THE U.S. POLITICAL SYSTEM AND THE 2014 MIDTERM ELECTION Hans Noel Georgetown University bit.ly/hansnoel hcn4@georgetown.edu @ProfHansNoel
THE U.S. POLITICAL SYSTEM AND THE 2014 MIDTERM ELECTION 1. The U.S. System and the U.K. System 2. What is at Stake? 3. Elections from a Political Science Perspective A prediction
THE U.S. POLITICAL SYSTEM FROM THE U.K. PERSPECTIVE
ELECTORAL SYSTEM GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM SMD vs. PR presidential vs. parliamentary USA: SMD UK: SMD USA: Presidential UK: Parliamentary!! Number of parties!! Separation of Powers
GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM
SEPARATION OF POWERS CONGRESS (Legislative) PRESIDENCY (Executive) SUPREME COURT (Judicial)
House of Commons House of Lords Prime Minister 650 members Directly elected by FPTP in constituencies Primary legislative power Currently 793 members Appointed, inherited, by virtue of other office Limited legislative power Sovereign appoints Support by House of Commons Head of Government House of Representatives Senate President 435 members Directly elected by FPTP in districts Shared legislative power 100 members Directly elected FPTP in states Shared legislative power Separate election Indirect Electoral College Head of Government+State
HOUSE SENATE Representation by population 2-year terms 435 members Majoritarian! Strong leadership Strong parties Committees important! Currently Republican 234 to 201 Representation by state Staggered 6-year terms 100 members Minority rights Filibuster and holds Consensus! Weaker committees No germaneness Currently Democratic 45 to 55
ELECTORAL SYSTEM
FIRST PAST THE POST PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION single-member districts multi-member districts plurality winner allocated by proportion. 30% of vote 30% of seats direct representation by district indirect representation by party two-parties multiple parties
DUVERGER S LAW The simple-majority single-ballot system favors the two-party system Single-Member Districts with Plurality Rule Two-Party Systems Proportional Representation Multiparty Systems More disproportional Fewer parties
'Effective' number of parties 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Belgium Italy Switzerland Netherlands Finland Norway Denmark Sweden Luxembourg Israel Iceland Germany Austria Ireland Japan Portugal Malta Spain Greece Papua New Guinea India Colombia Canada Australia Botswana New Zealand Venezuala Costa Rica Duverger s Law: The simple-majority single-ballot system favors the two-party system UK USA Trinidad & Tobago Bahamas Barbados Mauritius France Jamaica 0 5 10 15 20 Disproportionality Lijphart 1999, Vatter 2009
U.S. DISPROPORTIONALITY Seat Share First Past the Post Disproportionality at the aggregate level 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Top Two Parties Performance in U.S. House Elections MAJORITY IN HOUSE MINORITY 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Aggregate Popular Vote Share Electoral Vote Share Electoral College Exaggerates Disproportionality Single-member district (the presidency) Winner-take-all for each state 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Top Two Candidate s Performance in U.S. Presidential Elections WINNERS LOSERS 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Popular Vote Share
DEMOCRATIC PARTY Liberal (Left) REPUBLICAN PARTY Conservative (Right) ECONOMICS Labor, intervention Business, free market SOCIAL ISSUES Non-traditional, secular Traditional, religious RACE Pro-ethnic minorities Color-blind FOREIGN POLICY Multilateral Unilateral
WHAT IS AT STAKE?
DIVIDED GOVERNMENT PRESIDENT HOUSE SENATE 1852 1860 1868 1876 1884 1892 1900 1908 1916 1924 1932 1940 1948 1956 1964 1972 1980 1988 1996 2004 2012 DEM! GOP year Possible to have divided government President and Congress need to coordinate Gridlock Separation of Powers exacerbates conflict
AGENDA SETTERS VS VETO PLAYERS AGENDA SETTER NOT AN AGENDA SETTER VETO VETO AGENDA SETTER
SENATE Both Republican Both Democratic Split D & R Independent
SENATE Republican Republican Retiring Democrat Democrat Retiring No election
HOUSE Democrat Republican
GOVERNORS Republican Republican Retiring Democrat Democrat Retiring No election
ELECTIONS FROM A POLITICAL SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE
FORECASTING TECHNOLOGY
PREDICTIONS SCIENCE COBE mission. See also http://xkcd.com/54/, or http://store.xkcd.com/xkcd/#science
WHAT EXPLAINS VOTER BEHAVIOR? 1. Midterms are tied to the President! 2. Economic performance matters!
PRESIDENTS PARTIES LOSE President's Party's Seat Gain -70-60 -50-40 -30-20 -10 0 10 2002 1998 1962 1986 1990 1970 1978 1954 1982 1950 2006 1966 1958 1994 2010 1974
ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE 2002 1998 President's Party's Seat Gain -60-40 -20 0 2010 1994 1986 1990 1982 2006 1962 1970 1978 1966 1950-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 % Change in RDI
ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE 2014 2002 1998 President's Party's Seat Gain -60-40 -20 0 2010 1994 1986 1990 1982 2006 1962 1970 1978 1966 1950-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 % Change in RDI
PRESIDENT S APPROVAL 2002 1998 President's Party's Seat Gain -60-40 -20 0 1978 1982 1950 2006 1966 1994 2010 1990 1970 1974 1958 1962 1986 1954 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 President's Approval over Labor Day
PRESIDENT S APPROVAL 2014 2002 1998 President's Party's Seat Gain -60-40 -20 0 1978 1982 1950 2006 1966 1994 2010 1990 1970 1974 1958 1962 1986 1954 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 President's Approval over Labor Day
THE MONKEY CAGE FORECAST
THE MONKEY CAGE FORECAST
THE MONKEY CAGE FORECAST
THE MONKEY CAGE FORECAST
Status Quo 234 to 201 45 to 55 Noel The Monkey Cage The Upshot Nate Silver Cook House 100% probability R Dems lose 25 seats 99% probability R Dems lose 6 seats 16 tossup seats 241 to 204-257 to 188 Senate 53% probability R 51 to 49 61% probability R 52 to 48 64% probability R 52 to 48 9 tossup seats 43 to 57-52 to 48
THANK YOU Hans Noel Georgetown University bit.ly/hansnoel hcn4@georgetown.edu @ProfHansNoel