Federal Election Proceedings

This is the reverse of the previous question. Not every primary is “open;” many of them are “closed.” Closed primaries, much as the name suggests, are closed off from anyone who is not a registered party member. The advantages of closed primaries are legion: there can be no cross-voting, voting tends to be more cohesive and less scattered, etc. The disadvantages of closed primaries are also significant, however, grass-roots voting at this particular level tends to bring out the most extreme and the least representative of the party.

This is the flipside of question 7. Primary is the correct answer. Remember: primaries are procedurally virtually indistinguishable from any other election; participants cast secret ballots for the candidates of their choice. Primaries, as distinguished from caucuses, are a little less grass-roots, and are generally much quicker. Their efficiency likely is one of the reason that primaries are now more popular than caucuses for determining presidential nominees.

The Electoral College currently has 538 members, one for each member of Congress (Senators and Representatives), as well as three electors representing the District of Columbia. The Electoral College is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, but instead the Constitution simply mentions that the President will be chosen by electors "apportioned by State legislatures." However, the Electoral College has been largely present in its present form since the eighteenth century, with the three DC electors being added by the Twenty Third Amendment (1961).

This question is slightly tricky, but actually easy if you remember your presidents. If you remember who was elected president in 1824 (J.Q. Adams) you don’t even have to remember what the corrupt bargain was!

That said, let’s discuss the so-called “corrupt bargain.” The background to this scene is full of fairly convoluted political history that we will, for the most part, not cover in depth. Essentially, what happens is there are four contenders for the presidency, as follows (the number of Electoral College votes follow each in parentheses): 1. Andrew Jackson (99); 2. J.Q. Adams (84); 3. William H. Crawford (41); 4. Henry Clay (not enough to matter).

While it may seem that Jackson should have won outright (indeed—he received 43% of the popular vote), he failed to achieve a majority in the Electoral College (remember: the EC elects the president!). In fact, NO candidate managed to achieve a majority in the EC, thus the top three contenders (Jackson, Adams, and Crawford) get thrown into the House of Representatives (why is that?).

Here, Clay comes into play. First, and most importantly, Clay was the Speaker of the House—a VERY influential position. Second, he hated Jackson and would pretty much do anything to make sure he didn’t win. So, Clay being the crafty man that he was, struck a deal with Adams: Clay would drum up enough support in the House to elect Adams as president, and in return, Adams would appoint Clay as Secretary of State (then seen as a stepping-stone to the Presidency).

Lo and behold! Adams wins the vote in the House of Representatives, is elected president, and quickly appoints Clay as his Secretary of State. Somewhat \[un\]surprisingly, Jacksonians were displeased with this result, hence the moniker “corrupt bargain.”

This is a relatively interesting subtopic of presidential politics. Presidents are allowed to fund up to a certain amount of their campaign by using public funds (they are set aside/budgeted). If, however, they decide to use public funds, they must agree to an overall cap on the amount of money that they will expend, and they cannot accept any private donations. In other words, if the President opts-in, his campaign will be capped at a certain amount, and he may not solicit donations.

Hard money is money given by a donor or source directly to a candidate to fund his or her campaign. Soft money is money that is given instead to the party to indirectly fund the campaign of one or more people. Soft money is now, by and large, illegal.

When Presidential candidates select a running-mate, they are highly likely to emphasize picking someone who balances the ticket and will appeal to a wider spectrum of voters. So, a highly liberal Democratic candidate might pick a running-mate who is extremely well-regarded by Conservatives and falls close to the middle of the political spectrum. They also may be often be seen as more superficial choices. Recent classic examples of superficial running-mate choices include President Obama and Joe Biden (young and black; old and white) and John McCain and Sarah Palin (old and male; young and female).

This is a trick question. A presidential candidate (PC) doesn’t win, well, anything based off of popular vote. The PC wins the office if and only if that PC obtains a majority in the Electoral College (EC). In fact, there have been a few times where a PC won the popular vote and lost the election! Take, for example, the election of 1888 (Grover Cleveland v. Benjamin Harrison). Cleveland wins the popular vote, but loses to Harrison in the Electoral College. How is this possible?! Well, it’s a relatively weird function of our voting system.

Let’s pretend that every state uses a “winner-take-all” Electoral College system. In other words, if a candidate wins the vote percentage in that state, that candidate wins ALL of the electors (let’s say 10) rather than a percentage based off of the number of votes received. So: Candidate 1: 40% of the votes; Candidate 2: 60% of the votes. Candidate 2 gets all 10 electors, even though she didn’t win 100% of the vote. Now let’s switch that. Pretend that we have a proportional system. So, same percentages, but: Candidate 1: 4 electors; candidate 2: 6 electors. Do you see the difference?

Now, pretend every state uses winner-take-all. Assume further that all of the smallest states vote 100% in opposition to Candidate X, and all of the biggest states vote 50.1% FOR candidate X, and 49.9% in opposition. Let’s go a little further. Pretend there are 10 states; 5 tiny (three EC votes each) and 5 massive (20 EC votes each). That’s a total of 115 EC votes, so any candidate must get 58 (rounding up) to win. Each tiny state has 100 people in it, for 500 people total. Each massive state has 1,000 people in it, for 5,000 people total. Assume that everyone is of voting age, and that everyone votes, giving us a grand total of 5,500 voting.

Now, tally the popular votes. Votes FOR candidate X: 2,505 (.501 * 5000). Votes AGAINST candidate X: 2,995 \[(.499 * 5000) + 500\]. X loses the popular vote by a pretty hefty margin (over 400 votes).

Now, look at the EC. Votes FOR candidate X: 100 votes (bare majority of every massive state, so (20 * 5)). Votes AGAINST candidate X: 15 (all tiny states, so (5 * 3)).

X gets DESTROYED in the popular vote, but sweeps the EC and wins the presidency. Pretty crazy, right?

If you know how the number of electors per state is calculated, then you know the answer (3). Remember: each state is entitled to, at the very least, 3 electors. Why? Because the number of electors per state is equal to the number of senators per state + the number of house members. How many senators does CA have? 2. How about ME? 2. Every state, no matter how big or how small, has 2 senators. Period. The only variable in this equation is the number of house members. Remember: the number of house members is calculated based off of population relative to every other state. That said, the absolute lowest number of house members you can possibly have is 1. See, e.g., Alaska. Thus, the lowest number of electors a state can possibly have is 3.

The amount of votes in the Electoral College correspond to the members of the House of Representatives, the Senators, and the electors from the District of Columbia. The votes do not correspond to an amount of registered voters.