 1 & 4).
FDRs party identifies with the New Deal’s
public works programs and federal help for the unemployed of the Great
Depression and with the Social Security act of 1935, civil rights and trade
union legislation, and Medicare. The
Democrats are at one with use of the national government regulate the private
sector of the economy and increasing the federal power. Republicans advocate the well-being of
business and entrepreneurship, and minimum taxes and governmental regulations
espoused by Reagan. The Democratic Party
remains the party of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
In contrast the Republican Party has become the party of Reagan. Scratch
an orthodox Republican and you will quickly find someone who professes distrust
of Government. Yet at the same time that
individual will happily use Government to crate and operate the Nation’s
military establishment, and FBI. Scratch
and orthodox Democrat, and you will uncover an
expressed belief in a form of government that uses its power to regulate and to
collect income taxes from the affluent, with the money supposed to be spent on
improving the circumstances of mankind at home and abroad. Tax policies commonly divide the parties,
with some Republican conservatives eager to cut taxes in upper brackets to help
the economy, not of course themselves.
Democratic liberals, meanwhile, seem sometimes to desire using taxes not
just to balance the budget or pay for programs, but to level the playing field
of income distribution and property ownership.
Democrats say they are champions of individual security and of
protection of free speech. Republicans,
meanwhile, tend to observe that they try to keep the good of the whole Nation
in the forefront of their thinking. They
assert that they believe fervently in the right to earn a living free of most
government intervention, and that the right to own property certainly ought to
include most aspects of the right to its use as the owner sees fit (Bornet ‘4: 5, 7, 8 & 13). In basic political matter we
are more alike than we may think. Fundamentally, paraphrasing Jefferson’s first
Inaugural Address, “we are all Republicans, we are all Democrats”. We are democrats in that we insist on one
person, one vote, and majority decision-making.
We are republican in relying on representative government, a necessity
where large populations, widely scattered, are involved. We are Democratic-Republican in our belief
System, which is solidly federalist yet also nationalist, solidly rooted in
democratic principles yet clearly republican in electoral activities (Bornet ’04: 6).
This is an enormous country, with sections and
regions. There are variations in
economic conditions and recourse, and differing landscapes. Some blame for the rejection of party
affiliation by young people should be placed on those who routinely besmirch
party heroes. College professors as a
whole are sharply divided in politics.
In the social sciences and humanities they are overwhelmingly Democratic
liberals. Some remember the old
Socialist Party, still hoping for government ownership and regulation of the
means of production and distribution.
The science and physical education departments are by no means
Democrats, while the business division faculty is probably Republican up and
down the corridors. Judges vary in party
affiliation. When they are appointed to
the highest court, justices often change their ideology appreciably during
their years of service, emerging in old age with beliefs foreign to their early
careers (Bornet ’04: 9-10). Terrorism is defined as
the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain goals that
are political, religious or ideological in nature, through intimidation,
coercion or instilling fear (Chomsky ’04: 79).
Presidents from the Democratic Party led the Nation’s military
establishment as commander in chief in World War I and II, Korea, Vietnam,
Haiti, Somalia and Bosnia. Presidents
from the Republican Party accepted the burden of leading the Union in the Civil
War, the Spanish-American War and inherited the Vietnam War,
they sought wars in Grenada and Panama and led the Nation during both the Gulf
War and the Iraq War. Criticism of the
United Nations is normally Republican, for it was President Wilson, a Democrat,
who pioneers international organization with his ungratified League of Nations,
while Roosevelt and Truman helped create the United Nations. Presidents from both parties have relied on
NATO. They were both aggressive during
the Cold War in confronting the Soviet Union (Bornet
’04: 7).
A representative democracy rests no just on
the consent of the governed but on the informed consent of the governed. One conception of democratic society is one
in which the public has the means to participate in some meaningful way in the
management of their affairs and the means of information are open and
free. If you look up democracy in the
dictionary you’ll get a definition something like that. An alternative conception of democracy is
that the elections bar the public from managing their own affairs and the means
of information must be kept rigidly and narrowly controlled, the democratic
official is a popularly elected despot, not necessarily an aristocrat, but
despot nonetheless (Chomsky ’02). The
question of how responsible men get into the positions where they have the
authority to make decisions is by serving people with real power. The people with real power are the ones who
own the society, and have instilled in them the beliefs and doctrines that will
serve the interests of private power.
Unless they can master that skill, they’re not part of the political
class. So we have one kind of educational system directed to the responsible
men, the political class. They have to
be deeply indoctrinated in the values and interests of private power and the
state-corporate nexus that represents it.
As society becomes more free and democratic, propaganda is needed to
control the masses. The business
community controls the media and has massive resources. The political system trains the political class
to work in the service of the masters the people who own the society. The rest of the population ought to be
deprived of any form of organization, they ought to be working. If they can
achieve that, then they can be part of the political class, who create and
perpetuate the “necessary illusions” and emotionally potent
“oversimplifications” to keep the naïve simpletons more or less on course
(Chomsky ’02: 19-20). Parties have
essentially become one of a class of participants in modern elections. Parties have become little more than super
PACs. Candidates view parties as a source of money (Maisel
& Buckley ’05: 479). The most interesting debate about the role of
political parties in the twenty-first century is how the two parties define
themselves (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 480). When parties are weak, the linkage role of
the electoral process is not played well.
When parties are strong, a possibility exists
that representation and accountability will follow. Other institutions, the media, interest
groups, have tried to pick up the slack, but they have done so without notable
success. And thus we are drawn back to
the conclusion that if political parties did not exist, someone would have to
invent them. Since ours already exist,
we should get on with the work of making them function more productively (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 486). A progressive theory of liberal democratic
thought argues that a revolution in the art of democracy could be used to
manufacture consent and bring about agreement on the part of the public for the
election of third party candidates (Chomsky ’02: 9-17).
Stage One: Hamiltonian Federalists and Jeffersonian
Democratic-Republicans
George Washington won the election in 1788 and
reelection in the nation’s second presidential election of 1792. Under the original rules electors were
selected in November, they voted in December and Congress counted the votes in
January. He deigned to run for a third
term. In 1788 all 69 electors voted for
Washington but with their second vote 34 voted for John Adams and the remaining
35 were split with John Jay receiving 9 votes.
In the election of 1792 each of the 135 electors from fifteen states
voted for Washington and with their second vote indicated Adams as their pick
for vice president over New York Governor George Clinton (Dover ’03: 28) The first American party was the Federalist
party, it was shaped largely by Alexander Hamilton, George Washington’s
treasury secretary. James Madison,
author of famous Federalist Paper Number 10 regarding the need for faction,
pressured a reluctant Thomas Jefferson to join him in organizing an opposition
party to Hamilton’s Federalists.
Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans formed as a reaction to the rising
tide of Federalist policies gaining support in Congress, favoring New England
merchants and manufacturers at the expense of southern and western farmers and
tradesmen (Maisel & Buckley ’05: 33). The classical Greek philosophy of the
Democratic-Republican (DR) was superb.
By Washington’s retirement the nation had developed two active political
parties, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. Jefferson stood against Hamilton’s statist
ideas for good administration and an expansive executive, for an empowered
federal government, with a capacity for managing finance, taking control of
debt and banking, and encouraging manufacture.
Hamilton had wanted to unite the interest and credit of rich individuals
with those of the state in order to foster economic growth. The Jeffersonians,
in heated contrast, proposed to limit the intrusiveness of the federal
government in the market. In 1804 Treasury
Secretary Hamilton was killed in a duel by Burr, the Anti-Federalist candidate,
who returned to finish his term as Vice President before being acquitted for
murder. Instinctively the Jeffersonians aligned
themselves with the likes of the Whiskey Rebellion and thus with popular rule
over federal authority. Jefferson set
out his party’s core principle as “equal rights for all, special privileges for
none” (Greenberg ’04: 9).
Electoral College Count in Presidential Elections 1789-1820
Year |
# States |
Candidates |
Party Affiliation |
Votes |
1820 |
24 |
James
Monroe |
Republican
|
231 |
|
|
John
Q. Adams, |
Independent-Republican |
1 |
|
|
Not
Voted |
|
3 |
1816 |
19 |
James
Monroe |
Republican |
183 |
|
|
Rufus
King |
Federalist |
34 |
|
|
Not
Voted |
|
4 |
1812 |
18 |
James
Madison |
Democratic-Republican |
128 |
|
|
De
Witt Clinton |
Fusion |
89 |
|
|
Not
Voted |
|