The popular vote does not say who will win
This may appear surprising, but compared to their French counterparts, U.S. media publish quite a few polls on voting intentions for the presidency (those who are addicted to polls may still find their happiness in the press, example here on the website of the New York Times ). The reason t ient probably the American electoral system. A national survey has an interest relating to anticipate the outcome of the presidential election. U.S. President is in fact not directly elected by American citizens, but by a panel of 538 "electors." These designated in each State according to the principle of winner-take-all (the leading candidate roundup all the electoral votes). Thus, it may river ar a candidate with a majority of votes nationwide (what Americans call "popular vote") will not be elected because he did not majority of "electors." This happened four times so far in 1824, 1876, 1888 and especially 2000 (where Bush won with five votes ahead in electoral votes while Gore had obtained more than 500 000 votes than him in "Popular vote").
A battleground shrinks
The U.S. electoral system also explains the campaign strategies being adopted by candidates . They obviously have an interest in concentrating their efforts on states that can win the most electoral votes. In theory it is possible to be elected President of the United States by having the majority that e in eleven states designating more voters: California (55), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27), Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), Georgia (15), New Jersey (15 ), North Carolina (15), which allows for 271 electoral votes needed on the 269.
In addition, candidates tend to neglect States who have a long tradition of voting for their camp (California, State of New York and the Northeast States for Democrats) (Texas and the Southern states and Midwest for the Republicans). They focus their campaign activities on the states whose vote is uncertain. In 2004 they spent together 54% of their investment in television advertising and 45% of their trips to three states (Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania) which only represent 14% of the total population (Source: Who Pick the President? A postponement by FairVote - The Center for Voting and Democracy's ). Since the mid-1990s, the number of states considered as uncertain and where s e conducted accordingly most of the campaign (so-called battleground , toss up or Swing States ) decreased and has grown from a dozen to twenty (Source: Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections, 4th edition ).
Map showing states where advertising spending has been most intense during the 2004 campaign. Source: FairVote. polarization between red states and blue states: a myth?
It seems that over the past two decades, the United States are more polarized with one side heavily Democratic states (Blue States) and another side of the heavily Republican states (Red States) . This geographical divide (between regions Democrats industrial and rural Republican) would reflect the social, religious or racial populations concerned. This polarization may appear surprising since many studies have shown that American voters tend to become more moderate and less attached to the Republican and Democratic parties. In Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America (New York: Pearson Longman, 2005), Morris Fiorina moreover questioned the idea of growing polarization. I can not detail all of his analysis here, but essentially Fiorina said that in terms of values and political attitudes (but not religious) Americans are less divided than is said and partisan divisions that truly are seen among the political elites and citizens involved. If one has the impression of a bias, it would be mostly an effect of the electoral boundaries (gerrymandering the ) which artificially increases the separation between Democratic and Republican constituencies. Incidentally, the myth of polarization have been supported by the media in that it simplifies and dramatizes the coverage of politics, presented as a confrontation between the two major parties.
Fiorina's book has sparked heated debate and numerous studies on the same theme. As often happens in political science research, some surveys have resulted in substantially different conclusions and affirmed the contrary the trend of increasing political polarization of the U.S. (in terms of geographical, social and even religious). For a good point about the issue, one may consult the special issue of The Forum, A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics , Vol. 3, Issue 2 (July 2005), whose summary is available HERE . (See especially the article by Alan Abramowitz and Kyle Saunders, one of the best in my eyes).
0 comments:
Post a Comment