Introduction

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Edward B. Foley
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
College System ◽  
The 1950S

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE system that governs presidential elections today was designed for competitive races between the candidates of two opposing political parties. Think of Jefferson versus Adams in 1800. Or Eisenhower versus Stevenson twice in the 1950s. Or Obama’s two campaigns, first against McCain in 2008, and then against Romney in 2012....

5. Presidential elections: Nominating campaigns and general elections

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Sandy Maisel
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Elections ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
College System ◽  
Election Process ◽  
Two Factors ◽  
General Elections

‘Presidential elections: Nominating campaigns and general elections’ explores the complexities of how candidates for president are chosen and how they are elected. The nominating campaign is to many Americans confusing and opaque. The lengthy timescale of primary and caucus elections means that some states have a disproportionate influence on the outcome. Two factors have even greater influence in the election process: the funding of campaigns, which can cost tens of millions of dollars, and the nature of the Electoral College system, which means that much of the debate will be conducted in a few battleground states where a few votes can make a difference to the Electoral College.

1. The context of American elections and political parties

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Sandy Maisel
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Political Parties ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Federal System ◽  
College System ◽  
American Elections ◽  
Democracy In America

‘The context of American elections and political parties’ explains the framework under which elections are run in the United States. This is laid out in the Constitution, which outlines the basic tenets of democracy in America. The most important aspects of that framework are the separation of powers, with a single executive separate from and elected separately from the legislature, and the federal system with residual powers left to the states. The electoral college system, unique to the United States, is a result of the initial decisions made at the time of the framing of the Constitution.

5. Presidential elections: Nominating campaigns and general elections

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Sandy Maisel
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Elections ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
College System ◽  
Election Process ◽  
Two Factors ◽  
General Elections

‘Presidential elections: nominating campaigns and general elections’ explores the complexities of how candidates for President are chosen and how they are elected. The nominating campaign is to many Americans confusing and opaque. The lengthy timescale of primary and caucus elections means that some States have a disproportionate influence on the outcome. Two factors have even greater influence in the election process: the funding of campaigns and the nature of the electoral college system, which means that much of the debate will be conducted in a few battleground States where a few votes can make a difference to the electoral college.

1. The context of American elections and political parties

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Sandy Maisel
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Federal System ◽  
College System ◽  
The Us ◽  
American Elections ◽  
Democracy In America

‘The context of American elections and political parties’ explains the framework under which elections are run in the US. This is laid out in the Constitution which outlines the basic tenets of democracy in America. The most important aspects of that framework are the separation of powers, with a single executive separate from and elected separately from the legislature, and the federal system with residual powers left to the states. The electoral college system, unique to the US, is a result of the initial decisions made at the time of the framing of the Constitution.

scholarly journals PERAN KPU DALAM MENINGKATKAN PARTISIPASI POLITIK MASYARAKAT DALAM PEMILIHAN UMUM PRESIDEN DAN WAKIL PRESIDEN 2014 DI KOTA MALANG

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 184
Author(s):  
Muhammad Hidayansyah ◽  
Trisakti Handayani ◽  
M Syahri
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Political Participation ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
Vice President ◽  
Descriptive Study ◽  
General Elections ◽  
Favorable Case ◽  
The Government ◽  
Political Decisions

ABSTRAKPemilihan umum presiden dan wakil presiden merupakan acara lima tahun sekali yang dilaksanakan di Indonesia, kegiatan ini sebagai wahana menyalurkan segala aspirasi masyarakat terutama dalam mempengaruhi keputusan politik, dan Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui peran dan partisipasi masyarakat Kota Malang dalam pemilihan presiden dan wakil presiden tahun 2014 di Kota Malang, selain itu untuk mengetahui peran KPU Kota Malang dalam pemilihan umum presiden dan wakil presiden 2014, dan untuk menjelaskan faktor pendukung dan penghambat partisipasi masyarakat dalam pemilihan presiden dan wakil presiden 2014.Penelitian ini menggunakan Model penelitian deskriptif, yaitu suatu model penelitian dengan mencatat, mendeskripsikan dan menginterpratasikan peran KPU dalam meningkatkan partisipasi politik masyarakat dalam pemilihan umum prseiden dan wakil presiden 2014 di Kota Malang, dan penelitian ini menggunakan tiga teknik pengumpulan data yaitu wawancara, dokumentasi dan observasi. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian, diperoleh hasil bahwa peran KPU dalam meningkatkan partisipasi politik masyarakat dalam pemilihn umum presiden dan wakil presiden 2014 di Kota Malang sangat besar. Artinya ini sesuai dengan realita dan fakta yang terjadi di lapangan, bahwa tahun 2014 partisipasi masyarakat Kota Malang sangat meningkat. Hal ini didukung oleh hasil wawancara dan observasi kepada pememrintahan Kota Malang, Partai Politik dan Masyarakat Kota Malang, selain itu hal yang paling mendukung adalah hasil perthitungan suara di Kota Malang, menunjukan sebanyak 70% masyarakat Kota Malang ikut berpartisipasi dalam pemilihan umum presiden dan wakil presiden 2014 di Kota Malang.Kata Kunci : Peran KPU, Partisipasi Masyarakat.ABSTRACTGeneral election for president and vice president is an event held every five years in Indonesia. This is a program which is used for channeling the aspirations of all communities, especially in influencing political decisions. This study aims to determine the role and participation of Malang communities in the presidential and vice presidential elections 2014. Besides, this study also aims to determine the role of General Elections Commission (KPU) of Malang in general election of president and vice president in 2014, and to explain the enabling and inhibiting factors of communities’ participation in the election of president and vice president in 2014. The approach used in this study is descriptive study, which is a study model by noting, describing and interpreting the role of KPU in increasing the communities’ political participation in the elections of president and vice president 2014 in Malang. This study uses three methods in collecting the data. They are interview, documentation, and observation. Based on the result of the study, it can be concluded that the General Elections Commission has a big role in increasing communities’ political participation in the elections of president and vice president 2014 in Malang. This means that it corresponds to the reality and the facts which occurred, that in 2014 the participation of Malang communities greatly increased. This is supported by the results of the interviews and observations to the government of Malang, Political Parties in Malang and also Malang communities. Besides, the most favorable case is the result of vote counting in Malang which shows as much as 70% of people in Malang participated in the elections for president and vice president 2014 in Malang.Key words: Role of the General Elections Commissions, Communities Participations

Federalism and the Electoral College

2019 ◽  
pp. 62-92
Author(s):  
Robert M. Alexander
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
American Politics ◽  
Electoral College

This chapter examines federalism as it relates to the Electoral College. While the Framers sought to create a system safeguarding federalism, they also wanted a process that yielded a leader who could command supermajorities across the country. The Electoral College process has become increasingly democratized, as have many other features in American politics. The emergence of political parties has emphasized differences based on ideology rather than one’s location. Moreover, the protections afforded to less populated states by the Electoral College are largely exaggerated due to the attention given to swing states. Candidates limit their resources to a handful of states and rarely visit most states, including both the most populated and least populated states. This suggests the failure of the Electoral College to (1) produce campaigns appealing to smaller states and (2) produce candidates with broad national appeal.

The 2016 Election: Like 1888 but not 1876 or 2000

2018 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabrice Barthélémy ◽  
Mathieu Martin ◽  
Ashley Piggins
Keyword(s):  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
Anomalous Behavior ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Popular Vote ◽  
The Us ◽  
2016 Election ◽  
Us Presidential Election ◽  
House Size

ABSTRACTDonald J. Trump won the 2016 US presidential election with fewer popular votes than Hillary R. Clinton. This is the fourth time this has happened, the others being 1876, 1888, and 2000. In earlier work, we analyzed these elections (and others) and showed how the electoral winner can often depend on the size of the US House of Representatives. This work was inspired by Neubauer and Zeitlin (2003, 721–5) in their paper, “Outcomes of Presidential Elections and the House Size.” A sufficiently larger House would have given electoral victories to the popular vote winner in both 1876 and 2000. An exception is the election of 1888. We show that Trump’s victory in 2016 is like Harrison’s in 1888 and unlike Hayes’s in 1876 and Bush’s in 2000. This article updates our previous work to include the 2016 election. It also draws attention to some of the anomalous behavior that can arise under the Electoral College.

scholarly journals Electoral College bias and the 2020 presidential election

2020 ◽  
Vol 117 (45) ◽  
pp. 27940-27944 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert S. Erikson ◽  
Karl Sigman ◽  
Linan Yao
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Election ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Popular Vote ◽  
The Past ◽  
Electoral Vote ◽  
Republican Candidate

Donald Trump’s 2016 win despite failing to carry the popular vote has raised concern that 2020 would also see a mismatch between the winner of the popular vote and the winner of the Electoral College. This paper shows how to forecast the electoral vote in 2020 taking into account the unknown popular vote and the configuration of state voting in 2016. We note that 2016 was a statistical outlier. The potential Electoral College bias was slimmer in the past and not always favoring the Republican candidate. We show that in past presidential elections, difference among states in their presidential voting is solely a function of the states’ most recent presidential voting (plus new shocks); earlier history does not matter. Based on thousands of simulations, our research suggests that the bias in 2020 probably will favor Trump again but to a lesser degree than in 2016. The range of possible outcomes is sufficiently wide, however, to even include some possibility that Joseph Biden could win in the Electoral College while barely losing the popular vote.

Presidential Elections and Majority Rule

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward B. Foley
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Majority Rule ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
The United States ◽  
Party Competition ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Majority Party ◽  
Federal Structure

The Electoral College governing America today was adopted by Thomas Jefferson’s supporters, after the 1800 election almost derailed his presidency. The Jeffersonians were motivated by majority rule. Given the emergence of two-party competition between Federalists and themselves, the Jeffersonians intended the Electoral College to award the presidency to the majority party. Given the federal structure of the United States, they envisioned the Electoral College as implementing a compound form of majority rule: a candidate would win by amassing a majority of electoral votes from states where the candidate’s party was in the majority.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document