Grisby - fragment 217 - 228

In running for the presidency in 1992, Clinton’s campaign strategies included the following:

On October 3, 1991, Clinton officially declared himself a presidential can- didate. He had
already forged strong links to the Democratic Leadership Council, a group advocating
centrism rather than liberalism as the best strategy for Democrats. Presenting himself as a
moderate, Clinton began a long campaign of directing his appeals to broad groups of voters
and reminding them that during George Bush’s presidency, the economy had declined on
many fronts—in lost jobs, bank crises, increases in unemploy- ment, and declining
corporate profits.

Used masterfully by Ronald Reagan in his presidential campaigns in the 1980s, dial groups
are groups assembled to watch a video of a candidate and turn a dial to a position between 0
and 100 to indicate opposition or approval to the candidate as the candidate speaks. These
data can then be analyzed to reveal what typical Americans like or dislike about a
candidate’s presentation. Using focus and dial groups, the Clinton campaign carefully
modified the content and style of Clinton’s speeches to appeal to the tastes of the public.

In late summer through early fall of 1992, Clinton overtook Bush in public opinion polls, in
presidential debates.

On November 3, Clinton beat Bush by winning 43 percent of the popular vote (and 370
electoral college votes) to Bush’s 38 percent of the popular vote (and 168 electoral college
votes) and Perot’s 19 percent of the popular vote (and no electoral college votes). Exit polls
of voters revealed that the major issue for voters in the election was the poor state of the
economy.

The 1996 presidential election was one in which Clinton reused the 1992 strategy of trying
to appeal to a broad group of middle-of-the-road voters. more than half of those voting said
they doubted Clinton’s integrity and truthfulness. It appears that a large segment of the
electorate agreed with Bush’s and Dole’s charges against Clinton’s character but just as
firmly believed Clinton’s economic performance was more important than his ethical
missteps.

An examination of the above presidential elections reveals various important features of

U.S. elections. First, election strategies are influenced heavily by election rules concerning
the counting of votes. Presidential candidates have to develop strategies based on whether
votes were counted according to plurality or majority rules, popular or electoral college vote
rules, or alternative rules.

Presidential elections are decided by electoral college votes, not popular votes. The electoral
college consists of a group of people who vote officially for president and vice president. To
win the presidency, a candidate must receive a majority (270) of electoral college votes. The
number of a state’s electoral college votes equals the number of senators plus
representatives in that state. The presidential candidate who wins the popular vote of a state
receives all the state’s electoral college votes, with the exception of Maine and Nebraska,
which split electoral college votes among candidates based on each candidate’s popular
vote.

Second, election strategies are based on candidate perceptions of voter decision making. - -
—The sociological cleavages perspective emphasizes that voting decisions are sometimes
affected by one’s membership in certain groups.

- The retrospective voting perspective on voter decision making suggests that voters
sometimes make up their minds by looking at the present and/or past performance of
candidates or parties and then either reward or penalize those candidates or parties on the
basis of this performance.

In some elections, some groups of voters seem to be influenced by prospective voting

considerations. A voter who makes his or her decision on a rational assessment of probable
future benefits is a prospective voter.

Third, election strategies are based on candidates’ knowledge that not everyone who is
eligible to vote will vote. Nonvoting occurs more frequently among the members of the
population who are economically disadvantaged and who have low levels of education.

In some states, one finds examples of alternative voting rules. For example, cumulative
voting - voters cast as many votes as there are offices to be filled; voters can combine their
votes for a single candidate or split their votes among two or more candidates. Among the
candidates, the top vote recipients are the winners. Cumulative voting provides an
opportunity for minorities (who can combine their votes around a single candidate) to
succeed in getting candidates they favor elected to office.

A single transferable vote (STV) rule is used in city council elections in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, and in some community school board elections in New York City. Under this
rule, voters can rank candidates on the ballot as first, second, third, and so on hoices; when
all votes are counted, second, third, and so on choices are taken into account to reward
candidates other than first-place winners.121 The significance of cumulative voting and
single transferable voting is related to the fact that both systems offer an alternative to the
‘‘winner take all’’ dimension of SMP rules and allow smaller segments of voting
populations to compete more successfully with majorities.

Very significantly, the PR - proportional representation - system is more conducive to the

emergence of multiple parties than is the SMP system. Like PR measurements, STV systems
tend to be more supportive of smaller parties than are SMP systems.

Democracies are also notable for the variations in voter turnout in elections and for the
attendant rules governing timing, scheduling, registration, propor- tional representation, and
compulsory voting in elections.

Political scientists have found that voter turnout in elections is often related to the following
factors: TIMING, SCHEDULING, REGISTRATION, PR MEASUREMENTS OF THE
VOTE, COMPULSORY VOTING.