Electoral College: 538 electors, 270 to win, winner-take-all in most states
US Electoral College
How the US president is actually elected — not by popular vote
538 total (House + Senate + 3 DC). 270 needed to win. 48 states: winner-take-all. Maine and Nebraska award by congressional district. Critics: small states and swing states over-represented.
Duverger's Law
Duverger's Law: winner-take-all → two dominant parties
Duverger's Law
Why the US has two parties — it's structural, not accidental
In plurality (winner-take-all) elections, voters abandon third parties (wasted vote) and they collapse. Proportional representation → more parties. UK/USA = two-party; Germany/Netherlands = multi-party.
Incumbent Advantage
Incumbents win >90% of House re-election races — name recognition + resources
Incumbent Advantage
Why sitting members of Congress almost always win re-election
Name recognition, franking privilege (free mail), easier fundraising, ability to deliver constituent services, and gerrymandering all favor incumbents.
Voter Turnout
Turnout: Education is the strongest single predictor
Voter Turnout
What drives people to vote — and what doesn't
Education level: strongest predictor. Registration requirements reduce turnout (unique to US). Competitive races increase turnout. Age: older voters turn out more. Race and income also correlate strongly.
Gerrymandering
Gerrymandering: drawing districts to favor one party — packing and cracking
Gerrymandering
How partisan district drawing distorts electoral outcomes
Packing: concentrate opposition voters in a few districts (they win big there, wasted votes). Cracking: spread opposition voters thinly across many districts (they lose everywhere). Named after Governor Elbridge Gerry (1812).
Different ways of translating votes into seats — with very different outcomes
Plurality (FPTP): candidate with most votes wins — tends to produce two parties (Duverger's Law). Proportional representation: seats allocated by vote share — more parties, better minority representation. Ranked-choice voting: voters rank candidates, instant runoff eliminates last-place finisher. Mixed: combines elements (Germany).
Campaign Finance
Campaign finance: PACs, Super PACs, dark money. Citizens United (2010): corporations = free speech.
Campaign Finance
Money in politics — the rules and the loopholes
Citizens United v FEC (2010): political spending by corporations and associations is protected free speech — cannot be limited. Super PACs: can raise and spend unlimited money but cannot coordinate with campaigns. Dark money: 501(c)(4) nonprofits spend on elections without disclosing donors. Hard money: direct contributions to candidates — limited.
Political Socialization
Political socialization: how people acquire political beliefs — family is the strongest influence
Political Socialization
How citizens develop their political views
Primary agents: family (strongest predictor of party identification), school (civic education), peers, media, religion. Party identification: often adopts parents' party. Generational effect: political coming-of-age during significant events shapes lifetime views (Great Depression → Democrat, Reagan era → Republican). Life-cycle effects: people become more conservative with age.
Political Polarization
Partisan polarization: ideological distance between parties has increased dramatically since 1970s
Political Polarization
Why American politics has become so divided
Congressional voting records: Republicans and Democrats rarely overlap ideologically — used to overlap substantially. Causes: geographic sorting, primary elections selecting extreme candidates, media fragmentation (partisan media), negative partisanship (voting against the other party more than for your own). Consequences: gridlock, declining bipartisanship.
Public Opinion and Polling
Public opinion polls: sampling error, question wording, response bias — not all polls are equal
Public Opinion and Polling
How polls work — and why they sometimes fail
Random sample: every person has equal chance of being selected — the only valid method. Sampling error: ±3% margin of error at 95% confidence for n=1,000. Question wording effects: small changes dramatically alter responses. Response bias: people give socially acceptable answers. Likely voter screen: likely voters differ from registered voters.
Party Identification Trends
Dealignment: voters less attached to parties. Realignment: major shift in party coalitions.
Party Identification Trends
How Americans' relationship with political parties has changed
Party identification: psychological attachment to a party — most stable political attitude. Dealignment: growing share of voters identify as independent (now ~40%). Realignment: critical elections shift party coalitions. 1932: New Deal coalition. 1968: Southern realignment (Solid South became Republican). 1994: Republican Revolution.
Median Voter Theorem
Median voter theorem: in two-party systems, both parties converge to the political center
Median Voter Theorem
Why both parties should move toward the center — and why they often don't
Downs: rational parties maximize votes by moving toward the median voter's position. If voters distributed along a left-right spectrum, both parties converge to the middle. Why it fails: primary elections reward extreme positions, base mobilization matters more in low-turnout elections, party activists are ideologically extreme.
Electoral College
538 electors, 270 to win, winner-take-all in most states
Electoral College — how presidents are actually elected, not by popular vote
Winning the popular vote does not guarantee winning the presidency
538 total electors (435 House + 100 Senate + 3 DC via 23rd Amendment). Need 270 to win. Most states use winner-take-all. Maine and Nebraska use congressional district method. If no majority, the House chooses the president with each state delegation getting one vote. Faithless electors: SCOTUS upheld state penalties (2020).
538
435 House + 100 Senate + 3 DC (23rd Amendment)
270
Majority needed to win the presidency
Contingent
House decides if no majority — happened in 1824
Voting Rights Amendments
15-19-24-26 — Race, Sex, Poll tax, Age 18
Four constitutional amendments that expanded the right to vote
Voting rights expanded through amendments over 100 years — each required political struggle
15th (1870): cannot deny vote based on race — but poll taxes and literacy tests circumvented it for decades. 19th (1920): women's suffrage after decades of activism. 24th (1964): abolished poll taxes in federal elections. 26th (1971): voting age to 18 — "old enough to fight, old enough to vote." Voting Rights Act (1965): banned discriminatory practices.
15th (1870)
Race — undermined by Jim Crow until Voting Rights Act 1965
19th (1920)
Sex — women suffrage after 72 years of activism
24th (1964)
Poll taxes used to disenfranchise poor Black voters
26th (1971)
Age 18 — Vietnam War era, drafted but could not vote
Campaign Finance
Citizens United = money is speech, corporations can spend unlimited
Citizens United v. FEC (2010) — corporations have First Amendment rights
Citizens United allowed unlimited independent political spending by corporations and unions
Citizens United: corporations and unions can spend unlimited on independent expenditures — led to Super PACs. Hard money: direct donations to candidates — capped by FEC. Super PACs: raise and spend unlimited but cannot coordinate directly with campaigns. Dark money: 501(c)(4) nonprofits spend politically without disclosing donors.
Hard money
To candidate — capped by FEC rules
Super PAC
Independent spending — unlimited, no direct coordination
Dark money
501(c)(4)s spend politically without donor disclosure
Gerrymandering
PACK and CRACK — concentrate or dilute the opposition
Two gerrymandering strategies for drawing favorable district boundaries
Gerrymandering manipulates who wins elections before any votes are cast
Packing: concentrate opponents into as few districts as possible — they win big but waste votes. Cracking: spread opponents thin across many districts — they lose narrowly everywhere. Racial gerrymandering: unconstitutional if race is predominant factor (Shaw v. Reno). Partisan gerrymandering: federal courts cannot police it (Rucho v. Common Cause, 2019).
Pack
Cram opponents into one district — wins big, wastes votes
Crack
Spread opponents thin — lose everywhere by small margins
Racial
Unconstitutional if race is the predominant factor
🎓 Common Exam Questions
Q: How does the Electoral College work and what are the arguments for and against it?
A: The Electoral College has 538 electors (435 House plus 100 Senate plus 3 DC). A candidate needs 270 to win; if no majority, the House chooses the president. Most states use winner-take-all. Arguments for: maintains federal system, gives small states more weight, produces clear winners. Arguments against: can produce presidents who lost popular vote (2000, 2016), gives outsized power to swing states, winner-take-all means votes in safe states have no effect, not directly democratic. Reformers advocate the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
Q: What is gerrymandering, what forms does it take, and what has the Supreme Court done about it?
A: Gerrymandering draws district lines for political advantage. Packing concentrates opponents in few districts — they win big but waste votes. Cracking spreads opponents thin — they lose narrowly everywhere. Partisan gerrymandering: SCOTUS in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) held federal courts cannot police partisan gerrymandering — left to states and Congress. Racial gerrymandering: unconstitutional if race is the predominant factor in drawing lines (Shaw v. Reno, 1993). Some states have moved to independent redistricting commissions to address the problem.
Q: How has campaign finance law evolved and what is the current legal landscape?
A: Buckley v. Valeo (1976): spending limits unconstitutional (spending equals speech) but contribution limits are constitutional. BCRA or McCain-Feingold (2002): banned soft money to parties and limited electioneering communications. Citizens United v. FEC (2010): corporations and unions have First Amendment rights — unlimited independent expenditures allowed. Led to Super PACs — unlimited spending, no direct coordination with candidates. Current: hard money to candidates is capped by FEC; Super PAC spending is unlimited; dark money via nonprofit 501(c)(4)s requires no donor disclosure.
Q: What factors affect voter turnout and how does the US compare internationally?
A: US turnout is low by international standards — 55-60% in presidential years and around 40% in midterms. Registration barriers: US requires advance registration while most democracies have automatic registration. Electoral competitiveness: non-competitive races depress turnout significantly. Voter ID laws: studies show negative effects especially on minority voters. Vote-by-mail increases turnout significantly where implemented. Mobilization: ground game and GOTV campaigns matter. Demographics: higher turnout among older, more educated, and higher-income voters consistently. US holds more elections than most democracies causing voter fatigue.
Q: What is the primary system and how does it shape American politics?
A: The primary system determines who represents each party in the general election. Closed primaries (registered party members only) tend to produce more ideologically extreme candidates because the electorate is more partisan. Open primaries (any voter) push candidates more toward the center. Primaries attract more ideologically motivated voters — pushing Republicans right and Democrats left. This contributes to polarization significantly. The primary system is largely a 20th century creation — before it, party bosses controlled nominations through conventions. Presidential primaries replaced convention brokering after the chaotic 1968 Democratic convention.