Pomper in 2016 Gerald Pomper is a political scientist recognized for his contributions in classifying political elections. Pomper categorizes elections into four basic categories: maintaining, converting, deviating, and realigning. Elections are categorized based on the victory or defeat of the majority party, and the continuity or change in the voter base. In a maintaining election, the majority party wins because of the consistency of its voter base. When the majority party wins despite a change in partisan commitments, it is considered a converting election. When the majority party is defeated because of a drastic change in its voter base, it is a realigning election. In a deviating election, the majority party loses despite maintaining
The victory or defeat criteria is straightforward, however determining the continuity and change of the voter base can prove especially difficult given the nature of the United States. In regards to continuity and change Pomper writes, “since both are partially present in every contest, there can be no simple solution” (Pomper 538). Demographics are a moving target and therefore exit polls do not always tell the whole story. Every individual can stand for a race, a gender, an income, an education, an age, or a combination of countless categories. Another criticism of Pomper is the complication of “critical elections” and “temporary peculiarities.” Pomper defines a critical election as “not usually part of (these) stable periods, but serve as breaking points, ending one era and leading to the next” (Pomper 547). A “temporary peculiarity” marks surprising changes in party electorate, but do not mark the end of one era and the beginning of another. This makes elections hard to accurately classify until after the long-term effects have been
Obama’s 2008 election threw a wrench in the works when it comes to classifying Clinton’s election and future elections. “When a stable persistent voter coalition is established, the vote is non-successive elections will be highly correlated” (Pomper 544). The non-successive elections of 2000, 2004, and 2016 certainly support this. The same might be said, however, for 2008, 2012, and 2020 if a democratic candidate puts up similar numbers to Obama. If that were so, does that make 2016 a “temporary peculiarity” and 2008 a critical election? It is impossible to know until the time comes that 2008 and 2012 can really be looked back on. Pomper encourages people to look at elections and candidates not as isolated events, but to “focus on the similarities between different elections, … classify them … abstract some patterns” (Pomper 535), but can this always hold true? Obama’s substantial victory in 2008 could be coughed up to Campbell’s fundamentals. The Republicans are in their second term, the economy is at its lowest since the Great Depression, and Bush’s approval rating is at 25% by the end of October (Gallup). In that case, the Democratic voter base may not have really changed, but more people voted Democrat because they were unhappy with Bush. “Either the ‘Obama coalition’ is very much Obama’s rather than his party’s, or that his victories are due to circumstances”
Retrieved from http://content.time.com/time/specials/2007/la_riot/article/0,28804,1614117_1614084_1614831,00.html. Levy, W. (2013). The 'Standard'. United States presidential election of 2000.
Party is an inevitable feature of the democracy and it is defined as ‘an autonomous group of citizens having the purpose of making nominations and contesting elections in the hope of gaining control over governmental power through the capture of public offices and the organization of the government’ (Caramani, 2011, p.220). Parties are ubiquitous in modern political systems and they perform a number of functions, they are: coordination, contesting elections, recruitment, and representation (Caramani, 2011). Political parties are the product of the parliamentary and electoral game, and party systems reflect the social oppositions that characterize society when parties first appear (Coxall et al., 2011).
In this essay, I will explain why Texas should retain the partisan election of judges. Texas is one of the few states that elect their judges using a Partisan voting method. Partisan elections can be unfair and can misinform the voter. A high legal position such as a judge should never be chosen in such a manner. Partisan elections often cost more than nonpartisan elections in campaigning. Partisan elections are also more likely to lead to straight ticket voting or mindless voting. Partisan elections also lead to more campaign contributions and can increase the power of constituencies. Lastly partisan elections can cause an imbalance in equal represent the population. Therefore, Partisanship voting does not belong in the courts of Texas and
...mographic change has forced a transformation in the political world because both of the two major political parties have an incentive to court this population since their success in doing so will play a tremendous role in their ability to win future elections.
on what the electorate in each country votes for. In the US the have a
The Electoral College allows a candidate to win the presidency without winning the majority of popular votes. Additionally, the unequal representation created by the number of electors each state has leads to a differential worth depending upon a voter’s state of residency. Moreover, the winner-take-all rule of the results in votes which are essentially rendered worthless if they are contrary the state majority. Finally, the system places much of the focus and power to effect elections in the hands of so called swing states that are not historically aligned with only one party. (Dahl, 80-83) These aspects of the U.S. political system are utterly counterintuitive and stand in stark contrast to many of the cardinal ideals of
With respect to every election race, we are reminded that decisions are both profoundly charged typical customs of a voting based system in a democratic society and is a key procedural part of our political system. Both segments of the political elections, typical and procedural, serve key functions at all levels of our political system.
In 1992 the incumbent president George Bush was seeking reelection. It was the general consensus that he would be the 'hands down, no contest winner'. When the smoke had cleared and the votes were tallied, many were shocked at the results. Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton had defeated the incumbent by a landslide! How could this be? How did the commander and chief of what could be considered the greatest victory in modern American history defeat the Iraqi army and one year later lose the election for the presidency? The answers to these questions as well as explanations for the outcome lie within the campaign strategies and tactics used by each candidate. There were various major political events and public opinion data that occurred throughout the general election stage of the campaign. This paper will analyze both the political events and the public opinion data, in hopes of developing a better understanding as to what helped shape the overall outcome. There were three candidates in the race for the presidency, President Bush (R), Bill Clinton (D), and Ross Perot (I). Each of the three, to a greater or lesser extent, focused their campaign on the economy. President Bush focused more of his campaign on criticizing his opponents primarily Bill Clinton. He would often compare the economy to that of other nations, claiming it wasn't all that bad and resumed attacking his opponents. Bill Clinton on the other hand focused his campaign strategy on implementing the need for 'change.' At that time the national debt and unemployment was rising. Clinton vowed to improve the economy and the quality of life for the American people by bringing about change. Ross Perot was more of a crusader against Washin...
This is confirmed by the period 1945-79, when power tended to alternate frequently between the Labour and Conservative parties. However, during this period, Labour won power twice with a majority of less than twenty seats, resulting in a near hung parliament. This tends to weaken the idea that the electoral pendulum has swung evenly for both parties. It is important to consider the period of time looked when attempting to identify which system best describes
Shugart, Matthew. "Elections: The American Process of Selecting a President: A Comparative Perspective." Presidential Studies, 34, 3 (September 2004): 632-656.
...ds, William. <a href="http://click.linksynergy.com/fs-bin/stat?id=pcZ8g7DjAzA&offerid=6424&type=2&subid=0&url=http%253A//search.borders.com/fcgi-bin/db2www/search/search.d2w/Details%253F%2526mediaType%253DBook%2526prodID%253D3901535" >Political Attitudes in the Nation & the States<IMG border=0 alt=icon width=1 height=1 src="http://ad.linksynergy.com/fs-bin/show?id=pcZ8g7DjAzA&bids=6424&type=2&subid=0" >. University North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Institute for Research in Social Science. 1974Mulcahy, Kevin and Katz, Richard. <a href="http://click.linksynergy.com/fs-bin/stat?id=pcZ8g7DjAzA&offerid=6424&type=2&subid=0&url=http%253A//search.borders.com/fcgi-bin/db2www/search/search.d2w/Details%253F%2526mediaType%253DBook%2526prodID%253D14579075" >America Votes: What You Should Know About Elections Today<IMG border=0 alt=icon width=1 height=1 src="http://ad.linksynergy.com/fs-bin/show?id=pcZ8g7DjAzA&bids=6424&type=2&subid=0" >. New Jersey, Prentice Hall Inc. 1976.U.S. News & World Report Politics Inside and Out Washington D.C., U.S. News and World Report. 1970
Today, political parties can be seen throughout everyday life, prevalent in various activities such as watching television, or seeing signs beside the road while driving. These everyday occurrences make the knowledge of political parties commonly known, especially as the two opposing political parties: the Republicans and the Democrats. Republican and Democrats have existed for numerous years, predominantly due to pure tradition, and the comfort of the ideas each party presents. For years, the existence of two political parties has dominated the elections of the president, and lower offices such as mayor, or the House of Representatives. Fundamentally, this tradition continues from the very emergence of political parties during the election of 1796, principally between Federalist John Adams and Anti-federalist Thomas Jefferson. Prior to this election people unanimously conformed to the ideas of one man, George Washington, and therefore did not require the need for political parties.1 However, following his presidency the public was divided with opposing opinions, each arguing the best methods to regulate the country. Ultimately, the emergence of different opinions regarding the future of the United States involving the economy, foreign relations, ‘the masses,’ and the interpretation of the Constitution, led to the two political parties of the 1790s and the critical election of 1800.
... Issues and Inheritance in the Formation of Party Identification. American Journal of Political Science, 970-988. Oakes, P., Alexander, H., & John, T. (1994). Stereotyping and social reality.
Voter turnout has been declining in the United States throughout history, due to the potential voters’ personal choice not to vote and ineligibility. According to research, a large percentage of individuals are not voting because political parties fail to appeal to the voters and this leads to the voting population losing interest in the campaign, while others postpone registering and by the time they realize their delay the election is upon them. This downward trend of voter turnout can be traced to the reforms of the Progressive era. Turnout in post-Progressive era America remained low, never reaching the levels attained before the Progressive era reforms. This would be expected, since there is little in the political history of these years that would indicate a return to a collectively oriented system of voter participation.
Blais, Andre. "Electoral Insight." CCL Web: Criteria for Assessing Electoral Systems (1999): 1-6. Web. 26 Aug. 2010.