General Election

1. Who votes and who does not vote? What distinguishes voters from non-voters?
 
As Maisel and Brewer point out, the decision to participate in any election is predicated on three different elements: state registration requirements, eligibility, and the actual decision on whether or not to go to the polls during that particular election. The textbook also states that registration is the biggest hurdle to voter participation.HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/sakai.messageforums.helper.helper/dfCompose" \l "_ftn1" \t "_blank"[1] Vercellotti and Anderson also found that as early as the 1800s, voter registration laws decreased participation by as much as 10% among legitimate voters. In a paper presented at the 2006 American Political Science Annual Conference, they reported that the less educated, the poor, and those who have recently moved are the most at risk for disenfranchisement by registration laws.HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/sakai.messageforums.helper.helper/dfCompose" \l "_ftn2" \t "_blank"[2] Other research disagrees that registration is such a hurdle. Jason Mycoff, et al. found that 11.7% of those polled during the 2006 midterm elections did not vote due to a complete lack of desire to do so and that those who wanted to vote found a way to do so.HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/sakai.messageforums.helper.helper/dfCompose" \l "_ftn3" \t "_blank"[3]
While I can see how registration requirements may cause an undue hardship for some, it seems that those who truly want to vote – those who have a strong interest in politics and the government – find a way to vote. Unfortunately there is a great deal of apathy in this country whether it is due to failing educational standards, or the need to make a living that precludes an interest in anything but getting by, or the feeling that big government is corrupt and against you. Is there a way to move passed this apathy? If there is, we have not found it.
It is a cause for concern that Americans typically vote in smaller numbers in comparison to other democracies, but there are the differences are in a systemic way (Maisel 2007). Though, the election of Barack Obama aroused interest among minorities, African Americans and Hispanic typically vote at lower numbers than Caucasians. At the same time poor people are less likely to vote than the rich as are those less educated (Maisel 2012). Thus, the privileged vote more, but this could be an indication that the American Government and the specific registration laws suppress voter turnout. The 2012 CNN exit poll indicated that African Americans were solidly blue at 93 % as were Latino voters who voted from Barack Obama at 71 % similar to Asians. It is plausible that those disenfranchised from voting do not have faith in the both the electoral and political systems , and are least likely to be persuaded to take interest in voting in future.
2. Please examine the CNN 2012 presidential election exit poll:HYPERLINK "/election/2012/results/race/president" \l "exit-polls" \t "_blank"/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls 
According to the CNN exit poll of the 2012 Presidential election, race and age were two very important determinants for how one voted. Minorities of all ages voted overwhelmingly for President Obama’s reelection while white Americans were more evenly spilt. Over half over those under 40 voted for President Obama while over half of those 40 and over supported Governor Romney – the spread for the younger voters, however, was larger. I am a little shocked that the majority of Catholics polled voted for President Obama (considering his pro-choice stance), but not shocked in the slightest that Protestants did. Still white Catholics voted for Governor Romney while non-whites and non-religious voted for President Obama.
Those who are married voted more for Governor Romney but unmarried voted more for President Obama. I am curious how one lives in this country without ever attending high school. That is a disturbing thought. But the breakdown of those with high school and college diplomas were fairly evenly split while those with no high school and postgraduates support the President.HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/sakai.messageforums.helper.helper/dfCompose" \l "_ftn4" \t "_blank"[4]
From looking at the red and blue map of the United States it appears that the most congested states voted Democrat, while the least congested voted Republican. I do not know that for a fact, it is just a casual observance. The northeast, the north, and the west coast are a definite blue. The south – with the exception of Florida – is solidly red. The Midwest – except for Colorado and New Mexico is blue also.HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/sakai.messageforums.helper.helper/dfCompose" \l "_ftn5" \t "_blank"[5]
 The voting patterns of minorities tended to favor Barack Obama, and could be because they felt that the Democrats were more inclusive. Similarly, Democrats were more likely to favor giving legal status to illegal immigrants, while 73 % of the polled Republicans favored deportation (CNN 2012). On one hand, people vote because of policy adopted by the political parties, but these are typically the most partisan voters less likely to identify as independents. On the other hand, first time voters may vote for the most appealing candidate, especially charismatic leaders who capture people’s attention, the 2008 saw a decline in the gap between white and African American voters, showing that elections have a higher turnout for groups who can relate with candidates. This also highlights that non voters are simply disinterested in politics, and give less attention to what the candidates have to offer (Pew Research 2006). Thus, the low voter turnout indicates that there has been growing voter apathy in America, but reasons for this phenomenon are varied.
 
 


HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/sakai.messageforums.helper.helper/dfCompose" \l "_ftnref1" \t "_blank"[1] L. Sandy Maisel and Mark D. Brewer, Parties and Elections in America: The Electoral Process (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman& Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2012), 68. New!  HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Crawford - Week 2 - Voting Behavior " Re: Crawford - Week 2 - Voting Behavior 
Linda Abrams (Apr 16, 2014 9:22 PM) - Read by: 6
HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" 
Reply
Ann,
            I had not thought about mobility of the population affecting voter turnout until researching for this forum. Aldrich et al point out that the US is one of the most mobile populations in the world which has a strong negative impact on voter turnout (2011). However, the mobility issue is more than just the difficulties of registering in a new place and all of the logistical factors. They suggest that moving affects “social embeddedness” which in turn decreases voter turnout (Aldrich et al 2011). The more connected to society and the greater the social ties, the more likely someone is to vote; mobility creates few social ties, less social embeddedness and not surprisingly lower voter turnout.
            I would be interested in what Paul, with his sociology and psychology background, thinks about this point of view.  
Linda
You mentioned that voters should have access to "unbiased information." While unbiased information is hard to come by, the present generation has the most information at their finger tips than any previous generation and yet voter turnout continues to be low. So non-voting has to be associated with something other than information, which I think many see as the key to increased voter turnout.  
Voter turnout went up in the last two presidential races which suggest that a candidate that captures the imagination of the country will increase voter turnout. But I suspect that very few first time voters or those who vote irregularly had a clue about policy or issues; they just "liked" candidate Obama. This brings up all kinds of questions about why people vote. Is it a rational, policy driven decision or are valence issues more significant.
New!  HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Kovach - Week 2 Forum / Voting Behavior " Re: Kovach - Week 2 Forum / Voting Behavior 
Paul Pigulski (Apr 16, 2014 11:56 PM) - Read by: 6
HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" 
Reply
Excellent points, Linda.  So, are we SURE high turnout is always a good thing?
New!  HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Kovach - Week 2 Forum / Voting Behavior " Re: Kovach - Week 2 Forum / Voting Behavior 
Viola Crawford (Apr 17, 2014 10:44 AM) - Read by: 6
HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" 
Reply
As I said on another post, I suggested to a group of friends that all voters should be required to pass the US Citizenship test before being issued a Voter Registration card and was REAMED for it. I have valid points on not wanting idiots to vote, they have valid points that is a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
So I am NOT sure.
Ann

# 2
Some arguments in favor of primaries involved increasing the involvement of the party faithful in the selection of the candidate outside of just the party elite.  While this reason let to the creation of the primary system, many states have adopted various types of primaries.  If primaries are designed to elect the representative of a party to face other party’s nominees in the general election then the best systems are the run-off and instant run-off systems.  For both systems it ensures the party’s nominee has the support of at least half of the voters in that primary.  This means the nominee has to appeal to a large segment of the party’s voters and could then lead to a more viable general election candidate.  The largest difference between each system is voters only vote once with instant runoff because they rank their candidates and the bottom candidate gets eliminated during each round and their votes are given to the second choice until a candidate gets the majority.  The main reason against run-off primaries is they disadvantage minority candidates using the example of an African American candidate running against two European American candidates and gathering 44% of the vote in the first round only to lose the second round with 46% of the vote (Brewer and Maisel, 2012, 186).  This is based on the assumption of candidates only supporting those of their own race and not crossing over in the general election to support those of a different party.  I believe both of these to be false because Congressman Cohen of Tennessee represents a majority-minority district despite being white and Congressmen West and Scott represented white districts despite being black.  Additionally, if there was not cross over voting during the general election then there would be no districts represented by the opposite party. 
The other methods of party nomination systems involve who votes in the primary and how the party determines which candidate to support rather than how much support the person receives.  Again, primaries are vehicles for choosing the best candidate to represent the party in the general election and achieve victory so the party’s priorities can become legislation.  It really is just a matter of opinion if allowing others to vote for a party nominee or if moderate candidates are best is for the party and government.  In my opinion, with a two-party system caused by needing the majority vote in most cases will naturally lead to the party’s vying for the middle.  This can be with candidates or it can be with policy positions, but it all depends on the electoral breakdown because a moderate rhetoric might not equal a moderate position.  For example, the current contest for the Republican nomination for Senate in Georgia features three current House members.  Paul Broun and Phil Gingrey are both believed to be the extreme conservatives and Jack Kingston is believed to be the mainstream conservative despite each of the three having a relatively identical voting record (Sarlin, 2014).  Parties only matter when they are in power and can enact legislation and if the primary results in candidates who cannot win elections then the party has done a bad job.  This can result in any of the types of nomination systems as Brewer and Maisel describe the Republicans fighting for an open primary in Connecticut because they believed it would help them with independents while other states want closed primaries to prevent those not in the party from voting for its candidate (181).
/msnbc/gop-its-own-worst-enemy-ga-senate-raceNew! HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Kovach - Week 3 Forum / Party Nomination Systems "Re: Kovach - Week 3 Forum / Party Nomination Systems 
Chad Patterson (Apr 22, 2014 5:33 PM) - Read by: 6
HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" 
Reply
Ken,
I find the case of Congressman Cohen to be very interesting.  Congressman Cohen has not only been successful as a white male Democrat in a minority African American district.  He has repeatedly won reelections after successfully running to replace Harold Ford Jr.  In addition, he has been challenged  by qualified African American candidates in the election cycles, most recently in the 2012 primary against Tomeka Hart, Congressman Cohen defeated her with 89% of the vote.  
Could this be an example of the incumbent advantage that authors of our text discuss in Chapter 6?  Congressman Cohen is a member of the House which the text suggest "that incumbents win a high proportion of the primaries in which they are challenged"1 or do you feel that something else is happening with Congressman Cohen in his district?
Congressman Cohen makes for an interesting case study.  I wonder how many more examples of elected officials there are that can mirror his story.  
Chad
 I would like to discuss crossover voting.  I have been doing several Internet searches in crossover voting.  This is what I have found on the topic. 
Alabama actually has a web page for the topic of crossover voting. This web page explains that the Democrat Party does not allow voters who have voted in the Republican primary to vote in the Democrat primary.  However, the Republicans allow for both parties to vote in their primary regardless if they already voted in the other parties primary.1
Voters in Georgia also seems to experience the same concern as voters in Alabama.    The following URL has a document that encourages voters from the Republican Party to crossover vote in the Democrat primary.   
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2pNK3HUTtOWYU9QYnZQWFNNNE0/edit?pli=1  In this link, Tracy Lawson clearly is suggesting to her voting base that they should use crossover voting as a strategy to achieve the results that she desires in terms of being reelected as Clayton County District Attorney.    On the other side in Clayton County Georgia, Sheriff Kem Kimbrough sent out a letter to voter  that stated" Crossover Voting is considered by some to be a form of electoral fraud - it is definitely unethical but legal in Georgia."2  
This seems to be an interesting case study for crossover voting.  In this example, Tracy Lawson  won reelected to office.  Makes me wonder how many elections across America that crossover voting is this big of an issue?
Primary elections typically favor incumbents if they are seen to have performed well in their terms. In cases where areas are solidly blue or red, incumbents have a higher chance of reelection no matter whether the area is a majority minority area. Incumbents can show their records and because primary elections tend to be less competitive seniority of incumbents also helps them to have electoral advantage (Hirano & Snyder, 2012). The suggestion that primary elections would increase voter participation may not be applicable in all states because there are differences on people eligible to vote in primaries. Depending on whether candidates win through plurality or majority, then even the most loyal voters may stay away from primary elections where primaries are uncompetitive. Since some states are solidly blue, red, while others are purple, the type of the primary elections may influence candidate’s stance on social and economic issues. For instance, having a closed primary in a swing vote may result to candidates who are further from the center of the political spectrum, than in open primaries, and determines whether independents participate in primary elections.
In the case of crossover voting, voters typically wish to influence the election outcomes depending on the timing of different party elections, if their candidate of choice has less chance of winning or to narrow down the candidates choices (Cain 2002). This is a strategic behavior meant to influence favorable outcomes in an election, but voters likely to use this strategy are in a minority. On Super Tuesday, it is likely that voters would result to crossover voting, as there are already insights on the level of competition among candidates in both the Republicans and Democrats. Nonetheless, voters may result to sincere voting no matter the candidate’s party affiliation if they can identify with candidate and feel that there is no other candidate is suited. On the other hand, elections where the primary seems already concluded, and then voters may decide to vote for the best candidate in the other party rather than use their vote for an already foregone conclusion. However, voters may decide to elect the weakest candidate from the other party in order to improve chances of their first choice candidate (Alvarez & Angler, 1997).
Chad
______________________________________________________________________________
#3
Hi,
Do you see any similarities between party bosses and the Democratic parties super-delegates?
To me it seems that the super-delegates used by the Democrats appears to be at odds with our democracy that is supposed  to reflect the voice of the people.  This method does not require the common person that may vote for the Democrats during an election to have a say in whom the super-delegates are, or who they may vote for.   Instead, the super delegates are made up of governors, x-presidents, and retired congressional leaders from the party.  To me it appears that despite the party bosses nomination system being a thing of the past that it is actually alive and well within the Democratic Party.  Instead of party bosses, substitute in prominent Democratic politicians that are no longer holding office who just happen to have a 40 percent voice for who will win the nomination. 
Source
Curry, Tom. "What role for Democratic 'super-delegates'?." . /.../ns/politics/t/what-role-democratic-super-delegates (accessed April 29, 2014).New! HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: ChavisWeek4 "Re: ChavisWeek4 
Linda Abrams (Apr 30, 2014 10:04 PM) - Read by: 6
HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/24fd355e-8993-40c6-8f54-368fe7902fd5/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" 
Reply
Chad,
            It seems to me that super delegates are the little secret that Democrats hide away in their endeavor to be the populist party of the common man. I doubt most Americans understand the concept of the super delegate. Super delegates lurk about in case the party is unhappy with the selection of the people. It is very much a swing back to the days of party bosses and is an act of retrenchment after the openness of the McGovern-Fraser Commission. It is also a reaction to the disastrous loss of McGovern in 1972 and the party leadership’s perception of the disastrous victory of Jimmy Carter in 1976.HYPERLINK "file:///C:\\Users\\labrams\\Desktop\\Forum%204%20Discussion%20points.docx" \l "_ftn1" \t "_blank"
[1]
            Super delegates were critical to Hilary Clinton’s bid for the presidency in 2008. Especially as Obama started to pull ahead in securing delegates in the caucus and primaries, the firewall for the Clinton campaign increasingly became the super delegates.HYPERLINK "file:///C:\\Users\\labrams\\Desktop\\Forum%204%20Discussion%20points.docx" \l "_ftn2" \t "_blank"
[2] Here in SC, most of the super delegates, and there are not many, were pledged to Clinton. As Obama began winning, they literally changed their mind and went in Obama’s direction. When Nancy Pelosi said that super delegates should respect the decision of primary and caucus voters, the Clinton campaign was publically vocal that super delegates should ...