Tuesday, August 02, 2016

Benjamin and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Election (part 1)

Forgive the title of this series, but it seems appropriate to steal from the Alexander series for this election. This post will be more of an introduction in that my goal will be to structure the remaining posts and explain where I am coming from before I get to the meat of my views on this election. So, we will begin by answering five questions related to this election and why I feel the need to write on this specific election, at this specific time.

How did we get here?

This seems like the appropriate first question. Another way of writing this question is how in the world did the two most unliked candidates become the nominees for the two major parties?[1] Well, it is important to understand that the presidential nominating process is an extremely inexact process, and it is relatively new.

What do I mean by the fact that our nominating process is inexact? Well, let’s begin with the simple fact that primary elections are low voter turnout elections, even in good years. The 2016 election was a very high turnout, but only 14% of eligible voters selected either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton to be the nominee for the respective political parties.[2] So, a very small percentage of Americans voted for either of these candidates in the first place, with only 28% of eligible voters (roughly) voting in primaries at all. This proves that only a small subset of the population needs to like someone for that individual to become the nominee. Still, the two candidates did receive (far and away) more votes than the other competitors in the Republican and Democratic primary.

Yet, the fact that we have primaries at all is a relatively odd thing considering that most other advanced countries use party conventions to select their nominees.[3] Our Constitution provides that state governments are in control of deciding election laws and administering the elections. This means that each state can decide whether to have an open primary, closed primary, blanket primary, or if they desired…no primary at all. Each state also gets to decide when the primary will take place, with some help from the major parties.[4]

So, we have primaries when many other nations allow the parties to determine the candidates for a general election in a private way. We also have states involved in the process of deciding when and how one can vote in a primary election. For instance, Michigan (my new home state) has a separate presidential primary (March 8) because it wants to be powerful in helping to determine the presidential candidate and then has another primary election (August 2) and it is an open primary state in that no one at the polling place even knew what party I voted in (they also had trouble answering my question about that). On the other hand, Indiana held a primary election for president and other races at the same time (usually in early May), and it was also an open primary state. Another state I have voted in, Texas, was an open primary state but had different rules depending on whether I would vote in the Republican or Democratic primary. Finally, Ohio is an open primary state for the first time you vote in a primary and subsequently you will vote in the same party unless you change your registration more than 30 days before the next primary.

We started having primary elections in the early 1900s (thanks progressive movement). In my Intro to American Politics class, I talk about 4 different eras of selecting presidential candidates. From 1789-1828, it was actually the Congressional caucus for each of the party’s that selected the nominee.[5] Political parties were not really for the mass public and general election voting was very low (this changed in 1828 thanks to Andrew Jackson).[6] Because identifying with a party became more common following the 1828 election, the political parties began having nominating conventions. This was still a situation where party elites (but still a much bigger group than a Congressional caucus) chose the presidential candidate.[7] So, really from 1832-1908 we had party conventions having all the power in determining who would be the party’s nominee for the presidency.

The progressives (mentioned above) pushed through party primaries in many states before the 1912 election, and we see a “mixed” system. This was generally an era where many states had primaries (although many didn’t) and they may have some relationship to delegate allocation at the convention…but generally, primary votes were predictive of 25% of the delegates to national conventions from 1912-1968. (Two paragraphs down will explicate why this can happen). Two good examples of the primary voters not having the type of power we see today come at the beginning and the end of this system. In 1912, most Republicans voted for Teddy Roosevelt rather than the sitting president at the time (Taft). But, the Republican Party still chose Taft, which led Teddy to run as a 3rd party candidate. The final example is in 1968 and the Democratic Party where voters were angry about the Vietnam War and voted in large numbers for Robert Kennedy before his assassination, Eugene McCarthy, and McGovern. But, Hubert Humphrey became the nominee.

The anger of this slight (at the 1968 DNC convention) led to the creation of the McGovern-Fraser commission, which changed the rules drastically. Now, we get to pick the party’s nominees through the primary system. The system we have only started in the 1972 election. Our system where the public gets to pick the nominees is not only unique compared to other democratic countries it is also relatively new.

Another thing that makes our system weird is that we combine this primary electoral system with the fact that parties are still private organizations. The parties get to set the rules for how many delegates a state gets at the national convention. And, the state party gets to decide how to allocate those delegates (within constraints given by the national party). For more on all the crazy rules entailed in this process, see Josh Putnam’s website.[8]

So, how did we get Clinton and Trump? Well, here is my answer. The Republican Party has spent the last 8 years being angry. The Tea Party movement was made about taxes and out of control government spending, and they pushed a whole host of members into Congress in the 2010 election. These individuals were angry about policies, whether or not you agree with their policy views is beyond the point. Democrats spent most of 2009 trying to get Republicans to help out with what became Obamacare, and had several who were intending on voting for the bill. But, late in 2009 and early in 2010, Republican leaders told members of Congress (MC’s) that voting for Obamacare would be bad for future elections in the GOP. So, Obamacare passed without help from Republicans.[9] Republicans are angry, and now Democrats are angry. We see Congress get more polarized and less actual stuff accomplished. But, both sides blame the other. As a result, we are unhappy with the political system that we see.

Looking to the 2016 field, we see that most Republican candidates are part of the political establishment, or flawed candidates. Ted Cruz is not very likeable, and extremely unliked by party elites. Marco Rubio has a history of not stepping up when necessary, and all the other candidates were not charismatic. Enter, Donald Trump. Someone who is well-know, knows how to use the media, and (most importantly) is angry. He knows how to make people angry with him (and at him). But, his rhetoric is really building off the rhetoric heard from Republicans throughout the last 8 years (even if the policies are very different).

Democrats had their own candidate that was angry at the system. But, ironically, the DNC makes it harder for insurgent candidates to win than the RNC. Why? Well, a lot of it goes back to rules for winning delegates. Many states that Donald Trump did especially well in were winner take all states. This means that all delegates from (say Ohio), go to Donald Trump, no matter how big his victory was. On the other hand, Democrats have no winner take all states, instead relying on proportional systems. So, in a system with superdelegates already supporting Hillary by a large margin and proportional delegate allocation, Bernie had a very small chance of winning the nomination.

Thus…we have the two least likeable candidates in modern history, generally chosen by the same electorate that detests them.

Who are the candidates that can impact the presidential election (as in, who will I spend time discussing)?

In this series, I will focus on three candidates: Hillary Clinton, Gary Johnson, and Donald Trump. My main goal is to understand where the candidates come from as it relates to my own personal view of the issue. The ultimate goal is to explain the complexities of policy and connecting that to a vote choice in general, but how difficult it is to do in this cycle.

I will not spend any time discussing Jill Stein. The reason why I do this is because only Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have a legitimate chance of winning the presidency, but Gary Johnson has a chance to influence the election.

Why do I believe that Gary Johnson has no chance to win the election? To put it simply, it is that he is a member of a 3rd party. The Libertarian Party does have ballot access in all 50 states, which is a major hurdle for most 3rd parties. But, the major issues are this: 1) 3rd parties have a very difficult time fundraising and increasing name recognition. 2) 3rd parties then have trouble having a high enough status to get the 15% average in polls to get into debates. 3) Because we have a winner take all electoral college system (in all but 2 states), Americans don’t want to vote for someone that has a very low chance of winning.[10]

While more Americans are dissatisfied with the two major parties than at any time in recent history, the simple fact is they have a locked in chance of winning a majority of states. Let’s think about this. A Democratic candidate…regardless of who it is should win these states: California (55), New York (29), Illinois (20), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Maryland (10), Hawaii (4), and D.C. (3) = 137 electoral votes that a bad candidate wins from the Democratic Party. Republicans, similarly, have several states that will (for the near future) vote consistently with them regardless: Texas (38), Tennessee (11), Alabama (9), South Carolina (9), Oklahoma (7), Arkansas (6), Kansas (6), West Virginia (5), Montana (3), Wyoming (3), North (3) and South Dakota (3), and Alaska (3) = 106. See, RealClearPolitics for a current electoral map.

These are the states that are solidly for one of the two parties. A 3rd party candidate would have to win every other state to win the presidency, which is highly unlikely given the disparities in political views. Thus, a 3rd party candidate is likely to siphon votes from one party more than another. In this year, the Libertarian Party is taking votes from the Republicans, which is making it more likely that Hillary will win. 

*This is especially true if you are in a battleground state. If you are in a state that is decidedly for one of the two major parties, then a 3rd party vote is largely meaningless and can be done out of frustration with the candidate of your party.

What are the issues (and structure) I will be discussing?

This series will likely have 5 posts. This first one is more focused on background so we are all on the same page. Post 2 will look at the three candidates on social issues, and I will map them to my own personal views on those issues. Post 3 will look at economic policy, post 4 will look at foreign policy, and post 5 will be a grab all other topics and explain my vote intentions.

*If there are specific issues you want me to write about, please message me, or email me (toll.ben@gmail).

What is my worldview?

I write these posts mainly for my own edification. I hope you find these interesting and are willing to engage me. But, it is important to understand where I am coming from…so here it is:

I identify as an Evangelical Christian. This impacts my worldview because I believe (to be theological here) that the Bible is the inspired word of God. There has been a big debate about whether or not the Bible is inerrant.[11] There are many better places to go for that discussion. So, I will leave it at my view is that the Bible is inspired, and if you want more clarification…please ask.

This belief in the Bible and Evangelical Christianity means that I believe life is important. It also means (how I read the Bible) that we should defend life regardless of nationality. Simply put, it may be easy to paint a box around me because of my religion, but I caution you that not all Christians agree with that interpretation of politics,[12] and my particular views are much more nuanced. The nuances of these views makes it hard for me to ever happily vote for any candidate. As a result, every presidential election causes soul-searching for me, and I believe it should for all. I personally believe that Evangelicals have been captured by the Republican Party (much like Paul Frymer argues is true of the African-American community and the Democratic Party).

Further, my education puts me into a complex view of the world. Even though I maintain a religious worldview that is Orthodox (Nicene Creed baby), I have gone and attained specialized education in politics and religion. I have the M.A. from Baylor University in Church-State Studies, as well as a M.A. and Ph.D. in Political Science (specializing in American Politics and Methodology) at Indiana University.

My educational background tells me while it is easy to have moral positions, it is incredibly hard to translate those views to policy. I will hopefully make this clearer in my next post, but it is easy to believe something is morally right while still believing that we should not create laws against such a thing. To provide a simple example that is not political (today): I believe that one should not get drunk (morally), but I do not believe that we should outlaw alcohol because someone may abuse it (policy). Why? Because not everyone has the same worldview as me. How can I expect people who see no problem with drinking (as long as they do not harm others or drive) to live the same way I do? So, with that in mind…I will speak about my moral views on several issues, but I will also distinguish that from a policy view on the issue given that we have a Constitution that may differ from my view of morality.

Finally, I will make one caveat about my worldview. It is mine alone. I do not wish to speak for all Evangelicals. And, I certainly cannot speak for all professors of political science. But, I do speak as this particular Evangelical who happens to have specialized training in political science. Hopefully, my specialization allows me to make this conversation more focused on facts and interpretations that build conversation rather than divide us into camps.

What are the ground rules?

You may have noticed this already, but I will do my best to provide resources, and citations, where it is important to do so. I will provide electronic citations where possible so that you can go and check out my interpretation of evidence. Feel free to ask for more evidence if you think I am making a claim that does not square with facts. But, for the purposes of this conversation I will treat Fox News and MSNBC as partisan organizations that lack in objectivity.

I hope that this series creates conversation. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, or others. But, I do expect us to be civil. Smart individuals can disagree on who to vote for. Part of the goal of this series is to show the simplicity in arguing that one must clearly vote for one candidate or the other. As a result, I will be discussing political views that are tricky, complex, and often very personal. So, disagree…but do so in a civil way.

Finally, if you are still reading, I will say this: I have been judged more by Christians for having a political mind than by political scientists for being a Christian. I have had two separate pastors question my salvation because I dared to disagree with them on politics. Both of them have called me naïve and hinted that my education is nothing more than a detriment to what one should clearly believe about politics. Thus, I write these posts with much trepidation. I know enough to not respect those two individuals views, but be very careful when saying that Christians who may even agree on morality should always agree on policy or on whom to vote for.


[3] I can’t find a great electronic resource for this other than simply sending you to the Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_election), but a good resource on this topic can also be found in chapter of Shanto Iyengar’s Media Politics textbook. It does a good job of showing how different our electoral (and media) system is from other (mainly European) nations. See: https://www.amazon.com/Media-Politics-Citizens-Guide-Third/dp/0393937798

[5] For my money, the best research on early Congressional behavior and choices can be found in Charles Stewart’s Analyzing Congress textbook. It does a good job of explaining the issues facing early members and also showing that we, were indeed, separated into parties even as George Washington decried parties. See: https://www.amazon.com/Analyzing-Congress-Institutionalism-American-Politics/dp/039393506X

[6] This is a separate story, but Andrew Jackson was royally hosed in the 1824 election by the House of Representatives. As a result, he spent the next four years campaigning for president and really starting the era of mass parties. He also introduced the spoils system (patronage) and really changed the political landscape in a variety of ways.

[7] Coincidentally, one can make the case that Abraham Lincoln would never have won the presidency had it not been for this system of nominating candidates. In a primary, he would have been relatively unknown.  But, it is also because the fact that the Democratic Party split into a northern and southern faction because the convention could not come to agreement on a presidential candidate in 1860. After many (I think roughly 50 ballots) the party split for the 1860 election and there was a southern and northern Democratic candidate. Thus, Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 election with less than 40% of the nationwide vote.

[10] See this article for a short introduction to the importance of a first-past the post winner take all system: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/08/01/3803738/third-parties-ruin-everything-according-political-science/

[11] For the political ramifications of this debate, I suggest you check out Seth Dowland’s book Family Values. http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/15416.html

[12] See David Kinnaman’s book UnChristian or Christian Smith’s Christian America?  These two books provide a detailed discussion of how variant even Evangelicals are when it comes to politics. http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520234703 and https://www.amazon.com/unChristian-Generation-Really-Christianity-Matters/dp/0801072719


posted by Ben Toll @ 11:56 AM   0 comments

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home