Project #1:  Political Parties and Their Platforms
Project #2:  The 1994 Elections...  Realignment at Last?
Project #3:  The Challenge of Increasing Voter Turnout
Project #4:  Term Limits:  Right Time or Wrong Idea?
Project #5:   The Politics of Presidential Selection
Project #6:   The Politics of Campaign Finance Reform in the 90s

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROJECT #1:   Political Parties and Their Platforms

Why Study Party Platforms?

"Party platforms are not binding upon their candidates or their followers, and they sometimes mask more than they reveal," as one scholar, Paul Allen Beck, reminds us. "Nonetheless," he writes, "they do express the sentiments of the national party conventions, about what the parties stand for at a particular time, and in this sense, serve as a valuable encapsulation of the party positions on issues of the day."

The Issues

Your task in this project will be to identify major differences between the Democratic and Republican parties along a range of important national concerns, including:

Discussion Questions

  1. What differences do you find between the Democratic and Republican party platforms on each issue?  How important are these differences?
  1. Political observers typically describe the Democratic Party as "liberal" and the Republican Party as "conservative."  Based on each party's description of their policy positions, develop your own brief definition of what these labels mean.

Internet Resources

HINT:  Using the "find" command in your browser to locate keywords will help. 

PROJECT #2: The 1994 Elections... Realignment at Last?

Heading into the 1994 mid-term elections the Democratic Party was the dominant party in American politics.  Democrats controlled the presidency, both houses of Congress, 30 governorships, and two-thirds of state legislative chambers.  By the end of Election Day on November 8, 1994, however, a remarkable sweep was under way.  Republicans gained 8 seats in the U.S. Senate and 52 in the House of Representatives, as well as many statewide offices and legislatures, beating Democratic candidates nationwide by roughly 52 to 45 percent of the vote.  So large were Republicans gains that some political pundits likened it to an "earthquake," a "meteor strike," or a "tidal wave."   Others, such as Walter Dean Burnham, went still further, declaring it "the most consequential off-year election in (exactly) 100 years," bearing "many characteristics of an old-style partisan critical realignment" (p. 363).

Your task in this project is to explore and debate the utility of realignment theory in light of recent events and to discuss its implications for the years ahead.

Discussion Questions

  1. In your opinion, do the events of the last few years fit the traditional realignment mold? Why or why not?
  1. Within the context of realignment theory how significant is the candidacy of Ross Perot?  Was his declining support in 1996 evidence of a realignment averted?
  1. In an article titled "Realignment Lives:  The 1994 Earthquake and Its Implications," Burnham writes that "Whoever wins or loses in and after 1996, the shape of American politics will very probably never be the same again."   Given the reelection of Bill Clinton and a victory for the status-quo, do you agree?
  1. In the end, Burnham suggests that 1994 resuscitated the sagging study of partisan realignment. "Those who have stressed partisan dealignment will now have to consider how this abrupt emergence of something remarkably like an old-fashioned partisan election fits their models," he writes. "And those who have placed their bets on the argument that critical-realignment analysis is irrelevant to this modern candidate-driven electoral universe will have to reconsider their position" (p. 370). How might you respond? If 1994 did not precipitate a realignment, how else might you account for the sharp break from equilibrium we have seen?

Internet Resources

PROJECT #3:  Motorize or Mobilize?  The Challenge of Increasing Voter Turnout

The 1996 presidential election was a clear victory for the incumbent Democrat, Bill Clinton. Still, with voter turnout falling to 49.1%—the lowest level on record since 1924—some political pundits considered it to be a loss for American democracy. Your task in this project is to evaluate recent efforts at encouraging political participation, chief among them the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), better known as "Motor Voter."

Discussion Questions

  1. How does "Motor Voter" work? What changes in voter registration does the act mandate? Is the act targeted to reach certain non-voters in particular?
  1. By mobilizing uninterested and uninformed voters, do "Motor Voter" strategies make it too easy to vote? Does the law represent the "dumbing down of democracy?"
  1. How have the political parties reacted to NVRA? Is expanded registration likely to affect one party more than the other? Why?
  1. Proponents of the "Motor Voter" approach argue that it "enables citizens to gain easier access to voting by removing a significant barrier to voter registration." Given that registration has increased significantly since the law went into effect in 1995 do you agree that it is likely to increase voter turnout in the future? Why or why not?
  1. Finally, considering both the institutional and social-psychological barriers to voting we discussed in class, devise an alternative plan that might increase voter turnout. Be creative!

Internet Resources


PROJECT #4:  Term Limits:   Right Time or Wrong Idea?

With continued gridlock, low turnover, and high rates of incumbency, the institution of Congress has been much maligned in recent years. Your task in this project is to examine recent trends towards reform that focus on limiting the number of terms a member of Congress can hold in office.

Keep in mind that for supporters of term limits, the 1994 election capped an astounding run of ballot-box successes. Since 1990, voters in 21 states, from Maine to California, have overwhelmingly approved ballot measures that limit members of Congress to 12 years of office or less. While these state initiatives were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1995 by a 5-4 vote, the term-limit movement has vowed to fight back by proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to be ratified by the states.

Discussion Questions

  1. Are term limits needed to increase competitiveness in congressional elections? Might other reforms be more successful—including redistricting, an active recruitment of quality challengers, and campaign finance reform?
  1. Would term limits improve the performance of Congress as an institution? How might it influence the behavior of individual legislators?
  1. How would term limits affect the attractiveness of holding office? Would it benefit Democrats or Republicans more? Might such laws increase the political representation of women and minorities?
  1. By encouraging inexperienced "citizen-legislators" to run for political office, would term limits cause Congress to lose power to the president, special interest groups, or its own staff?
  1. Will Republican support of term limitations change now that the GOP is in control of both houses of Congress for the first time in four decades? Was the Republicans’ political impasse in Congress the real driving force behind the term-limit movement?

Internet Resources

PROJECT #5:  The Politics of Presidential Selection

In a famous essay called "Why Great Men Are Not Chosen President" (1888), James Bryce argued that the party system was to blame. Party bosses, he said, were concerned only with the winning of office and so chose their nominees strategically rather than on the objective basis of merit and skill. Nearly a century later with parties in decline, an American scholar, James McGregor Burns, responded to Bryce with a chapter of his own titled "Why Great Men Are Chosen President (1965), arguing instead that the office of the Presidency brings out greatness in men. Your task in this project is to examine the politics of the presidential selection process, keeping in mind that that process will ultimately shape and inform our "Search for the Perfect President."

Discussion Questions

  1. In his defense of the presidential selection process, Burns (1965) writes that the presidential campaign is a kind of training ground, testing men for the very qualities they must display in the White House. Campaigns, he says, "ruthlessly cast aside aspirants who cannot organize a large campaign organization, who cannot bargain with other leaders, who cannot appeal to the mass of voters, who cannot spell out their programs, who cannot hold their tempers and keep their sense of humor. The whole presidential selection system is almost ideally suited for the selection of men who can become great in the White House." Do you agree or disagree and why?
  1. How might you assess the quality of men who have been elected to the Presidency in recent years? Is it a string of good luck that has elevated potentially great men—such as Lincoln and Roosevelt—to the Presidency? Does our selection process have anything to do with it? Could those same men be elected under the fierce media scrutiny candidates face today?
  1. Finally, some political pundits argue that the system is to blame. America gets bad presidents, they say, because it gets bad candidates, and it gets bad candidates because they are chosen chiefly in a series of primary elections in which voters put a premium on superficial qualities conveyed through the media of television, with little consideration given to the qualities needed to run the most powerful country in the world. Does Burns’ optimism need to be reconsidered in light of recent changes in mass media and campaign technology?
  1. When judging presidential candidates, to what extent should personal character be a consideration? Are allegations of adultery, draft-dodging, or past drug use, for example, legitimate reasons for voters to turn their backs on a political candidate, or is strong moral leadership a quality that voters should demand more often?

Internet Resources


PROJECT #6:  If It Isn't Broken... Or Is It?  Campaignn Finance Reform in the 90s

Without doubt, running for political office today is expensive. It typically costs $500,000 to run for a single seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, and Senate elections often run into the millions. In the 1992 presidential campaign, total spending by candidates, parties, and interest groups in the general election alone exceeded a half a billion dollars! Critics of campaign finance, who wish to limit political contributions and spending, are quick to argue that our current system is careening out of control. They say:

On the other hand, opponents of reform say contribution and spending limits hamper candidates, and hurt rather than help the political system. Some politicians, including Newt Gingrich and Lamar Alexander, have even argued that limits should be removed and that more spending, not less, is necessary to ensure competitive elections. Your task in this project is to examine both sides of this continuing debate over campaign finance reform.

Discussion Questions

  1. Money is essential to campaigning in contemporary American politics in that it allows candidates to communicate with voters. But are we spending too much money on political campaigns?
  1. Does money "buy" elections? Do interest groups gain too much influence by making contributions to candidates’ campaigns?
  1. Who does campaign finance reform benefit more—incumbents or challengers? Why?
  1. Should Congress approve public campaign financing or other subsidies for congressional candidates, similar to laws that now fund presidential campaigns?

Internet Resources