Is the cure for the ills of democracy more democracy? Is it possible to have too much democracy in a well-functioning government? What should a model electoral democracy look like? In this critical examination of the state of American electoral process, Matthew Streb analyzes the major debates that embroil scholars and reformers on subjects ranging from the number of elections we hold and the use of nonpartisan elections, to the presidential nominating process and campaign finance laws. Ultimately, Streb makes an argument for a less burdensome democracy, a democracy in which citizens can participate more easily. This book is designed to get students of elections and American political institutions to think critically about what it means to be democratic and how democratic the United States really is. Part of the Controversies in Electoral Democracy and Representation series, edited by Matthew J. Streb. Matthew J. Streb is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Northern Illinois University. He is the author The New Electoral Politics of Race, and the editor or co-editor of five other books including Running for Judge.

While frustration with various aspects of American democracy abound in the United States, there is little agreement over¿or even understanding of¿what kinds of changes would make the system more effective and increase political participation. Matthew J. Streb sheds much needed light on all the major concerns of the electoral process in this timely book on improving American electoral democracy. This critical examination of the rules and institutional arrangements that shape the American electoral process analyzes the major debates that embroil scholars and reformers on subjects ranging from the number of elections we hold and the use of nonpartisan elections, to the presidential nominating process and campaign finance laws. Ultimately, Streb argues for a less burdensome democracy, a democracy in which citizens can participate more easily in transparent, competitive elections. This book is designed to get students of elections and American political institutions to think critically about what it means to be democratic and how democratic the United States really is. Part of the Controversies in Electoral Democracy and Representation series, edited by Matthew J. Streb.

While frustration with various aspects of American democracy abound in the United States, there is little agreement over—or even understanding of—what kinds of changes would make the system more effective and increase political participation. Matthew J. Streb sheds much-needed light on all the major concerns of the electoral process in the thoroughly revised third edition of this timely book on improving American electoral democracy. This critical examination of the rules and institutional arrangements that shape the American electoral process analyzes the major debates that embroil scholars and reformers on subjects ranging from the number of elections we hold and the use of nonpartisan elections, to the presidential nominating process and campaign finance laws. Ultimately, Streb argues for a less burdensome democracy, a democracy in which citizens can participate more easily in transparent, competitive elections. This book is designed to get students of elections and American political institutions to think critically about what it means to be democratic, and how democratic the United States really is. Part of the Controversies in Electoral Democracy and Representation series, edited by Matthew J. Streb.

Recent U.S. elections have defied nationwide majority preference at the White House, Senate, and House levels. This work of interdisciplinary scholarship explains how “winner-take-all” and single-member district elections make this happen, and what can be done to repair the system. Proposed reforms include the National Popular Vote interstate compact (presidential elections); eliminating the Senate filibuster; and proportional representation using Ranked Choice Voting for House, state, and local elections.

Why is American politics so intense and emotionally competitive today, and how did we get here? In The Fundamental Voter, John H. Aldrich, Suhyen Bae, and Bailey K. Sanders explain why the notion that we are divided into tribal loyalties is, at best, only partially correct, and discuss how the divisions rest on much more substantive politics than they once did. In the 1950s and 1960s, the American public based voting primarily on partisan loyalties. Landslide presidential elections were once common, but over the last forty years, they have converged to very closely contested elections. Congressional elections were increasingly incumbent centered before 1984 and decreasingly so afterward. These changes reflect the changing nature of fundamental forces that shape the public's electoral opinions and voting behavior. From a single such fundamental, partisan identification, the electorate now rests on five fundamental forces: party, ideology, issues, race, and economics. Since the 1980s, these fundamentals have grown increasingly important and increasingly aligned, such that voters are now sorted into two increasingly bitterly divided sides. Believing that the other side is on the wrong side of nearly everything of political relevance, voters, like officials, have come to deeply dislike the opposition, a state of affairs that threatens to undermine the stability of democratic institutions in the United States.

Maintaining the perception of fairness and equal access during elections assures the legitimacy of a democratic system. The U.S. in particular prides itself on its open and honest voting laws and procedures. However, the extraordinary closeness of the 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore triggered a rare scrutiny of the election process. This highly disputed contest revealed problems with ballot design and order; access to the polls; voting machines; absentee, military, and overseas ballots; election laws and the Electoral College; and judicial oversight of the voting process. It brought to light issues regarding political polling in general, exit polls in particular, media projections and reporting, and even the election night "calling" of outcomes. Rethinking the Vote: The Politics and Prospects of American Election Reform centers on what can and should be learned about the processes of voting. Using the 2000 presidential election as a starting point, this collection of essays puts forth a constructive effort to learn from what transpired and to offer potential solutions for the future. Featuring work by leading academics and participants in the real-world drama of the 2000 election, it examines the legal, political, and institutional problems of administering elections in the U.S. The book begins and ends with questions about the prospects and possibilities for reform. It takes a consistently pragmatic approach that recognizes both the constraints on and the opportunities for change in America's elaborate constitutional and political structures. Providing a useful mix of quantitative and qualitative data, Rethinking the Vote is ideal for undergraduate courses in American politics, American elections, public opinion and voting behavior, American political thought, campaigns and elections, presidential politics, and media and politics.

In The Fundamental Voter, John H. Aldrich, Suhyen Bae, and Bailey K. Sanders explain why the notion that we are divided into tribal loyalties is, at best, only partially correct, and discuss how the divisions rest on much more substantive politics than they once did. In the past, the American public based voting primarily on partisan loyalties; today they do so on five fundamental forces: party, ideology, issues, race, and economics. Since the 1980s, these fundamentals have grown increasingly important, such that voters are now sorted into two bitterly divided sides. Voters have come to deeply dislike the opposition, a state of affairs that threatens the peaceful progress of democratic politics in the United States.