USA Democracy and participation essay plans
Evaluate the view that the process to elect a US president is ineffective
Effective Ineffective
Invisible primary allows for electable Invisible primary is in need of reform
candidates to do well - large number of candidates recently
- those who fund and campaign well in the makes debates more difficult
IP are also likely to in a real election - ends up being about who can raise the
- e.g. Obama raised $9 million more than most money rather than show who is
Clinton in the early campaign // allowed electable; Bloomberg raised the most
little-known Pete Buttigieg to generate buzz money but wasn't electable
through debates, attracting donors - favours established candidates, those like
Yang and Gabbard were unable to compete
with funding of Sanders and Warren
Primaries and caucuses aren’t in need of Primaries and caucuses are in need of
reform as it is fair reform
- Proportional allocation of delegates allows - Front loading has led to early states
for a more fair competition influencing later states, such as Biden
- increased turnout recently, from 11% in winning 10 of 14 states on Super Tuesday
2000 to 21% in 2020 - Voting over an extended time causes
political fatigue = alternative of regional
primaries are better
- States with closed primaries
disenfranchise independent voters
NPC is effective in decided party platform NPC has a foregone conclusion
and choosing VP and POTUS - result is already known before the NPC
- good at reuniting the party after a divisive - sometimes party platforms aren't even
campaign written, like the RNC in 2020
- e.g. Sanders pledged his full support to - e.g. 71% of the public see NPCs as 'less
Biden in 2020. 2012 RNC allowed for than important'
platform discussions and shaping of policy. - e.g. 2016 leak about the process favouring
2008 DNC highlighted diversity of ideas Clinton with bias against Sanders cast
doubt/controversy on DNC. 2020 DNC was
virtual, so less energy and engagement
Evaluate the extent to which the incumbent President’s advantages make challenging
them near impossible
Challenging them is impossible Challenging them is possible
Many incumbents do not get challenged Not impossible for incumbents to be
by their party, or as often challenged
- most popular incumbents sit two terms - e.g. George W.H. Bush, Gerald Ford,
e.g. bush v trump Jimmy Carter faced significant opposition
from within their own party and therefore
the primaries and caucuses were hard
, fought
- many should be challenged in order to see
their qualities and their way of ruling
Strong candidates are likely to stay and If a bad president is running for office,
win an election challenging them is more likely
- e.g. Barack Obama – in 2012 nobody went - e.g. Jimmy Carter was a questionable
against him because they knew he was candidate – as he oversaw a failing
going to win and decided to run in 2016 economy – it was slow and inflated
when his term was over the country was also beset by an energy
crisis in 1979, which was followed by a
recession in 1980, despite Carter’s policies
for economy
Many non-incumbent members raise little Incumbents and non-incumbent members
sums of money for themselves compared can both campaign, so therefore they have
to incumbers equal chances of raising money = comes
- e.g. Within the senate non-incumbent down to skill
members – raised $1.8m Vs $12.8m with - e.g. 2018 = AOC became congresswoman
incumbent members from to NY state = beat incumbent Joe Crowley
Senate //same in Houses of
Representatives too, with only $1.6m vs
$0.2m
Evaluate the extent to which the campaign finance system needs reform
Needs reform Doesn’t need reform
Unfair advantage to candidate Not necessary to win
- link to incumbency effect - ends up being about who can raise the
most money rather than show who is
electable; Bloomberg raised the most
money but wasn't electable
SuperPACs concentrate power to the rich Part of 1st amendment rights
Current system works Reform will cause loopholes
- more popular = more funding
Evaluate the view that campaign finance is the main determinant in the outcome of
congressional elections
Most significant factor Not the most significant factor
Large pressure groups can lobby congress Relationship between spend margin and
in order to have policies shaped in their vote margin shows little correlation
favour and in return the candidate gains - e.g. Harvard politics show that the 2020
support senate elections show that the candidates
- e.g. NRA spent $1.6m in 2019 campaign with the largest spend differential were the
most competitive
Campaign finance ensure candidate can National conventions more significant
push their ideas out - e.g. post covid handling by republicans led
Evaluate the view that the process to elect a US president is ineffective
Effective Ineffective
Invisible primary allows for electable Invisible primary is in need of reform
candidates to do well - large number of candidates recently
- those who fund and campaign well in the makes debates more difficult
IP are also likely to in a real election - ends up being about who can raise the
- e.g. Obama raised $9 million more than most money rather than show who is
Clinton in the early campaign // allowed electable; Bloomberg raised the most
little-known Pete Buttigieg to generate buzz money but wasn't electable
through debates, attracting donors - favours established candidates, those like
Yang and Gabbard were unable to compete
with funding of Sanders and Warren
Primaries and caucuses aren’t in need of Primaries and caucuses are in need of
reform as it is fair reform
- Proportional allocation of delegates allows - Front loading has led to early states
for a more fair competition influencing later states, such as Biden
- increased turnout recently, from 11% in winning 10 of 14 states on Super Tuesday
2000 to 21% in 2020 - Voting over an extended time causes
political fatigue = alternative of regional
primaries are better
- States with closed primaries
disenfranchise independent voters
NPC is effective in decided party platform NPC has a foregone conclusion
and choosing VP and POTUS - result is already known before the NPC
- good at reuniting the party after a divisive - sometimes party platforms aren't even
campaign written, like the RNC in 2020
- e.g. Sanders pledged his full support to - e.g. 71% of the public see NPCs as 'less
Biden in 2020. 2012 RNC allowed for than important'
platform discussions and shaping of policy. - e.g. 2016 leak about the process favouring
2008 DNC highlighted diversity of ideas Clinton with bias against Sanders cast
doubt/controversy on DNC. 2020 DNC was
virtual, so less energy and engagement
Evaluate the extent to which the incumbent President’s advantages make challenging
them near impossible
Challenging them is impossible Challenging them is possible
Many incumbents do not get challenged Not impossible for incumbents to be
by their party, or as often challenged
- most popular incumbents sit two terms - e.g. George W.H. Bush, Gerald Ford,
e.g. bush v trump Jimmy Carter faced significant opposition
from within their own party and therefore
the primaries and caucuses were hard
, fought
- many should be challenged in order to see
their qualities and their way of ruling
Strong candidates are likely to stay and If a bad president is running for office,
win an election challenging them is more likely
- e.g. Barack Obama – in 2012 nobody went - e.g. Jimmy Carter was a questionable
against him because they knew he was candidate – as he oversaw a failing
going to win and decided to run in 2016 economy – it was slow and inflated
when his term was over the country was also beset by an energy
crisis in 1979, which was followed by a
recession in 1980, despite Carter’s policies
for economy
Many non-incumbent members raise little Incumbents and non-incumbent members
sums of money for themselves compared can both campaign, so therefore they have
to incumbers equal chances of raising money = comes
- e.g. Within the senate non-incumbent down to skill
members – raised $1.8m Vs $12.8m with - e.g. 2018 = AOC became congresswoman
incumbent members from to NY state = beat incumbent Joe Crowley
Senate //same in Houses of
Representatives too, with only $1.6m vs
$0.2m
Evaluate the extent to which the campaign finance system needs reform
Needs reform Doesn’t need reform
Unfair advantage to candidate Not necessary to win
- link to incumbency effect - ends up being about who can raise the
most money rather than show who is
electable; Bloomberg raised the most
money but wasn't electable
SuperPACs concentrate power to the rich Part of 1st amendment rights
Current system works Reform will cause loopholes
- more popular = more funding
Evaluate the view that campaign finance is the main determinant in the outcome of
congressional elections
Most significant factor Not the most significant factor
Large pressure groups can lobby congress Relationship between spend margin and
in order to have policies shaped in their vote margin shows little correlation
favour and in return the candidate gains - e.g. Harvard politics show that the 2020
support senate elections show that the candidates
- e.g. NRA spent $1.6m in 2019 campaign with the largest spend differential were the
most competitive
Campaign finance ensure candidate can National conventions more significant
push their ideas out - e.g. post covid handling by republicans led
