Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Parties and voting Hiram Johnson and the Progressives of early 1900s Middle class reform movement against: Control over government by elite special interests.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Parties and voting Hiram Johnson and the Progressives of early 1900s Middle class reform movement against: Control over government by elite special interests."— Presentation transcript:

1

2 Parties and voting

3 Hiram Johnson and the Progressives of early 1900s Middle class reform movement against: Control over government by elite special interests (SPR) Strong (corrupt) party “machines”, based on favors and patronage So favored: Accountable government direct democracy—”people power” Weak party organizations

4 Partisan versus non-partisan elections local elections and state judges are virtually all “non-partisan”

5 State elections-- More “Progressive” legacy special elections Called by governor or by petition recall Initiatives and referenda (As opposed to usual way law is made-- majority in one house, then other, conference, then signed (or vetoed) by governor) The voice of the people or special interests? Constraining the role of the legislature?

6 Primaries and General Elections Primary: Choosing the candidates to compete in the General Election General Election: choosing among the candidates to hold office

7 Partisan primaries Federal and state offices are partisan 1996 CA voters passed proposition for “open primary”—thrown out by USSC Now we have “semi-closed” primary

8 Redistricting Every 10 years, after census CA legislature redraws district boundaries for themselves and CA Representatives to the House in DC “Gerrymandering”

9 Example: 60% Rep and 40% Dem

10 Version A--three safe Rep districts

11 Version B--two safe Rep, one safe Dem district 1 23

12 Gerrymandering, contd Current trend: Computers exacerbate gerrymandering Types Partisan Racial Incumbent

13 Incumbency Advantage Of the 101 CA incumbents who ran for reelection in 2002 and 2004, all were reelected, and 99 of these 101 incumbents won by landslides. Why? Self-fulfilling prophecy term limits? at state level, not federal CA—6 ys Assembly 8 ys Senate, lifetime ban—most stringent in the nation

14 Results of Term Limits More diverse—20 Latinos Citizen legislators?—not really Of 40 Senators, 36 are former assemblymembers Less experience and knowledge From 1960s-1990s, CA often described as model “professional legislature” Shorter time horizon Increased power of lobbyists and advocacy groups Increased power of Governor

15 Who votes? The old The educated The wealthy The white

16 Who Can’t In CA— the convicted, while they are in prison lose the right to vote

17 Campaign finance Campaigns increasingly expensive--mostly for TV ads Especially in CA

18 Attempts to fix the problem 1976 USSC throws out mandatory spending limits 2002 Campaign finance--McCain Feingold but campaign spending continues to grow

19 Election Reform 1.Money--public funding for candidates--”clean elections”-- including funds to match opponents private funding AB 583 1.More competition--redistricting reform 2.More choices--instead of “single member district winner take all”: party lists, cumulative voting, choice or instant run-offs, etc. see http://msnbc.com/modules/mockracy/

20 Political Divide—recall election

21 Method of voting Growth of electronic voting But big story—growth of voting by mail Increased convenience resulting in greater turnout?


Download ppt "Parties and voting Hiram Johnson and the Progressives of early 1900s Middle class reform movement against: Control over government by elite special interests."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google