3210615 the long campaign us election 2008

8/8/2019 3210615 the Long Campaign Us Election 2008

1/52


2/52

International Information Programs:

Coordinator Jeremy F. Curtin

Executive Editor Jonathan Margolis

Creative Director George Clack

Editor-in-Chief Richard W. Huckaby

Managing Editor Anita N. Green

Production Manager Christian Larson

Assistant Production Manager Sylvia Scott

Web Producer Janine Perry

Copy Editor Rosalie Targonski

Photo Editor Maggie J. Sliker

Cover Design Timothy Brown

Reference Specialist Anita N. Green

The Bureau of International Information Programs of the

U.S. Department of State publishes a monthly electronicjournal under the eJournal USAlogo. These journalsexamine major issues facing the United States and theinternational community, as well as U.S. society, values,thought, and institutions.

One new journal is published monthly in English and isfollowed by versions in French, Portuguese, Russian, andSpanish. Selected editions also appear in Arabic, Chinese,and Persian. Each journal is catalogued by volume andnumber.

The opinions expressed in the journals do not necessarilyreflect the views or policies of the U.S. government. TheU.S. Department of State assumes no responsibility forthe content and continued accessibility of Internet sitesto which the journals link; such responsibility residessolely with the publishers of those sites. Journal articles,photographs, and illustrations may be reproduced andtranslated outside the United States unless they carryexplicit copyright restrictions, in which case permissionmust be sought from the copyright holders noted in the

journal.

The Bureau of International Information Programsmaintains current and back issues in several electronicformats, as well as a list of upcoming journals, at http://usinfo.state.gov/pub/ejournalusa.html. Comments are

welcome at your local U.S. Embassy or at the editorialoffices:

Editor, eJournal USAIIP/PUBJU.S. Department of State301 4th Street, SW

Washington, DC 20547United States of AmericaE-mail: [email protected]

eJOURNAL USA

Cover photo:

A father in Ohio, holding his son, uses an electronic voting machine to voteduring the 2006 election. AP Images/Amy Sancetta

Volume 12, Number 10


3/52

In a true democracy, people are free to disagree. As we

enter the 2008 election cycle, we will see candidates,voters, pollsters, and pundits agree and disagree on

just about everything. Do voters choose the presidentbased on issues or leadership qualities? Does the ElectoralCollege work or should the election system be changed?Do political polls mean anything months before anelection?

Far ahead of the November 2008 elections,campaigning was well underway, the presidentialcandidates had already held several debates, campaignads were popping up, and poll results were citedfrequently. In the 2008 elections, U.S. voters will have

the opportunity to vote for president and vice president,congressional representatives, state and local officials,and ballot initiatives. There is much at stake. As severalwriters point out in this journal, this is the first electionin 80 years with no incumbent president or vice presidentrunning for office. Political experts Charlie Cook andJerry Hagstrom provide insights to set the scene. In a veryopen field, with 18 presidential candidates in the race asthis journal goes to press, no one ventures to predict awinner.

The presidential election is just part of the story. Inthe U.S. system of divided government, the outcomeof congressional elections will determine how successfulthe next president will be in carrying out his or heragenda. Professor of government L. Sandy Maiseldescribes the role of Congress and the potential impact ofcongressional elections.

Democratic pollster Daniel Gotoff tells us whatopinion polls reveal about voters attitudes towardthe 2008 election and how current hot-button issuesmight play out over the election cycle. Republicanpollster Kellyanne Conway looks at women voters, theimportance of their vote in the next election, and the

issues women care about.

Three experts share their perspectives on the medias

role in election campaigns. Long-time Washington Postpolitical reporter Jim Dickenson gives a first-personaccount of a day in the life of a reporter covering theelection. Internet guru Andy Carvin describes howcitizen journalism, blogs, Internet fundraising, and socialnetworking sites have affected the political process and,therefore, cannot be ignored in the 2008 election cycle.Pollster John Zogby discusses the value of informationacquired through public opinion polls.

Finally, we take a look at the process. Is the U.S.system of elections perfect? Of course not no system isperfect. Jan Witold Baran describes legislation designed to

correct problems associated with campaign finance. TheElectoral College, the state-by-state voting system underwhich American presidents are elected, has been debatedthroughout its history; experts Ross K. Baker and JamieRaskin present arguments for and against the systemsusefulness. Paul S. DeGregorio, former chair of the U.S.Election Assistance Commission, discusses efforts toimprove state election processes.

What is the story of the 2008 U.S. election? Theelection is a fresh start, an opportunity for voters to goto the polls and vote their beliefs. The election system isa work-in-progress, but concerned Americans can and doget on the Internet and organize, register to vote, donateto their candidate, host meet-the-candidate coffees,become local elections poll watchers or judges, and workactively in many ways to make the system better.

The Editors

About This Issue

eJOURNAL USA 1


4/52

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE / OCTOBER 2007 / VOLUME 12 / NUMBER 10

http://usinfo.state.gov/pub/ejournalusa.html

How the Internet Is Changing thePlaying Field

ANDYCARVIN, FORMERDIRECTOR, DIGITAL DIVIDE

NETWORK

Political candidates and private citizens use onlinetechnology to influence voters in innovative ways.

New Voting Technology: Problem orSolution?PAUL S. DEGREGORIO, FORMERCHAIR, U.S.

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

As electronic voting systems move into themainstream of election administration, democraciesmust ensure that all citizens can vote freely, easily,and securely.

Voting for the First TimeREBECCAZEIFMAN, BUREAUOF INTERNATIONAL

INFORMATION PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENTOF

STATE

Two young Americans talk about casting their ballotsfor the first time and what voting means to them.

Congressional ElectionsL. SANDYMAISEL, PROFESSOROF GOVERNMENT,

COLBYCOLLEGE, WATERVILLE, MAINE

As the legislative branch of the U.S. government,Congress shares decision-making authority with thepresident, and the results of congressional electionsare important to U.S. policy making.

The Changing U.S. VoterDANIEL GOTOFF, PARTNER, LAKE RESEARCH

PARTNERS, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Recent polls reveal the concerns, beliefs, andsentiments of U.S. citizens as they approach the2008 election, and results indicate that Americans arelooking for change.

Women Voters in the United StatesKELLYANNE CONWAY, PRESIDENTAND CHIEF

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THEPOLLINGCOMPANY,INC.,

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Comprising more than half of the U.S. electorate,women significantly influence election outcomes,and, contrary to some opinion, polls show that womencare about a variety of issues.

14

17

20

eJOURNAL USA 2

4

8

12

THE LONG CAMPAIGNU.S. ELECTIONS 2008


5/52

Covering the Presidential Campaign:The View from the Press BusJIM DICKENSON, POLITICAL REPORTER, THE

WASHINGTONPOST

A veteran journalist describes life on the road with a

presidential candidate, from 6 a.m. departures to 11p.m. briefings.

Political Polls: Why We Just Cant LiveWithout ThemJOHN ZOGBY, PRESIDENT, ZOGBYINTERNATIONAL,

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Polls reveal much more than which candidates maybe ahead in the race for citizens votes. They alsodelve into voters values and concerns about currentissues.

A Fresh StartAN INTERVIEWWITH CHARLIE COOK, EDITORAND

PUBLISHER, THECOOKPOLITICAL REPORT, AND JERRY

HAGSTROM, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, THENATIONAL

JOURNAL

Two political experts discuss the unique aspects ofthe 2008 U.S. presidential election.

How the 2008 U.S. Elections Will BeFinancedJAN WITOLD BARAN, PARTNER, WILEYREIN LLP,

WASHINGTON, D.C.

The Federal Election Commission highly regulatesthe raising and spending of money in politicalcampaigns, and candidates must decide how best toallocate available funds and whether or not to acceptpublic financing.

Has the Electoral College Outlived ItsUsefulness?

Two scholars debate the pros and cons of theElectoral College, the system by which the UnitedStates chooses its president.

The Electoral College: Still Useful in the 21st

CenturyROSS K. BAKER, PROFESSOROF POLITICAL

SCIENCE, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY, NEW

BRUNSWICK, NEWJERSEY

Lets Use the Electoral College to Give theUnited States a National Popular Vote forPresidentJAMIE RASKIN, MARYLAND STATE SENATORAND

PROFESSOROF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW,AMERICAN

UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Bibliography

Internet Resources

24

28

31

36

47

46

40

eJOURNAL USA 3

Online video

A Fresh StartAn IIP Video Conversation with Charlie Cook andJerry Hagstrom

Local Governments Conduct All Electionsin U.S.

VOA News Video

Presidential Candidates Show NewDiversity

VOA News Video

Where Do Rural People Fit Into the 2008

Election?A Center for Rural Strategies video(Used With Permission)

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/1007/ijde/ijde1007.htm


6/52

How the Internet Is Changing thePlaying Field

Andy Carvin

The Internet has revolutionized communication over thelast decade, bringing people together for every imaginablepurpose. The author discusses several online innovations thathave come into play in the political arena, as candidatesand even more creatively citizens use technologyto influence voters. Andy Carvin is former director of theDigital Divide Network[www.digitaldivide.net] and writesa blog called Learning.now for the Public BroadcastingService[www.pbs.org].

The 2008 U.S. general election will no doubt bea watershed year in American history but notnecessarily because of any particular candidate or

policy. As has been the case in recent election cycles, theInternet has become a potent political tool in terms ofcampaigning, fundraising, and civic engagement. Whatis making this particular election cycle so interesting,though, is that much of the innovation taking place isnt

being done by the campaigns or the politicians but by theAmerican public.

Internet access is by no means a new phenomenonin the United States. Beginning in the mid-1990s,millions of Americans have acquired Internet access andtechnology skills, whether at home, at work, or at school.According to a June 2007 report from the Pew Internetand American Life Project, 71 percent of all Americanadults had Internet access at home, while nearly 50

percent of adults had high-speed broadband access.Similarly, the vast majority of U.S. public schools andlibraries are online. There are still gaps in terms of accessand skills among disenfranchised populations, particularlywhen it comes to education and income levels, as wellas among the elderly, people with disabilities, and ethnicminorities. But the general trend over the last decade hasbeen significant growth in Internet penetration.

As the American public first began to go online,much of the content available over the Internet was

Democratic presidential hopefuls Mike Gravel, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson,

Joseph Biden, and Dennis Kucinich listen to a question from the Reverend Reggie Longcrier of Hickory, North Carolina,

as they participate in the debate sponsored by CNN, YouTube, and Google at The Citadel militar y college in Charleston,South Carolina in July 2007.

APImages/CharlesDharapak

eJOURNAL USA 4
http://www.digitaldivide.net/%22%20/o%20%22http://www.digitaldivide.net/http://www.pbs.org/%22%20/o%20%22http://www.pbs.org/%22%20/t%20%22_blankhttp://www.pbs.org/%22%20/o%20%22http://www.pbs.org/%22%20/t%20%22_blankhttp://www.digitaldivide.net/%22%20/o%20%22http://www.digitaldivide.net/


7/52

produced by professionals or people with technologicalexpertise. Online publishing required prerequisitetechnological skills, as well as the ability to produce largeamounts of polished content. In particular, audio andvideo online was generally considered the realm of major

media outlets.This did not mean, however, that the Internet was

devoid of content produced by the public. Starting in thelate 1990s, an ever-growing number of people began topublish their own personal journals, or Web logs, aboutthe daily goings-on of their lives. Some were interesting;many of them werent. But the idea of Web logs, or blogs,struck enough of a nerve with some online developersthat they began to design tools to make it easier foranyone to publish text online. This phenomenon quicklydeveloped its own terminology, among which Web2.0 and social media have become some of the most

common ways of describing these trends.

VIRTUAL COMMUNITIES

A growing number of Internet users also beganparticipating in online communities. These communitieswere not a new phenomenon by any means e-mailgroups and online bulletin board communities havebeen around since the 1970s but as Internet usebecame more mainstream, the types of groups beingformed online became mainstream as well. Rather thanbeing dominated by technology-oriented groups, peoplestarted forming online communities around geographiccommunities, such as towns or neighborhoods, as wellas communities of interest, like hobbies or professionalassociations.

By the early 2000s, blogging, in particular, had takenoff in earnest, with thousands of people creating theirown blogs. In a matter of years, those thousands wouldbecome millions. It didnt take long for some people topublish diaries around political issues. Soon bloggers wererallying the troops around like-minded political causesor candidates. They also began to use online community

tools to coordinate interaction among each other.One of the best-known early examples of thesegrassroots online communities or netroots as theyrealso known is the Howard Dean presidential campaignof 2004. Previously considered by the media and politicalpundits as a third-tier candidate, Dean galvanizedenormous support online through the use of blogs, masse-mail campaigns, and online community discussions.Soon Dean was receiving political support, includingcampaign contributions, from thousands of people

around the country. As his online profile increased,mainstream media outlets began covering him moreas well, taking notice of his fundraising successes andnetroots popularity. Almost out of nowhere, he becamea political force to be reckoned with. Though ultimately

he lost the Democratic Party nomination, his successfulonline organizing techniques helped develop an onlineinfrastructure of liberal activists prepared to mobilizearound other causes.

Other netroots campaigns predated the Deancampaign and continue to this day. For example, thefounders of a San Francisco-area software company begane-mailing friends and colleagues in 1997, asking themto urge their elected officials to end the impeachmentprocess against then President Bill Clinton and to moveon to other policy issues. The e-mail campaign resonatedso well that their friends and colleagues started passing

along the e-mails to other people. Over time, this smallcampaign organized itself into an ongoing public policyorganization focused on progressive causes, in particularending the war in Iraq. MoveOn.org is now one of themost powerful political action committees in America,with millions of Internet users participating in their e-mail-based political campaigns.

UGC AND SOCIAL NETWORKS

By the 2006 congressional elections, there were twonew Internet trends that presented examples of thingsto come during the 2008 cycle. First, weve witnessed anexplosion of whats often described as user-generatedcontent, or UGC. UGC is essentially any type of onlinematerial produced by amateurs, including text, photos,audio, and video. One internationally known example of

YouTube, a video-sharing ser vice on the Internet, is playing a role in

politics in the United States.

APImages/CameronBloch

eJOURNAL USA 5


8/52

UGC is the footage of Saddam Husseins execution, shoton a mobile phone. While the Iraqi government releasedan official piece of video documenting the preparationsfor the execution, it was the user-generated content, shotby an onlooker at the execution, that caused worldwideheadlines.

There is no shortage of user-generated content onthe Internet, thanks to Web sites that specialize in sharingmultimedia content, such as YouTube (for video) andFlickr (for photography). According to research publishedin 2006 by the Pew Internet and American Life Project,approximately 40 million Americans had published someform of UGC online, while one in seven U.S. Internetusers maintained a blog.

During the 2006 election cycle, no incident capturedthe power of UGC more than the so-called macacamoment.

While campaigning for reelection, Virginia SenatorGeorge Allen was regularly followed by a young man

named S.R. Sidarth, who was working for the campaignof his challenger, Jim Webb. Sidarths role was to recordAllens public appearances on video, in order to captureeverything he said publicly, in case it could be used bythe Webb campaign. On a campaign visit in August ofthat year, Allen publicly acknowledged Sidarths presenceto participants at the rally, referring to Sidarth on twooccasions as Macaca. Sidarth, who is of Indian descent,posted the video clip of Allens comments on YouTube andother Web sites, where it was soon viewed by hundreds

of thousands of Internet users.Soon the video became a majorcampaign issue, as Allen had tofend off charges that the wordmacaca, which is a genus of

primate, was used in a raciallyderogatory way. Allen apologizedand maintained that the wordheld no derogatory meaning tohim. Later that November, Allenlost his reelection bid by a narrowvote, and many commentatorsspeculated that the user-generatedcontent shot by Sidarth played arole in Jim Webbs defeat of Allen.

User-generated contentprobably would never have

become a major force in onlinepolitics if it werent for a secondimportant trend: the growth ofonline social networks. Online

communities have been around since the earliest daysof the Internet. But in the last several years, the numberand size of online communities have grown significantlyas technology improved and made it easier for users toupload their own content and interact with each other.Sites such as MySpace and Facebook expanded from nichecommunities used by teenagers and college students toonline powerhouses with tens of millions of members.According to a July 2007 report from Ipsos Inc., 24percent of U.S. Internet users have participated in a socialnetwork within the previous month, while one-third of allonline users have downloaded video. Candidates duringthe 2006 races took advantage of these trends by creatingpersonal online profiles on major social networking sites,while some uploaded campaign ads and other multimediamaterials as well.

ONLINE INNOVATIONSFOR 2008

The 2006 election cycle was just a sampling of whatwe would see for 2008. Since the previous presidentialelection campaign, would-be candidates began to takesocial networking one step further by creating socialnetworks dedicated specifically to their campaigns. Inparticular, Democratic candidates Barack Obama and JohnEdwards have stood out with their sizeable social networks,using these tools to rally their supporters and, of course,drive contributions to their campaign coffers.

A special section for bloggers is set up near the mainstream broadcast and print media writers

at the Democratic National Convention. The Bloggers Boulevard covered the national political

convention live for the rst time in 2004 in Boston, Massachusetts.

APImages/LaurenBurke

eJOURNAL USA 6


9/52

Candidates of both major political parties haveembraced online video as a natural way of interactingwith their bases, some of them going so far as toannounce their candidacy by way of streaming video.

Just as candidates have started to create their ownsocial networks, we are now seeing a whole new trendin which members of the public are creating their ownas well, rallying like-minded individuals around politicalconcerns they share. Do-it-yourself social networks wereunheard of even in the autumn of 2006, but in the brieftime span since then, online tools such as Ning.com nowmake it possible for anyone to craft a niche-orientedsocial network. Now individuals, as well as upstartcampaigns with limited finances, can use these tools toforge a netroots base.

There has also been the recent development of socialnetworks that specifically focus on fundraising. One ofthe most interesting is a site called Change.org. Originally

founded to allow individualsto rally around charitablecauses, the social networkredesigned its structureto allow people to come

together to support politicalcauses or candidates. Forexample, a group of gun-rights activists could usethe site to form an informalpolitical action committeeand raise funds in support ofcandidates who agree withtheir policy positions. If theactual candidate hasnt beenselected yet, Change.org willhold the money in escrow

until the relevant politicalparty nominates him orher. And when a candidateofficially receives the moneyfrom these online activists,

his or her opponent receives a letter stating that theother candidate received Change.orgs money, puttingthe opponent on notice that citizens are raising moneyagainst them because of their position on the issue.

In summary, while Campaign 2008 has yet to run itscourse, one thing is for certain. The Internet has foreverchanged the way candidates and the U.S. electorateinteract with each other. More than the top one ortwo candidates can be successful with fundraising, andthe candidates can no longer completely control theirmessaging. The public has embraced Web 2.0 tools tomake their voices heard; now its just a matter of seeinghow well the candidates listen.

The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views orpolicies of the U.S. government.

In 2003, then-White House Director of Communications Dan Bartlett participates in a live online chat from

the White House connecting directly with U.S. citizens.

APImages/CharlesDharapak

eJOURNAL USA 7


10/52

Like many other democracies, the United States is addressingthe need to improve its election process to ensure that allcitizens can vote freely, easily, and securely. An electionexpert describes the actions the U.S. government has takento facilitate the casting of ballots across the country, andhe discusses the promise and pitfalls of electronic votingsystems, as technology moves into the mainstream of election

administration. Paul S. DeGregorio is the former chair of theU.S. Election Assistance Commission, and he has worked for22 years as an election expert in more than 20 countries.

During the past decade the world has experienceda significant focus on the process of voting.Many countries, rich and poor, developed

and not-so-developed, are using new technologies toselect their leaders. Voters in India, the worlds largestdemocracy, cast their ballots using electronic push-button

technology, while voters in Haiti, the poorest country inthe Western Hemisphere, present a modern identificationcard with photo and thumbprint when obtaining theirballot. Indeed, in Estonia (E-stonia, as they like to beknown) voters can now use a smart card to cast theirballot over the Internet from anywhere in the world.

In the United States more than 90 percent of votes

are cast or counted electronically. Every polling placeis now required by law to have a voting device thatallows people with disabilities to vote privately andindependently. Thus, a voter who is blind can put onearphones and touch a screen or buttons to advance andvote the ballot in private. The United States is theonly country in the world with this type of mandate.

Voters with other special needs, such as those who donot speak English as a first language, are also helped bythis new technology. In Los Angeles County, California,

New Voting Technology:Problem or Solution?

Paul S. DeGregorio

In India, a polling officer checks the electronic voting machines before the election in May 2007.

APImages/RajeshKumarSingh

eJOURNAL USA 8


11/52

ballots are provided in eight languages. It is clear that newtechnologies can be a major enabler for those voters whoare challenged by physical handicaps or language barriers.

The majority of these new election technologies, andmore, have been introduced within the past 10 years. Andeach year more countries introduce new methods to makevoting accessible to all segments of society.

Do these new technologies help to achieve greatervoter access and to curb poor turnouts? Are they trustedby all segments of the population? Or do they introducenew problems and provide an unfair advantage for certainvoters? These are important issues now being debatedwithin individual countries and in the internationalcommunity.

IMPROVINGTHE U.S. ELECTION PROCESS

In the United States the election process receiveddramatic attention at home and abroad after the 2000

presidential election when, during a six-week period,no one was sure who won the presidency. The termshanging, pregnant, and dimpled chad became partof the worldwide lexicon. The administration of electionsin the United States has come a long way since thatwatershed event. In 2002 the U.S. Congress passed thehistoric Help America Vote Act, known as HAVA, which,for the first time, provided significant federal assistanceto the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S.territories to improve the election process. In fact, there

have been more election lawsand regulations promulgatedin the United States during thepast seven years than in theprevious 200 years of American

history.Much like the Netherlands,

England, Japan, and severalother countries, all electionswithin the United Statesare local; that is, they areadministered by local officialswho make most of the decisionson what method of voting isto be used by voters in theirjurisdiction. HAVA gave stateelection officials more authority

to oversee and regulate localentities. In most states, asecretary of state, a state officialelected on a partisan ticket, is

the chief election authority. In a few states, includingNew York and Illinois, a bipartisan board of electionsoversees the voting process. The United States is uniquein the fact that more than 70 percent of local electionauthorities are elected on a partisan basis, with job titlessuch as county clerk, county auditor, and supervisor ofelections. These officials are held accountable by thevoters every four years.

The Help America Vote Act created a federal agency,the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), toprovide a national focus on election administrationand, for the first time in American history, appropriatedmore than $3 billion in federal funds to improve thevoting process. The EAC [http://www.eac.gov], whichbegan its work in late 2003, is a four-member body oftwo Democrats and two Republicans, appointed by thepresident and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. I was amongthe first appointees to the EAC and served as chairman in2006.

In addition to distributing funds, the EAC alsoset new standards for the use of technology in voting,standards that are being followed closely by othercountries. Working with the National Institute of Scienceand Technology[http://www.vote.nist.gov], the EACestablished significant new voting system guidelines thatfocused on security and human factors. These guidelinesare helping the states ensure the integrity and usabilityof the electronic devices that are utilized by millions ofvoters in every election. In addition, the EAC has focused

As required by the Help America Vote Act, new technology helps voters with disabilities to cast their ballots.

AP

Images/HomeNewsTribune/KeithMuccilli

eJOURNAL USA 9
http://www.eac.gov/http://www.vote.nist.gov/http://www.vote.nist.gov/http://www.eac.gov/


12/52

on the management side of election technology and isproducing several important documents designed to helpelection officials manage the important elements ofe-voting systems, including logic and accuracy testing. Inrecent years the Council of Europe [http://www.coe.int]

also has embarked on a project to provide similarstandards for e-voting systems, since many Europeannations are moving toward the use of electronic votingdevices.

Perhaps one of the biggest challenges for all electionofficials is the training of poll workers and voters on thenew voting technologies. In the United States, wherethe average age of poll workers is 72, the introductionof electronic devices that have computer memory cardsthat have to be checked and moved has resulted in ashortage of the 1.3 million workers that are required toconduct a nationwide election. Perhaps the United States

might follow the lead of Belgium, where 18-year-olds areconscripted to run the polls.

IS INTERNET VOTINGIN OUR FUTURE?

With the increasing penetration of the Internetthroughout the world, and certainly within many

countries, e-democracy is a concept that is beginningto take hold and spread rapidly. Like the private sector,candidates, political parties, and governments allare utilizing the Internet to get their message to thepublic and to have the public respond to them.

Several countries, including Estonia, the Netherlands,Switzerland, and England, now allow their citizensto cast ballots via the Internet. In local elections heldin May 2007 in Swindon, England, using securetechnology developed by Everyone Counts [http://www.everyonecounts.com], voters could cast their ballotby telephone, over the Internet, at public libraries,by mail, by paper ballot, or by using any one of 300laptop computers placed at 65 locations throughoutthe borough. It was one of the most ambitious andsuccessful voting pilots ever sponsored by the Britishgovernment.

Living in a global and mobile society, citizens of anycountry who are living abroad face difficult challenges toparticipate in elections. This fall, to meet that challenge,Australian military voters will cast their ballot forparliament over the Internet. The estimated 6 millionAmericans abroad have had a difficult time casting theirballots, with most having to use a cumbersome postal

In San Jose, California, signs at the polls in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese, comply with the federal Voting Rights Act.

APImages/PaulSakuma

eJOURNAL USA 10
http://www.coe.int/http://www.everyonecounts.com/http://www.everyonecounts.com/http://www.coe.int/


13/52

process to exercise their right to vote. The Overseas VoteFoundation [http://www.overseasvotefoundation.org]andthe EAC have estimated that more than one in four ofthese citizens who attempt to vote are not having theirballots counted. Efforts by the U.S. Federal Voting

Assistance Program [http://www.fvap.gov]to improvethe process have helped, but a recent report by the U.S.Government Accountability Office [http://www.gao.gov]indicates much more needs to be done.

With the United States most popular televisionshow,American Idol,experiencing morevotes cast in fourhours (73 million)than the numbercast for the winnerof the 2004 U.S.

presidential election(62 million), it is nothard to figure thatyounger Idolvoterswill demand theuse of some type ofmobile technologywhen they are oldenough to castpresidential ballots.

Along withthe increased useof technology inelections have comeincreased scrutiny and skepticism about electronic voting.While Americans have been using electronic votingdevices to cast their ballots since the late 1980s, it hasonly been since the passage of HAVA and the spread of e-voting across the United States and the world that manygroups have organized to question or even oppose the useof electronic voting devices, particularly those withoutany type of paper trail [http://www.verifiedvoting.com]. InIreland, where the hand-counting of preferential ballots

can take up to a week, an attempt to introduce e-votingto speed the process ended in failure.

International institutions and other organizationsinvolved in monitoring and assessing elections, such asthe Office of Democratic Initiatives and Human Rights ofthe Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe[http://www.osce.org]; IFES, formerly the International

Foundation for Election Systems [http://www.ifes.org];the Carter Center [http://www.cartercenter.org]; andElectionline [http://www.electionline.org], have hadto develop new methodologies to determine whetherelections involving e-voting are free and fair. It is one

thing to watch paperballots counted byhand; it is entirelyanother to monitor theelectronic capture of avote.

The new election

technology sweepingacross our collectivedemocracies hascertainly empoweredvoters, led to increasedparticipation, and, inmany cases, enhancedtransparency byreporting resultsbefore they could bechanged. However,has it increased trustin the results? That is aquestion that remains

to be answered as election reform and the use of newtechnology continue to be debated throughout the world.There is no question, however, that technology willcontinue to enhance the way we vote as it continuesto enhance our daily lives.


eJOURNAL USA 11

Texas first lady Anita Perry votes early at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin in

November 2006.

APImages/HarryCabluck
http://www.overseasvotefoundation.org/http://www.fvap.gov/http://www.gao.gov/http://www.verifiedvoting.com/http://www.osce.org/http://www.ifes.org/http://www.cartercenter.org/http://www.electionline.org/http://www.electionline.org/http://www.cartercenter.org/http://www.ifes.org/http://www.osce.org/http://www.verifiedvoting.com/http://www.gao.gov/http://www.fvap.gov/http://www.overseasvotefoundation.org/


14/52

Two young Americans describe what voting means to themand their excitement about casting their first ballots. RebeccaZeifman is a writer with the Bureau of InternationalInformation Programs of the U.S. Department of State.

The right to vote is one of the most basic privilegesin a democracy. In the United States, any residentwho is an American citizen and at least 18 years

old is eligible to vote.For first-time voters, casting that inaugural ballot is a

monumental occasion. It is a chance for them to exercisetheir constitutionally protected right and to participate inpolitical decision making.

Below, two voters a student who has just comeof voting age and a recently naturalized U.S. citizen reflect on their first time at the polls.

Joanna Fisher is a 20-year-old college student fromCharlotte, North Carolina, who spends nine months ofthe year at college in Waterville, Maine. She voted for thefirst time in 2005, casting her ballot in the Maine stateelections.

For Fisher, there was never a doubt that she wouldvote at the earliest opportunity. I always knew I wouldregister to vote as soon as there was an election I was oldenough to vote in, Fisher says. I guess I was raised in afamily where you care about politics and you care aboutwhats going on around you.

Even before she was old enough to vote, Fisherparticipated in the political process. During the 2004presidential election, she was 17 years old just oneyear shy of the legal voting age. In lieu of voting, Fisherworked for U.S. Senate candidate Erskine Bowles, passingout flyers door-to-door in her hometown of Charlotte.

She also volunteered at her school, helping her olderclassmates register. That was the [election that] wasreally important to me, and even though I didnt vote init, I did a lot of work, she says.

When Fisher turned 18, she took it upon herself toregister. My parents didnt even say, You have to registerto vote, she says. It was just something that made senseto me.

So on November 8, 2005, Joanna registered and casther first ballot minutes later. That election was just a

Waterville election. It was [for] mayor, city commissioner,and really local things, she explains. I showed up with aNorth Carolina drivers license [for identification]. It tookthree minutes and then I voted.

Since that first election, Fisher has already votedagain, this time in the state governors race in November2006. Now she is looking forward to the 2008 elections.I am very excited to vote because its my first presidentialelection, she says. Its four years and its our nationalimage, both for us and for other countries.

Malavika Jagannathan, 23, felt similar enthusiasm

about voting for the first time. As a reporter for the GreenBay Press-Gazettein Green Bay, Wisconsin, Jagannathanwas frustrated with covering elections on the job butbeing unable to participate herself.

Originally from Bangalore, India, Jagannathanmoved to the United States with her family in 1995,settling in College Station, Texas. From an early age, herfamily stressed the importance of political participation.My mom always said that although our passportswere from a different country, you had to be an active

Voting for the First TimeRebecca Zeifman

Joanna Fisher, a first-time voter from Charlotte , North Carolina, outside her

college dormitory.

CourtesyofJoannaFisher

eJOURNAL USA 12


15/52

participant in any society you are in,Jagannathan says.

Like Fisher, Jagannathan was involvedin politics long before she was eligible tovote. In high school she volunteered forthe Democratic Party and the Green Party,handing out flyers and organizing voterregistration drives at school. I would setup these little booths, but I couldnt registerthem [other students] myself because I wasntregistered to vote, she says.

According to Jagannathan, her status asa noncitizen actually inspired her to becomemore involved in politics. I knew that Iwasnt able to [vote], but I could definitely stillcontribute in other ways other than voting,she says. I think thats partially why I waspretty into politics.

On December 14, 2006, Jagannathanbecame a U.S. citizen. The next day shevisited the Green Bay city hall and checked the Yes boxon the voter registration application that asks, Are you a

citizen of the United States of America?Even though it would be almost two months untilthe next election, Jagannathan was eager to sign up. Ifigured Id been talking about voting for so long, the firstthing I should do is register, she says.

Two months later Jagannathan voted in a localprimary with a few initiatives on the ballot. I was veryexcited. My polling place is a church around the cornerfrom where I live, and its run by these little old ladies.I told them it was my first time to vote, and they got all

excited too, she says.After covering several elections as a reporter and

volunteering for a political party, it was a relief to finallyparticipate as a voter. I had sort of built it up for a longtime, and I think, especially after the November 2006elections when it was killing me to sit here and cover theelections and not be able to participate, it kind of fulfilledthat in a little way, she says.

Even though not all of her favored candidates wonthat day, Jagannathan made a vow to friends and familythat she would try to vote in every subsequent election.It just felt that I was a part of something, she explains.

And I think not having that for a long time I realized

that having it is pretty important.According to Jagannathan, new citizens may value

the right to vote even more than U.S.-born citizens. Ithink that when youre just sort of born with these rightsyou maybe dont think about them as much, she says.When you have to live without them and then you getthem, it becomes a lot more important.

Malavika Jagannathan, Green Bay Press-Gazette reporter, new citizen, and new

voter, at work in the newsroom.

Students unveil a College Republicans poster at West Virginia University in Morgantown.

APImages/LingbingHang

CourtesyofMalavikaJagannathan

eJOURNAL USA 13


16/52

The election of members of Congress is as important to thepeople of the United States as the election of the president.This article describes the composition of the U.S. Congress,the factors that come into play in congressional elections, andthe possible impact of the 2008 elections on U.S. governmentpolicy. L. Sandy Maisel is a professor of government at ColbyCollege in Waterville, Maine.

When citizens throughout the United States go

to the polls on November 4, 2008, they willbe voting not only for president but also forall 435 members of the House of Representatives and forone-third of the United States Senate. Attention will befocused on the presidential election, but the congressionalelections are equally important.

In the system of government established by theU.S. Constitution, the executive and legislative branchesshare in decision making. Separation of powers wouldnot be important if the same party always controlled

the presidency and the Congress and if party memberswere disciplined in following their leaders. Neither isthe case. The governing powers are separated not onlyin the sense that the two elected branches of the federalgovernment are populated with different individuals i.e., no U.S. senator or representative may servesimultaneously in the executive branch but also in thatthose serving in office are chosen in separate elections,though the elections are held on the same day. Citizenshave the option to vote for a president from one party, a

senator from another, and a member of Congress fromeither of those or a third party. It is not only possible,but common, for one political party to control theWhite House and the other party to control one or bothbranches of the Congress. This situation is called dividedgovernment. Moreover, members of Congress andsenators are not dependent on party leaders for reelectionand often express that independence by voting for theinterests of their constituents even when they differ fromparty positions.

Congressional ElectionsL. Sandy Maisel

eJOURNAL USA 14

Upon their return from Iraq in July 2006, these members of Congress speak to reporters following a meeting in the

White House with President Bush.

APImages/LawrenceJackson


17/52

MAKEUPOFTHE CONGRESS

Congress has two bodies: theHouse of Representatives and theSenate. The House was meant to be the

body closest to the people, popularlyelected from relatively small districtswith frequent elections (every twoyears). Today California, the mostpopulated state, has 53 seats in theHouse of Representatives. The sevenmost sparsely populated states have oneeach.

The Senate was designed to reflectstate interests. Each state, regardless ofpopulation, has two senators. Senatorsserve six-year terms, staggered so that

one-third of the Senate seats are up forreelection every two years. Originally,senators were chosen by state legislatures, but since 1913they have been popularly elected. The founders thoughtthat the senators would be removed from popular passionbecause they were indirectly elected for longer terms;many question whether that is the case today.

Though the Senate and the House have equal powers,a Senate seat is generally thought to be more prestigiousthan a House seat: The constituency is larger (except inthe case of the seven smallest states, where it is the same),the term length is longer, and senators receive morenational attention because there are fewer of them.

House and Senate elections function under the samerules, with minor variation by state. The Democraticand Republican parties and any other parties active ina state nominate candidates through primary elections;independent candidates achieve a spot on the ballot bypetition. The winner of the November general electionis the candidate with the most votes; a majority is notneeded.

FACTORSIN ELECTING MEMBERSOF CONGRESS

There are three basic elements determiningcongressional elections: partisanship of the district, thepresence or absence of an incumbent, and the issues ofthe day. The U.S. political system has been describedas a competitive two-party system; the Democratic andRepublican parties have dominated U.S. politics sincethe middle of the 19th century. More than 99 percentof those elected to the Congress in recent years havebeen either Democrats or Republicans. A system with

single-member districts and plurality winners favors atwo-party system. Third-party or independent candidates,who would benefit from a system of proportionalrepresentation, gain no benefit from close finishes.

The competition for control of the Congress hasbeen intense in recent decades just as it has for thepresidency. However, the competition is not intense inevery district and in every state. Some districts and evensome states lean heavily toward one party or the other.For example, Democrats usually win in Massachusetts;Republicans, in Wyoming. Exceptions have occurred, butno politician will enter the 2008 congressional electionwithout knowing the normal partisanship of district orstate voters.

Election results can be explained by the presence orabsence of an incumbent. For more than three decades,more than 95 percent of those incumbent members of theHouse of Representatives who have sought reelection havebeen successful. Incumbent U.S. senators have also beensuccessful in achieving reelection. Even in elections inwhich many seats switch parties, more partisan turnover

comes in seats where no incumbent is running. Theeffect of these factors is seen when one looks at potentialcandidates seeking party nominations to run for theHouse and Senate. In seats likely to be hotly contested e.g., seats in which no incumbent is running in a districtclosely divided between Democrats and Republicans it is likely that many candidates will run in eachpartys primary. If a seat is open but one party dominatesthe district, that partys primary is likely to see intensecompetition, but there will be little or no competition in

Kathy Roseth, a concerned citizen in Seattle, Washington, gathers petitions to put an education initativeon the ballot.

APImages/ElaineThompson

eJOURNAL USA 15


18/52

the other party. Finally, if an incumbent is running, heor she is unlikely to face serious competition, and partyleaders in the other party might have to scramble to findanyone to run. Each of these generalizations applies lessto the Senate than to the House, because Senate seats areseen as more valuable and fewer election results can beeasily predicted in advance.

A new president will be elected in 2008, andnational issues the war in Iraq, terrorism, immigrationpolicy, energy dependence will dominate the scene.If President Bushs approval rating remains low amongvoters and these issues are unresolved going intothe November election, the Democrats may have anadvantage in closely contested races.

IMPLICATIONS

FOR

GOVERNANCE

Following the 2006 congressional elections,Washington was marked by divided government, withthe Republicans controlling the White House and the

executive branch and the Democrats controlling bothhouses of the Congress, though by a razor-thin margin inthe Senate.

The Republicans currently hold 22 of the 34Senate seats that will be contested in 2008. Even

slight Democratic gains will not give that party anoverwhelming Senate majority. Senate rules require 60votes to take major action; the Democrats are extremelyunlikely to approach that number.

The Democrats hold approximately 30 more Houseseats than do the Republicans. While many incumbentsplans remain in flux, approximately 25 representativesare likely to vacate their seats after this Congress. Mostof those seats and perhaps another 25, many heldby Democrats who took over Republican seats in 2006 will be hotly contested in 2008. The Democrats seemto have a slight advantage in these races and might add

slightly to their majority, but again not enough to givethem a free hand in governing.

As a result of the upcoming congressional elections,if a Republican is elected president in 2008, he may facea determined opposition that controls a majority of bothhouses of Congress. If a Democrat is elected, he or she islikely to govern with a Congress controlled by his or herparty, but one in which the Republicans retain enoughstrength to thwart major policy initiatives.

A governing system with separation of powers,significant checks and balances, and the majority oflegislative election outcomes determined by incumbentstrength, not national trends, fosters slow changein national policy. That is what the authors of theConstitution intended. Critical issues will dominate the2008 election. While on some issues the new presidentwill be able to act without congressional concurrence, onmany more, the policies of the U.S. government, if notthe rhetoric, will change only slightly.


In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Iraq war veteran Patrick Murphy

campaigns for a congressional seat in the 2006 mid-term elections.

APImages/H.Rumph,Jr.

eJOURNAL USA 16


19/52

Recent election polls reveal the concerns,beliefs, and sentiments of U.S. citizens as theyprepare to vote for president in 2008. Votersare expressing anxiety over terrorist threats,pessimism on domestic issues, and an interestin government reform. A Democratic pollsterconcludes that the U.S. electorate oftenreticent about fundamental change is nowmore nervous about staying the course. DanielGotoff is a partner with Lake Research Partnersin Washington, D.C.

As the 2008 election for presidentapproaches, the U.S. electorate findsitself in a unique and tumultuous

situation. Polls show that the countryis engaged in a war that a majority ofAmericans now oppose. Nearly six years afterSeptember 11, 2001, fears of another terroristattack still permeate the public consciousness.And voters outlook on a panoply of domesticmatters is colored with intensifying concern.

This swirl of public discontent takes placeagainst a backdrop of spreading cynicism toward ourelected leaders, counterbalanced by a sense that only aninstitutional power as mighty as the U.S. government isequipped to help the country overcome the challenges itnow faces. The shifting political tides over the past severalyears underscore the point that neither major party is ableto boast a governing majority. Furthermore, for the firsttime in decades neither an incumbent president nor asitting vice president is running for the highest office inthe land.

Amid this turbulence, the U.S. electorate often

reticent about fundamental change is now morenervous about maintaining the status quo. Currently,polls show only 19 percent of Americans believe thecountry is headed in the right direction the lowestin a decade. (In July 1997, 44 percent of Americans feltthe country was headed in the right direction and just40 percent felt it was on the wrong track.) Now, fully 68percent believe the country is off on the wrong track.

Voters widespread dissatisfaction has created apalpable desire for change in the United States on three

key fronts: improved security abroad and at home, shared

prosperity on domestic economic matters, and greateraccountability on behalf of the government to the peopleit intends to serve.

PUBLIC ANXIETYOVER TERRORISMAND SECURITY

While the mood of the electorate has shifteddramatically over the last several months, certainpolitical realities will remain true in 2008. Perhaps mostprominent, the attacks of September 11, 2001 and theaftermath of those attacks still largely define our timesand our politics. Voters instinctive anxieties have meantthat each of the three federal elections since September11 has rested principally, though not solely, on matters ofsecurity.

According to exit polls for the last two elections,concerns over terrorism figured prominently. In 2004,19 percent of voters cited terrorism as their top concern(second only to the economy at 20 percent). Similarly,in 2006, 72 percent of American voters consideredterrorism an important issue in their voting decision. And

The Changing U.S. VoterDaniel Gotoff

This political activist hopes to funnel money into Hispanic voter registration and get-

out-the-vote efforts in Colorado.

APImages/EdAndrieski

eJOURNAL USA 17


20/52

as recently as September 2006, the last time ABC Newsasked the question, nearly three-quarters of Americans(74 percent) reported being concerned about thepossibility that there will be more major terrorist attacksin the United States, including 29 percent who were

worried a great deal. While the intensity of these fearshas ebbed somewhat in the years since September 11,overall levels of concern have barely budged. In October2001, less than one month after the attacks, 81 percentof Americans were concerned about the possibility ofadditional terrorist attacks on U.S. soil (41 percent werevery worried).

Since the invasion of Iraq and the growing publicopposition to the war, dimensions of security andterrorism have grown more complex and politicallyelusive. In October 2002, Americans saw Republicansas better able to handle the issue of terrorism than

Democrats by a 23-point margin: 47 percent to 24percent. By October 2006, however, the ground onthis key issue had shifted significantly, with the publicpreferring Democrats to Republicans, 44 percent to 37percent.

In 2008, U.S. voters will select the candidate theytrust most to secure Americas place in the world.

INCREASED PESSIMISMONTHE DOMESTIC FRONT

While Iraq and terrorism often steal the headlines,

voters concerns on the domestic front are equally intense.In fact, in 2006, exit polls showed concerns over theeconomy on a par with concerns over national security,Iraq, and ethics. When asked about the importance ofvarious issues in determining their vote for Congress,82 percent of Americans said the economy was eitherextremely important (39 percent) or very important (43percent). By comparison, 74 percent identified corruptionand ethics as important (41 percent extremely),67 percent identified Iraq as important (35 percentextremely), and 72 percent identified terrorism asimportant (39 percent extremely).

Since the 2006 election, voters concerns over theeconomy have grown more pointed. Two-thirds (66percent) of Americans rate economic conditions in thecountry as only fair (43 percent) or poor (23 percent).Just 5 percent rate the economy as excellent and 29percent rate it as good. Moreover, a 55 percent majorityof Americans believe the national economy is gettingworse. Another 28 percent say the economy is stayingthe same hardly a positive diagnosis and just 16percent say the economy is getting better.

Americans economic concerns have changed overtime. Well-paying, secure jobs are still central, butin an environment where U.S. workers are finding itincreasingly difficult to keep pace with the rising cost ofliving, the affordability of health care now ranks as voterstop economic concern. Asked to choose the economicissue they are personally most worried about, a 29 percentplurality of voters pick the rising cost of health care,higher than the number who choose higher taxes (24percent), a secure retirement (16 percent), losing onesjob (11 percent), or expenses like child care and tuition(10 percent). Americans, who describe affordable healthcare as one of the pillars of the American Dream, now

regard surging health care costs as a direct threat to theirfamilies ability to stay in the middle class and achievethat dream. Voters also believe that health care costs area major impediment to starting ones own business, asignificant finding in an entrepreneurial society in which48 percent aspire to do just that.

Additionally, as globalization forces U.S. workersto compete against low-wage workers in countries thatmay not protect basic rights, they have become quiteskeptical about its benefits. Fully 65 percent of Americansview increased trade between the United States andother countries as mostly hurting U.S. workers. And

underscoring a shift in attitudes from the end of the lastdecade, when a 56 percent majority saw increased tradeas mostly helping U.S. companies, fully half of Americans(50 percent) now view trade as mostly hurting U.S.companies.

More fundamentally, there is a growing sense amongthe public that the middle class is no longer sharing inthe nations prosperity, but actually losing ground whilean elite few reap gargantuan profits. The exit polls speakto this erosion of voters faith in the American Dream in

President Bush speaks on the global war on terror at the port of Tampa,

Florida, in February 2006.

APImages/MikeCarlson

eJOURNAL USA 18


21/52

the 21st century. Fully half of voters said they had justenough to get by and another 17 percent said they werefalling behind. Less than one-third of voters (31 percent)said they were getting ahead financially. Even morestartling is the extent to which Americans have grown

pessimistic in their outlook for their childrens future. A40 percent plurality said they expected life for the nextgeneration of Americans to be worse than life today, 28percent said about the same, and just 30 percent expectedlife for the next generation of Americans to be betterthan life today. In 2008, American voters will select thecandidate they trust most to ensure the promise of theAmerican Dream namely, shared economic prosperityand the opportunity for workers to provide betteropportunities for their children.

THE INCREASING DESIREFOR CHANGEAND

ACCOUNTABILITY

The gathering storm of public anxiety on issuesboth foreign and domestic is feeding an appetite forfundamental reform of the U.S. government. The 2006election was in many ways a public cry for greateraccountability. Three-quarters of voters identifiedcorruption and ethics as important to their vote inCongress, and with considerable intensity (41 percentextremely important).

While the Iraq war may help explain the current

presidents low job approval ratings, it does not explainwhy the new Congress, controlled by the oppositionparty, is also held in such poor esteem by the voters.

President Bushs job approval rating sits at just 31percent, though Congress job approval rating at 21percent is even more critical. In short, the publicis demanding change and holding all elected leadersaccountable for effecting that change. To wit, a 56

percent majority of Americans now agree that the federalgovernment needs to be transformed that is, undergomajor and fundamental changes. Just 34 percent believethe federal government needs to undergo small changesbut does not need to be transformed, and only 3 percentbelieve the federal government does not need to undergoany changes.

And despite reduced trust in government, morethan half of Americans want an increased role for theinstitution in addressing the challenges facing thecountry. Fifty-two percent agree that government shoulddo more to solve problems and help meet the needs

of people, compared to just 40 percent who believethat government is doing too many things better leftto businesses and individuals. It is worth noting thatthese numbers are virtually the mirror opposite of thesentiment recorded nearly a decade ago (41 percentgovernment should do more to 51 percent governmentis doing too much).

In conclusion, the U.S. voter is indeed changing becoming more cynical, more anxious, and less secure.At the same time, the U.S. voter remains guardedlyhopeful about the future. Voters are seeking a leader who

has the demonstrated ability to recognize and resolve thechallenges facing the United States in the 21st centuryand, in so doing, secure the United States place in theworld. Countering this inclination toward an experienced,steady hand is a strong desire for a leader who representsthe change that an overwhelming majority of Americansnow demand. The candidate who can convincinglyreconcile these seemingly contradictory dimensions ofleadership is the candidate who will win the presidency in2008 and with it the ability to transform the nation,both in the eyes of U.S. citizens and, just as important, inthe eyes of the world.


Buttons urging veterans to vote are displayed at the Vietnam Veterans of

America leadership conference in Nashville, Tennessee.

APImages/MarkHumphrey

eJOURNAL USA 19


22/52

Women comprise more than half of the U.S. electorate andhave influenced electoral outcomes for more than 40 years. ARepublican pollster examines voting patterns among women,discusses issues that are important to them, and describesseveral categories of women voters to watch in 2008.Kellyanne Conway is the president and chief executive officerof a firm called the polling company,inc., in Washington,D.C. WomanTrend is a division of the firm.

The average woman in the United States wakesup each morning to a myriad of responsibilities,curiosities, and concerns, none of which are

political, per se, but all of which are affected by politicaland governmental action. These issues might include: Ismy child learning in this school? Is this neighborhoodsafe? If I switch jobs, will I lose my health insurance? IsSocial Security income enough for my parents to keeptheir house and not deplete their savings?

LOOKING BACK: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Since 1964 women have comprised a majority ofthe eligible electorate, but it was not until 1980 thatthe percentage of eligible women who actually votedsurpassed the percentage of qualified men castingballots, as Table 1 indicates. For all the angst by the beancounters that a fraction of women seek or hold electiveoffice in this country (and that a woman has never been

elected president), women voters have influenced electoraloutcomes for more than eight decades, deciding onpresidents and precedents in a way that has shaped publicpolicy directly and dramatically.

Women tend to favor incumbents, especially forpresident, preferring to stick with a trusted brand alreadyon the shelf rather than trying something new andunknown. In fact, the last three presidents who wonreelection increased their support among women in theirsecond bids. Women are also reliably pro-incumbent in

Women Voters in the United StatesKellyanne Conway

Book cover ofWhat Women Really Want, written by

author Kellyanne Conway, 2005.

JacketdesignbyEricFuentecilla

JacketphotographStockbyte/GettyImages

eJOURNAL USA 20


23/52

congressional elections, evidencing more consistency intheir voting patterns than men. Ironically, this naturalbias toward reelecting incumbents is one reason manywomen who run for office as challengers are unsuccessful.

The female nonvoter is ignored by politicians,parties, pundits, and professional consultants, whoseem obsessed instead with likely or swing voters.In the 2004 presidential election, more than half (54.5percent) of women between the ages of 18 and 24 didnot vote. However, women in this age bracket votedat a higher rate than their male counterparts, only 40percent of whom cast ballots. At the other end of theage spectrum, only 29 percent of women aged 65 to 74did not vote, compared to 26.1 percent of men in the

same category. The top reasons women offer for optingout include illness/disability (19.8 percent), too busy/scheduling conflict (17.4 percent), not interested(10.7 percent), and did not like candidates or campaignissues (9.7 percent). Excluding the final two responses,it is important to note that nearly nine in ten womendidnot participate for reasons other than a lack of feelingengaged.

WHAT DO WOMEN VOTERS REALLYWANT?

Traditionally, women are thought to gravitate moretoward the SHE cluster of issues, Social Security, healthcare, and education, while men are considered more

interested in the WE issues, war and the economy. Thelast three national elections (2002, 2004, and 2006) showthat these convenient boxes no longer apply.

In 2004 and again in 2006, women told pollstersthat the concerns that motivated them to decide whetherand for whom to vote were centered on nontraditionalwomens issues. From a closed-ended question in which10 possible choices were offered, the situation in Iraqtopped the list as the motivating concern (22 percent),followed by the war on terror (15 percent). Morality/family values and jobs/economy each received 11 percent,while the remaining six options only garnered single-digit

responses, as Table 2 demonstrates.As my coauthor, Democratic pollster Celinda

Lake, and I posit in What Women Really Want: HowAmerican Women Are Quietly Erasing Political, Racial,Class, and Religious Lines to Change the Way We Live(FreePress, 2005), women are not single-issue voters, either.Rather, they tend to consider a plethora of ideas, issues,

Table 1Womens Voting Behavior

% of % of Eligible EligibleWomen Men VotingVoting

1980 59.4% 59.1%

1992 62.3% 60.2%

1996 55.5% 52.8%

2000 56.2% 53.1%

2004 60.1% 56.3%

Table 22004 and 2006 Post-Election Surveys

conducted by the polling company, inc.

When deciding on whom to vote for in theelection today, which of the following issues

was most important to you?

Actual Women Voters on Election Night

2006 200422% 16% Situation in Iraq15% 23% War on Terror11% 17% Morality/ Family Values

11% 16% Jobs/Economy 6% 3% Education6% 7% Health Care/ Medicare/

Prescription Drugs5% 3% Taxes5% N/A Abortion4% N/A Immigration2% 2% Environment

eJOURNAL USA 21


24/52

individuals, impressions, and ideologies before making anal decision. The medias focus on the contentious onesmakes it seem as if women only care about one issue onElection Day and that it takes special attention to thatissue to compel women to vote. In reality, womens voting

patterns indicate quite the opposite.

WOMEN DO NOT COMPRISEA NICHE

Women are not monolithic in their attitudes about,or votes within, the political system. When it comes tovoting, one woman might vote for all Democrats, anothermight vote straight-ticket Republican, while a third mighttake the salad-bar approach and pick and choose fromwho and what suits her best. In the end, women votersask themselves two core questions when deciding whomto support for president: Do I like that person? and

Is that person like me? The first question is the classicliving room test: Would you like to see that candidateon the television set in your living room for the next fouror eight years? The second is a more complex inquiry thatprobes whether women believe a candidate cares about,values, confronts, and fears the same things they do.

It is impossible to divide the life experiences andattitudes of American women into the binary Republicanand Democrat categories. As women take more thantheir political ideology to the polls, politicians must becognizant of the life stages, as well as the demographic

categories, into which women fall. A concept wefrequently use at my firm, the polling company,inc./WomanTrend, is the Three Faces of Eve, whichis illustrated through the three very distinct lives a 48-year-old woman in this country might have. She couldbe a blue-collar grandmother, an unmarried and childlessprofessional, or a married mother of two young children.Technically, they would all fall into the same age andgender demographic categories, but their life experiences

vastly differ, resulting in varied perspectives on thecurrent state of affairs. Politics is not an isolated categoryfor women; rather, politics is an all-encompassing arenainto which women export their life experiences, needs,and expectations.

Some groups of women to watch in 2008 include:

Woman Entrepreneurs: Women ownapproximately 10.4 million firms in the UnitedStates and employ more than 12.8 millionAmericans. While 75 percent of all U.S. firms donot have employees, an eye-popping 81 percent ofwoman-owned firms are single-person or Mom-and-Pop operations. The rate of growth of woman-owned firms consistently increases at a rate doubleto that of all firms. Unmarried Women: American women are

delaying marriage not because they are withoutchoices, but simply because they do have choices.Currently, 49 percent of all women over the age of15 are not married and more than half (54 percent)of these women fall in the 25 to 64 age category. Not-Yet-Moms: With more women enteringthe workforce and the ever-increasing number ofwomen having children beyond the traditionalchildbearing years, fewer women in their late 20sand early 30s can identify with the married-with-children label.

Junior-Seniors: Women aged 50 to 64, manywith children living at home, are expectingentitlements and eternity (the quest to extend life),seeking solutions and sophistication. Minority Women: Minorities now comprise one-third of U.S. residents, and four states are alreadya majority-minority, with five others expected tofollow by 2025. The Hispanic population is poisedto have the most significant impact to the U.S.population, but the increase in Asian-Americanvoters is also a trend to follow. Gen Y Women: As Table 3 indicates, a survey

for Lifetime Television by the polling company, inc., and Lake Research Partners found that a

majority (54 percent) of Gen Y women (those born

since 1979) believe that the best way to make a

difference in American politics is to vote. Beyond

politics, almost half (42 percent) of Gen Y women

indicated that the best way to make a difference in the

world was to help those less fortunate than I, with

either time or money. Among the six other options

posed to them, only 2 percent said that taking an

Twelve-year-old students load boxes with petitions onto their school bus.

They hope to get a referendum on the ballot providing additional funding for

education in Seattle, Washington.

APImages/TedS.W

arren

eJOURNAL USA 22


25/52

active role in politics was the best way to do so.

Behind helping those in need, included be a good

person (16 percent), help stop violence and sexual

assaults against women (9 percent), help save the

environment (8 percent), and defend my country

and keep it safe by serving in the military (4 percent).

If a woman bristles, I hate politics, what she issaying in effect is that she cares not who manages the

public schools and what is taught there; how health careis accessed, delivered, and paid for in the United States;whether the nation is safe, prosperous, and globallycompetitive. Yet clearly she does not mean that. Politicsand governance are the vehicles through which change inthese areas is accomplished but not necessarily the prismthrough which women interact with them.

LOOKING AHEADTO 2008

What can the 2008 presidential contenders expectfrom women voters? The variable in this presidential

election could be a woman candidate, taking the debatefrom not if, but when. The discussion has shifted from ahypothesized woman president to that woman president;namely, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Still, past practice has proved that women do notnecessarily vote for other women. If they did, U.S.Senators Elizabeth Dole or Carol Moseley-Braun would

have won their parties nominations for president whenthey sought the nod in 2000 and 2004, respectively,based on the simple notion that women comprise amajority of the voters. The 2008 race differs from pastelections in that this is an election of many firsts. A

woman, an African American, a Mormon, and a Hispanicare all well-poised to take their parties nominations.

Party loyalty trumps gender, as indicated by a July2007 Newsweeksurvey, which found that 88 percentof men and 85 percent of women say that if their partynominated a woman candidate that they would vote forher if she were qualified for the job. Americans expressless enthusiasm, however, about the female factor, whenit comes to how they judge their fellow citizens: Only 60percent of men and 56 percent of women believe thatthe country is ready for a woman president. With regardto race, voters are less hesitant to vote for a qualified

African-American candidate of their party, as 92 percentof whites and 93 percent of nonwhites say that theywould endorse such a candidate. Like gender, fewer votersdoubt that the country is ready for an African-Americanpresident: Only 59 percent of white voters and 58percent of nonwhite voters believe that the country wouldelect a black president. When responding to polls, voterscan sometimes displace their attitudes and stereotypesonto their friends, family, and community members as away to reaffirm their own position while simultaneouslyhiding what they believe or know to be an unacceptable

or unpopular position. One caveat of this concept isthat voters opinions could be influenced by the factthat in 2007 there is a prominent African-Americanand a prominent woman candidate. Any opposition toan African-American or a woman could well be thedislike of an individual candidate.

Whereas the contest for president is the most wide-open in decades (it is the first time in 80 years thatneither a sitting president nor vice president is seekingthe presidency), one thing is certain: Women, as theyhave since 1980, will be a majority of the electorate thatdecides who next occupies the Oval Office.


Table 3Which of the following do you think is the

best way for you personally to make adifference in American politics?

(accepted one answer)

54% Vote in elections9% Volunteer for a political campaign8% Donate to a cause7% Write a letter or e-mail to an elected official7% Activate my social network of friends and

family4% Run for political office3% Donate money to a campaign

eJOURNAL USA 23


26/52

A veteran political journalist shares the inside story of lifeon the road with a U.S. presidential candidate and discussesthe reporters role in conveying a candidates message tothe American people. The days are long and packed withevents. Campaign staff and advisors are valuable sourcesof information if properly cultivated. And while campaignstops may become routine, the professional journalist mustalways be prepared to handle unexpected events and breaking

news. Jim Dickenson is a retired political reporter for theWashington Post.

The last act of a long campaign day is distributionof the next days equally long schedule, thebible, as its known, to all hands press, staff,

advisers either given to us as were getting off the planeor slipped under our hotel room doors. A typical daybegins something like this:

6:15 a.m. Bags in the lobby. 7:15 a.m. Candidate and press pool depart hotel

for station KXYZ-TV. 7:30 a.m. Staff and press corps board bus for

the Palm Restaurant for 8 a.m. breakfast withChamber of Commerce and Rotary Club.

7:45 a.m. Five-minute candidate interview withKXYZ morning anchor Joe Smith.

7:50 a.m. Depart KXYZ for the Palm. 9:00 a.m. Depart the Palm for Avery Houstonairport.

And so it goes a lot of events and moving partsfor the day. At least the Chamber/Rotary meeting meanswe dont have to worry about whether theres time to grabbreakfast in the hotel coffee shop. (One iron rule on thecampaign: Eat at every opportunity, because the schedulecan cause you to miss a meal.) And the press pool forKXYZ will give us a written fill, or report, of what

Covering the Presidential Campaign:The View from the Press Bus

Jim Dickenson

Members of the news media lm, photograph, and question the candidate aboard the press bus during acampaign bus tour of Iowa in January 2004.

Reuters/JimBourg

eJOURNAL USA 24


27/52

was said and done there. The pool isfor events where time, space, and otherconsiderations wont accommodate thefull press corps. It generally includes adaily newspaper reporter, TV reporter,

news magazine reporter, and wire service(AP or Reuters) reporter, and we all areassigned our turns in the pools.

The bible is a meticulously detaileddocument compiled by the campaignstaff that enables everyone to plan theirday; each reporter has different prioritiesand projects to work on. What looks likethe main event, the likely source of thenews lead for the day? Is filing timeto write and transmit stories built intothe schedule, and at the right points?

Most of us have different deadlines dueto geography and our organizationsindividual production schedules. Is therean event I can skip so I can grab thecandidates staffers with whom I need to talk for a newsanalysis Im working on?

An American presidential campaign is a complex,intricate dance involving many people. For everyoneinvolved, it also is a long, grueling process, moreexhausting for some than for others. A candidate whois running third or fourth or fifth in the primaries,for instance, will try to cram more events into theday, particularly in the small but crucial states of Iowa(first caucus in the nation) and New Hampshire (firstprimary), where retail politics face-to-face contactwith the voters is not only essential but expected.

PREPARINGFORTHE CAMPAIGN

Long before I get on the campaign plane, I haveresearched the members of the campaign staff. Who arethe paid consultants, media experts, and pollsters? Whoare the unpaid and unofficial advisers who, as respected

former officeholders, activists, or policy wonks(specialists), are highly influential?I also have internalized the campaign strategy. How

much effort will go into the traditional early primarystates, such as Iowa, New Hampshire, and SouthCarolina? How will the campaign deal with the newFebruary 5, 2008, super primary held simultaneouslyin so many states including such blockbuster statesas New York, California, and Florida that it coulddetermine each partys presidential nominee that day, nine

months in advance of Election Day? In which states isthe candidate strong and in which ones weak? In whichareas of each state are the different candidates strong andweak? All these details are building blocks in the mostimportant political decision the American people make their choice of president.

We in the press corps are a major factor in thiselectoral process. Because of the decline of the politicalparties, concurrent with the primaries rise in importance,the media have become the early screeners of thecandidates. Our function is to evaluate their policies;their personal characteristics, such as intelligence,temperament, honesty, judgment, organizational ability,and persuasiveness; and their fitness for the presidency,to help the voters make informed decisions in thisvital matter. We have taken this role very seriously eversince publication ofThe Making of the President 1960,Theodore Whites famed best-selling book about JohnF. Kennedys victorious presidential campaign againstRichard Nixon.

WORKINGWITH SOURCES

Cultivating staff and consultants who can begood information sources is a top priority for politicalreporters. This is an ongoing exercise in characterevaluation, courtship, and diplomacy. The key is toidentify sources who truly know whats going on inthe campaign and who will share it with you, a rarecombination both on the campaign and in the Oval

Television cameramen film a campaign bus arriving in Davenport, Iowa, in October 2004.

APImages/RobertF.Bukaty

eJOURNAL USA 25


28/52

Office. Outside professional consultants are oftenbetter for this purpose than long-time personal loyalistsbecause they know that theyll likely be back on a futurecampaign, as will I, and we need each other.

I also evaluate the unpaid advisers who have anational political interest rather than a career or personalinvestment in the campaign. On one Democraticpresidential campaign, I befriended a genial politicalactivist and veteran of the Kennedy presidential races.We had dinner on the road a couple of times and shareda drink at the bar other times. At a certain point, hedecided he couldnt abide the campaigns mistakes and

miscalculations any longer. Believing that he could trustme to get the story right and protect his identity, hegave me a great running inside view of the campaignon background, which meant that I could use theinformation but couldnt quote him by name or identifyhim. The result was some of the best campaign analysisIve ever written.

In 1988 I was with the Washington Postand coveredthen-Senator Al Gore in the so-called Super Tuesdayprimary election in which several southern states held

their primaries on the same day in an effort to increasethe regions influence on the presidential nomination.(He did well there but didnt have the resources for thesubsequent primaries in northern states.) Gore made astop in his home state of Tennessee at a hospital thathad a new, state-of-the-art childrens wing. We were metthere by then-Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas, and Idecided to miss the hospital tour in order to interviewClinton. I had learned in previous conversations that hewas an excellent and accessible political analyst, and theinterview was time extremely well spent. I covered myselfby agreeing with a colleague from a noncompetitive paper

in the Midwest to fill him in on Clinton in return for hisfill on the hospital tour.

EXPECTINGTHE UNEXPECTED

The bible lays out whats planned, but it cantanticipate the thousand and one unforeseen events thatinvariably pop up. Always I must be ready to respond tothe unexpected, which of course is the definition of thenews business. New developments in Iraq. New action

fuenvjsoeiwjvm aleiwn clapreoigmnskdclkwor v,sloerkjtf mslclsolpwpfm,vb

ms;dolgmjsl.cmkvbmspfd ,b;xlcvkgposd,v,xklc;kldpsd;vl,bgjfiughndxlfnjmb n j

jm os m lksorditnd fuenvjsoeiwjvm aleiwn clapreoigmnskdclkwor v,sloerkjtf

mslclsolpwpfm,vb ms;dolgmjsl.cmkvbmspfd ,b;xlcvkgposd,v,x

After announcing his candidacy for president, Senator John McCain travels with his wife and staff on his campaign bus from Portsmouth toConcord, New Hampshire, in April 2007.

A

PImages/StephanSavoia

eJOURNAL USA 26


29/52

in Congress on immigration or health care. A candidatedropping out of his partys primary because of fundraisingproblems. And so forth.

Often these twists are welcome simply because bothreporters and editors become weary of the candidatesstandard stump, or campaign, speech. It is repeatedat event after event to appreciative new audiences butdrives us reporters to look constantly for a fresh newslead or for feature and analysis stories. In one campaign,however, I had composed and filed what I thought was amarvelous story in which the days major campaign eventswonderfully illustrated the candidates position on histhree major issues. I was very proud of the story and filedit well before deadline. At the next event, however, mycandidate pointed out that his opponent had opened hiscurrent campaign tour with a questionable assertion thatcarbon dioxide emitted by tree leaves was the cause ofhaze and smog in an eastern U.S. mountain range, thusigniting a critical discussion of his environmental policies.We spent the next couple of days scrambling to reportthat, and my painstaking literary effort from days earlier

was obliterated by what I thought was a nonsensical issue.With the newer technology of laptop computers,Blackberries, cell phones, and the like, we are increasinglyable to anticipate developments even when out onthe road. We can monitor the wire services and othernews organizations Web sites. We dont have to chasecampaign staff and advisers for reactions to breaking

events because they generally beatus to it with an e-mail. Filingstories from the road in time fordeadlines could be difficult inthe era prior to computers and

modems, but communicationwith the news desk back homeis now generally constant andinstantaneous with cell phones,wireless Internet access, andhigh-speed, broadband-qualitymodems for transmitting andreceiving stories, memos, andbackground documents on ourlaptops. The new technology,including satellites, obviously alsohas eased the lives of television

crews, for whom the logisticsof getting film and tape back to

their hometown headquarters in time for the eveningnewscast used to be a daily logistical nightmare.

New technology, however, means more work.Reporters for news organizations that have Web sitesand radio stations are expected to file breaking stories forthem throughout the day. And for technical reasons noneof us ever understood, the first-edition deadlines at bothmajor dailies where I worked, the Washington Starandthe Washington Post, became an hour earlier, 7 p.m. ratherthan 8 p.m., after the newsrooms were computerized. Italso means the desk can easily reach you with sometimesreally dumb story ideas.

Its a great life if you dont weaken. Its a life for theyoung and strong who can work 16-hour days and deferdinner until 11 p.m. When I was young and macho(up to about age 50), I considered it an invigoratingchallenge.

One of the most frequent

3210615 the long campaign us election 2008

Documents