Duck [Political] Dynasty?

We’ve talked in class about prominent interest groups like the NRA and AARP, but there may a new interest group at work in Louisiana.

Saturday was the runoff round of the special election in Louisiana to replace Republican congressman Rodney Alexander, who recently resigned to join governor Bobby Jindal’s cabinet as the secretary of veteran affairs. The two top vote-getters in the first round were both Republicans – state senator Neil Riser received close to 32%, while businessman Vance McAllister received 17.8%.

McAllister, who has never held political office, was a clear underdog going into the runoff but he picked up a big endorsement ahead of the polls from Willie Robertson, Louisiana resident and star of A&E’s “Duck Dynasty”. Robertson touted McAllister as an outsider, and urged Louisiana residents to support him at the polls. It certainly worked – McAllister cruised to victory Saturday, picking up 59.7% of the vote.

This would seem to fit Olson’s description of large interest groups. “Duck Dynasty” commands a large audience – the show’s most recent season premiere had 11.8 million viewers, although many are not Louisiana voters – but it is not inherently political. The group is instead held together by a mutual interest in the show. But after building a huge audience, the shows stars now have a huge basis of support with which to affect actual political change. Riser, a state politician, was the logical favorite for the seat, and his large margin in the primary seemed to signal an easy win. Robertson, however, was able to use his television status, and thus his “interest group”, to elect a complete political outsider who better supported his interests.

Strict Voter ID Laws' Impact Voting Behavior

In the run up to the 2012 Presidential Election, a few states have controversially tightened voting laws and regulations. Pennsylvania, something of a 'battleground state', is one example. It now requires all voters to present state-issued photo identification in order to vote, not just the usual proof of residency. Critics argue that this new provision is targeted and places an undue burden on specific citizens that will prevent them from voting—those of urban and lower socioeconomic backgrounds, who tend to vote Democratic. This article presents the story of Cheryl Ann Moore, a 54 year-old African American woman who has lived/voted in Philadelphia without any photo ID for years—but due to this new provision, she had to get a photo ID in order to vote come November.

With that, after four hours, Cheryl Ann Moore became the proud owner of a laminated Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of State for Voting Purposes Only ID card.  

“I feel good!” she said. She grinned, kissed the card, put it inside a compartment in her knockoff Louis Vuitton purse and zippered it shut.

The economic approach to voting behavior states that people vote only if their marginal benefit of voting is greater than or equal to the marginal costs associated with casting a ballot. As we see from Ms. Moore's experience, the marginal costs of getting this identification are quite high--in terms of time, energy, money, and missed work. Though for Ms. Moore the marginal benefit that she derives from voting must be incredibly high, if not infinite, since she willingly spent the entire day wading through long lines and red tape to get this new ID. Her tirelessly positive attitude at the end of the day just goes to show that her marginal benefits of voting did indeed outweigh the costs--though we can't necessarily pinpoint the precise nature of her benefit. Economic theorists like Johnson would predict that many voters have lower marginal benefits than Ms. Moore, and in this situation would forfeit their right to vote simply because the marginal costs have increased dramatically, likely well beyond their level of marginal benefit derived from voting. An individual voter realistically has little impact on the outcome of the election, and many would rather spend a day doing something other than waiting around the DMV for an ID card. The actual impact on the turnout of the affected Pennsylvania voters remains to be seen, but I personally hope that many people will be like Ms. Moore and highly value the priceless right to vote over whatever obstacles the state puts in the way. 
 
Note: I am including the time spent getting the ID under her marginal costs of voting—even if she hasn’t voted yet—because I assume for argument's sake that she will vote since she took the time to comply.

Ranked-Choice Voting

In class, we discussed various voting system alternatives to the plurality, and examined the relative ability of each system to reflect the true preferences of voters. This NY Times article examines a system of ranked-choice voting, "instant runoff" voting, which the city of San Francisco recently adopted as the method to be used in its mayoral races.

The "instant runoff" appears to be a slightly modified version of the Hare system. In the "instant runoff" system, voters "select their top three favorite candidates in order of preference." If no candidates wins a majority, then the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated. The voters who originally voted for the eliminated candidate will then have their votes automatically counted towards their second-choice candidate, and the votes will be tallied again. Candidates will continue to be eliminated in this manner until a majority is reached. This system has been championed by electoral reform activist Steven Hill, who claims it is fairer and less costly than the plurality system traditionally used in U.S. elections for public office. (For more information on this particular voting method, check out the website for Steven Hill's organization.)

In theory, this system should be superior to the plurality system. For one, there is much less incentive for strategic voting. For instance, unlike a plurality system, the "instant runoff" system does not create a situation where voters are afraid to vote for a third-party candidate because this candidate would 'take away' votes from a second-choice mainstream candidate. However, according to this article, voters are having trouble understanding how this system works -- they are either leaving their second and third choices blank, or they are choosing more than three candidates, causing their ballots to be invalidated. Perhaps it is the case that voters simply have not been made sufficiently aware of the how the voting system works. Another potential drawback to keep in mind, though, is that this system requires the voter to have more knowledge about each of the candidates (compared to the plurality system). The voter must know not only who his favorite candidate is, but who his next two favorite candidates are (in order). Many voters will likely not be sufficiently knowledgeable.

Young Voter Turnout Drops

      In this past mid-term election, Democrats took a huge blow, facing not only a lower number of young voters but also voters who were less willing to support Democrats. A Washington Post article reports that voters between 18-29 dropped from 18 percent in 2008 to 11 percent this past election. These same voters also backed the Democrats by only 16 points, compared to the 34 points in 2008.

      These numbers raise the question of why young voter turnout reached this lowest point in two decades. One reason may be that individuals do not believe their vote would make any difference. The expected benefit from voting is lower than the cost of going to the polls and voting. It would only make sense to vote if the cost is next to nothing, if the benefits are extremely large, or if the race is expected to be extremely close. Another reason why voter turnout may be low is because the cost of becoming educated on the various issues is too high; the cost of learning all the different opinions on all the different points just doesn’t seem to pay off. Based on this reasoning, voters are rational in remaining ignorant about the issues.

      Politicians understand that most voters also think this way; that it’s okay to remain rationally ignorant. That is why we see so many advertisements that do not specifically state the politician’s standpoint on issues, but rather present values and social images that may get a voter to vote for them, for example, being a “family man” or being an advocate of the “American dream.” If candidates were to address their stand on various issues, they run the risk of pushing away the ignorant voters who know nothing about them and may otherwise vote for them if they did end up going to the polls. In 2008, Obama ran the hugely successful “Change” campaign, greatly appealing to the youth nationwide. According to Downs, parties formulate policies in order to win over votes, rather than win elections to formulate policies. It could be because of this that Democrats suffered in the mid-term elections, as it seems the youth bought into the promise of change two years ago, but have not seen enough reform to draw them out to vote in this election.

Incumbency and Democratic Spending

Dennis Mueller’s discussion of campaign contributions and Grier’s empirical study of the effectiveness of spending by incumbents and challengers is bolstered in a recent New York Times article by Michael Luo and Griff Palmer. The article discusses directly a divide between spending on Democratic campaigns and on Republican ones on current campaigns, but provides real world evidence for Grier’s 1989 findings.

Firstly, one of the Congressional races discussed is that of New York’s 20^th District. There, the sitting Congressman is Scott Murphy; the Republican Chris Gibson is challenging the seat. The money spent collectively by Gibson and his supporters on his campaign totals $1.1 million, whereas the figure for Murphy is $1.7 million. This is a great illustration of Grier’s model, which predicts that the each marginal dollar spent by an incumbent will bring fewer votes than each marginal dollar spent by a challenger – campaign contributions have diminishing returns beyond a certain inflection point. That inflection point roughly corresponds to the difference between incumbents and challengers and is a reason that Murphy’s campaign is costing more.

Further, the article puts forth total spending figures for democrats and republicans on the current midterm campaigns. Democratic candidates in races that the article looks at have spent a total of $119 million compared to a Republican total of $79 million. This is a reflection of the greater number of incumbent Democrats. Luo and Palmer mention this correlation but do not concern themselves with its economic implications.

The Midterm Elections and Rational Women

This CNN article talks about the lack of enthusiasm among women voters this year as compared to men. The article reports that in a survey of likely voters 23 percent of women voters claimed to be “extremely enthusiastic” about voting while 38 percent of men reported this level of enthusiasm. With more women running for congressional seats than ever before and women in 8 states running as their party’s nominee for governor, the authors of the article seem to think the lack of enthusiasm among women voters is counter-intuitive. The article points to a couple reasons for this gap: despondency over the economy and unemployment, and races turning into character wars rather than campaigns on policy issues. The end of the article claims that women must get to the polls to make their voices heard on landmark policies issues, such as unemployment insurance extensions, that congress will debate in the next couple months.

If we think back to Johnson’s cost-benefit analysis of voting, women’s disinterest in voting this election isn’t as appalling as the article suggests; the ladies just have it figured out. The probability that each individual woman’s vote will be decisive multiplied by the benefit they expect to receive from their preferred candidate winning simply doesn’t outweigh the perceived costs of voting. Assuming this lack of enthusiasm among women translates into lesser percentages of women venturing to the polls, in Johnson’s opinion, women are simply acting rationally.

Is the tea party really a big deal?

Judging by media reports, the tea party could play a big role in the upcoming midterm elections. The tea party, which developed largely in response to the Wall Street Bailout, stimulus package, and healthcare reform, is not a registered party and does not have a fixed ideology, but it tends to represent far-right positions, both socially and fiscally.

Despite the attention the tea party has received, this front-page article in The Washington Post questions the movement’s effectiveness. First, The Post spent months contacting every known tea party organization. In all The Post was able to verify 647 groups, a number short of the thousands of groups some tea party organizations claim exist. Furthermore, 70 percent of the groups that The Post contacted said they have not participated in any political campaigning; they don’t have platforms, don’t support specific candidates, and don’t have a lot of money on hand. So, The Post suggests the tea party’s real power may be inflated.

The claim that the tea party’s power is overstated appears to fit with Downs’ model of voting and party ideology. If we assume the US electorate has a unimodal and symmetric distribution of preferences, it means the majority of the electorate is near the middle of the political spectrum, which is far from the far-right tea party ideologies. Simply put, the tea party represents a small portion of the population, meaning their influence is already muted.

Nevertheless, what if tea party activists turn out en masse on Election Day, while moderates abstain from voting? Downs would still be skeptical of the tea party’s impact, because even if voters abstain, his model suggests the sheer number of moderates would outnumber the tea party, even if a lot of moderates don’t vote.

Additionally, the tea party’s lack of organization embodies a situation where there are many small firms and individuals. It appears the individual cost of organizing is higher than the individual benefit, even if the total group activity would be beneficial in the long run. Perhaps this explains why tea party activists don’t have a clear blueprint for government, but appear to be simply united by their opposition to President Obama and the Democratic agenda, which throws the tea party’s effectiveness on Election Day into further doubt.

Nobody questions that the tea party has altered the political landscape and contributed to the rise of a new generation of conservative politicians. But if the empirical data suggests the tea party’s effectiveness is overstated, why does it continue to get heavy media attention? Is the media spending too much time focusing on the people who are simply the most vocal? Is some other factor at work?

Could the Democrats gain from losing the midterm elections?

With the 2010 midterm elections just over a week away, President Barack Obama is pulling out all the stops to help the Democrats maintain control of Congress. The reasoning is obvious: the party that controls Congress has a significant voice in setting the legislative agenda. Because the House of Representatives and the Senate largely rely on simple majority voting, the ability to set the legislative agenda has several perks. The party in power has a better shot at using cycling, tool utility spheres, and logrolling to manipulate the agenda to maximize their priorities. Moreover, the party in power has a better chance to create rents, and if the effects of these rents can be dissipated, legislators are left with benefits for themselves such as campaign contributions or support from a constituency that benefits from the rent.

Having said all of that, this New York Times article argues President Obama could ultimately benefit if the Republicans take control of one or both houses of Congress. Becoming the majority party in the legislature has its advantages, but as the author points out, controlling Congress comes with responsibility for the country’s problems. If the Republicans retake Congress it will likely curtail Obama’s initiatives, but having the opposing party in power would provide him with a foil, which is something he can potentially manipulate as the 2012 presidential election approaches.

To further this point, the author discusses two other periods of divided government. When Harry Truman was president and the Republicans controlled Congress, Truman successfully ran for reelection in 1948 with the argument that the Republicans were the real obstacle to progress. Nearly 50 years later when the Republicans took power in 1994, President Bill Clinton acted as a middle man between his own party and his opposition, negotiating smaller pieces of legislation with the Republicans while portraying himself as a check against radical conservatism. The concept worked and Clinton was reelected in 1996.

Of course, if the Republicans do retake one or both houses of Congress, Obama may not be as lucky as his predecessors. Some critics believe he wouldn’t be as skilled at negotiating and that the Republicans learned their lessons from the 1940s and the 1990s. Thus, while having opposition in Congress may create political opportunities for the president, it’s clear he’d like to have his friends in control, not his enemies.

What a difference the rules make

Every spring University students head to the polls to decide on referenda and elect officials for a variety of organizations, such as Student Council, the Honor Committee, the University Judiciary Committee, class councils, and school councils. The University Board of Elections (UBE) is tasked with overseeing the elections, and as stated in its Rules and Regulations, UBE elections use an instant runoff process.

The process, which is based off the Hare system, requires voters to rank the candidates for each office from most preferred to least preferred. When the UBE tallies the votes, if no candidate has received a majority of the vote, the person who received the least number of votes is eliminated. The eliminated candidate’s supporters then have their votes redistributed to their second-choice candidate, and the process repeats until one candidate has received a majority of the vote, who is then declared the winner.

This system of voting made headlines due to the spring 2010 election for Third-Year Council Vice President. As this article in The Cavalier Daily shows, the race had four candidates: Abebe Kebede, Natalia Mercado, Chris Mullen, and Nitya Reddy. After the initial round of voting nobody had a majority, so Chris Mullen, the last-place candidate, was eliminated and his votes were redistributed. Still, nobody had a majority, so the next candidate with the fewest votes, Nitya Reddy, was eliminated and her votes were redistributed. The final round pitted Kebede against Mercado, and Mercado emerged as the victor by one vote – 664 to 663.

After the results were released Kebede considered challenging the results, particularly because in early rounds of the runoff process he had a plurality of the vote but he did not have a majority. Once candidates were eliminated and their votes were redistributed, however, Mercado had a majority and was declared the winner, even though it was only by one vote. Ultimately, with the UBE standing by the process and its results, Kebede conceded the race to Mercado.

The article’s ending does an excellent job summarizing this election’s lessons. One of the biggest problems with this electoral system is voters do not understand it in detail, which opens the door to skewed results. Moreover, Mercado believes that the system is “the most fair type of elections that we have at the University.” Is this really the case? Should the UBE consider switching to a different system?