University of California San Diego Federalist and Non Federalists Debates HW Hello I have an essay duo, it is 6-8 pages! I will post the requirements. ther | Course Hero

University of California San Diego Federalist and Non Federalists Debates HW Hello I have an essay duo, it is 6-8 pages! I will post the requirements. there are power points, There are readinds. ALL THE SOURCES NEED TO BE FROM THE readings and the power points! NO OUTSIDE SOURCES. I will attach the requirements and power points after the questions is accepted. and please use easy words. The requriements will be an a PDF, please go through them carefully. the PDF with requirements is labeled poli 102c final draft. 7/24/2020
Democracy and Representation:
1940-2000
The Latest Democratic Wave: who and for what?
1
Who—Amendments and Laws
?
Along with VRA (1965)
?
24th Amendment/Poll Tax (1.23.64)
?
?
?
?
1962-, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, Virginia
— federal elections only but SCOTUS added states later
Senate vote:
77-16
3.27.1962
House vote: 295-86 8.27.1962
2
1
7/24/2020
24th Amendment
3
4
2
7/24/2020
History-Voting Rights Act (1965)
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
1. Along with Civil Rights Act (1964)—took decades to get through
Congress—1948 Democratic platform
2. Effects of Congressional Institutionalization:
Seniority and Committee assignments—later
the Senate–filibuster-Strom Thurmond et al., finally enough for cloture
3. LBJ as President from South
4. Interested parties—blacks had moved North during and after WW2 for
work—now part of Northern congress members’ constituencies or potential
constituencies
5. Important note—before the 1960s, civil rights was a Republican issue
6. The news media and Northern attention
5
?
Newspapers-Magazines: Emmett Till’s brutal murder (1955)
?
TV: Freedom Riders (1961)
?
Bombing of church (1963):
?
and Northern/White deaths (1964)-Schwerner, Goodman and Chaney/
?
‘Bloody Sunday’ (1965)
? andViola Liuzzo
6
3
7/24/2020
Voting Rights Act (1965)
?
Final Vote 77-19 Senate; 333-85 House: Based more on
geography than party
?
Regionalism revived?
7
Final Tally—Geography, Not Party
8
4
7/24/2020
Major Provisions
?
Section 2—prohibited imposition of a voting system that denied or abridged
voting rights based upon race or color—reaffirmation of 15th Amendment
?
Section 5—law applied to covered jurisdictions (Section 4) that had a
history of past discrimination/any electoral changes had to be “precleared”
by DOJ or DC federal district court
9
Results-VRA (CRA)
?
1. eliminates literacy tests and other discriminatory barriers (Poll Taxes
completed eliminated by Constitutional Amendment)
?
2. explosion in black registration—e.g., MS goes from 6.7% to 59.8%-aided by federal marshals (2nd Reconstruction)
?
3. 7 states originally covered: black-white registration gap drops from
44.1%-11.2%
10
5
7/24/2020
These Include
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
registration laws
Voter ID
Felony laws
BALLOT FORM
primaries (form and date)
District boundaries—gerrymandering
Voting Rules
11
1982 Renewal
12
6
7/24/2020
From ‘Who can’ to ‘for What’ and …
…are votes weighed differently
…the notion of ‘vote dilution’
13
And extension to ‘for what’….
?
23rd 1960 — D.C. granted 3 electoral votes
? Voice vote
? Ratification?
? Attempt to grant vote for Congress:
?
?
?
Proposed by Congress 1978 (HR: 289-127 / Senate (67-32) – seems more party than region
Lacked enough for ratification: only 16—on La. in South
26th 1971 — 18-20 year olds (11 million)
?
?
?
?
?
(Ak-19, Ha-20, Ky, Ga)
House
401-19
Senate
94-0
States—no action by 7
SD not until 2014
14
7
7/24/2020
23rd Amendment–Ratification–1960-61
LEGEND
Original Ratification
Ratified 2002
No Vote
Voted Against
15
8
7/8/2020
Change in U.S. Political Culture and
Institutions: Democracy
The Perfect Storm:
Democratization, the Frontier,
the Election of 1800, and the
“Idea of a Party System”
1
EARLY VIEWS ON DEMOCRACY—WHO SHOULD VOTE?
REMEMBER—mainly state based
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Limited, especially to property owners
Reasons:
1. More educated (still with us?)
2. More time
3. More connected to community-vested
4. More “moral”
Massachusetts debate: “Men possessed of property are entitled to a greater share in
political authority than those who are destitute of it.” (“the Free Republican,” 1785)
?
?
?
?
Essay by John Adams
5. OFTEN NEGLECTED
—LESS LIKELY TO BE CONTROLLED, ESPECIALLY WHERE BALLOT WAS NOT
SECRET
Some colonies/states had religious qualifications—disenfranchised Jews, Quakers,
Catholics—even 2nd Amendment
2
1
7/8/2020
INCREASED FRANCHISE
?
Remember—Constitutional Convention left voting rights out – left
to the states as before
?
No “national sense” or definition of suffrage
?
First, substitutes for property
–taxable worth
–military service
–”poll tax” as scheme for expansion, not retrenchment
3
18th Century Examples
*Sean Wilentz (2005), The Rise of American Democracy
?
1. between Revolution and Constitution, no state dropped
property taxes, but a broader “tax paying” qualification
potentially extended the franchise to 40% of “the electorate”
?
But, without an automatic suffrage, not all would feel
compelled to use it
4
2
7/8/2020
Generations, “Interested Clientele,” and Geography
?
?
Revolutionary/PR generation—not tied in to colonial sense of
“noblesse oblige” (Constitutional generation)
Many gained or politically fought for land rights after the
Revolution
?
Bourgeoisie/Mechanics Associations—early commercial class
in cities—power for themselves by expanding franchise of
their workers and fight against under representation of newly
emerging cities
?
Aided by “leveling” with Western Expansion (Adams on
acquiring property) – whether reality or myth
5
US Voting Requirements on Entry
(to 1820)
6
3
7/8/2020
?
Engerman and Sokoloff (2005)
?
Not just timing
?
New states (non-colonial)
mostly entered without property
qualifications, even before most
of the original 13 changed.
7
Results
?
By 1820s, most states remove land-based, property qualifications in state Constitutions
?
Some retrenchment—intended or unintended results of codification
—all “adult, white males”
—blacks and women
?
?
?
But, comparison to Britain—about 5% in 1831*; the 1832 Reform Act “gave the vote in towns only to men
who occupied property with an annual value of £10, which excluded six adult males out of seven from the
voting process.”**
Further democratization—removal of state legislators from EC—greater reflection on popular choices (not
quite yet WTA)
Next—how do you mobilize newly-enfranchised voters? The intersection of party and democracy.
*http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/schemes2/citizenship/cit12/12q2?view=get
**http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/struggle_democracy/getting_vote.htm
8
4
7/8/2020
Generational Change and the “Idea of a Party
System”
?
?
?
1. “Party” and “Partisan” tended to have a negative connotation in
colonial America and the early Republic
Party=partire=to divide (the mother of all factions)
Essential sea change–American political culture—myth or
reality—was built on norm of consensus, not division, i.e., winning
and losing sides, unless warfare
9
Perceived Need for Parties
?
Constitution creates a separation of powers that seems to be geared
more towards stalemate than solution
?
Newly enfranchised (and, for the most part, not well educated) voters
lacked a sense of collective mobilization
?
WC lacked a sense of contact with constituents
?
Could party organizations and competition provide the answer?
?
Federalists seemed to be usurping too much power (Alien and Sedition
Act)—Jefferson acts
10
5
7/8/2020
Critical Event
Somewhat Delayed Importance of Election of 1800:
1. first peaceful transition of power
2. Fears of Jacobin Revolution more than overstated
3. Jeffersonians argued that theirs was a temporary
organization that was needed only to remove Federalists from
power who had abused their authority
4. First signs of party organization (even if just at elite level)
-legislative state elections of 1799-1800
-start of movement to popular advisement for Presidential
electors (fostered by Jeffersonian Republicans)
-political maneuverings—once Virginia went to popular
advisement, electors would all be chosen statewide (all, of
course, would then go to Jefferson/Burr).
?
?
?
?
?
11
Constitutional Justification
?
?
?
?
?
?
Election of 1800 produced a tie in the Electoral College—Jeffersonians,
in order to secure a victory, had developed the first, consciously
organized balanced slate (TJ and AB)
But, remember, Constitution made no distinction between first and
second place choices—why? The EC was supposed to choose a
president, without regionalized loyalties, that was a consensus choice
Settled in House where each state was granted one vote—many
Federalists eventually abstained, ceding their states to Jefferson or not
casting a statewide vote
Hated Burr (who tried to win some Federalists votes) but did not want to
fully legitimize Jefferson’s election
12th Amendment—parties not mentioned, but they are implicit in change
to separate P/VP voting pattern
…concedes on consensus—goes with majoritarian notion
12
6
7/8/2020
Back to Generations
?
The Election of 1800 had to be viewed as something significant,
as an indication that you could have winners and losers and all
hell wouldn’t break loose—party competition one option
?
Helped by system of Federalism and Separation of
Powers/C&B—Jeffersonian Republicans did not win everything
(especially not Federal Courts)
13
Parties and Democratization
?
New “Political Entrepreneurial” Class (VanBuren)—parties and
party leaders to organize newly enfranchised, not well educated
masses (AWM), as well as coordinate governmental action across
states and across branches of government
?
Comparative—why the Socialist Parties only partially succeeded
in the U.S.—no need to expand the franchise
14
7
7/8/2020
Importance of Competition
?
Moving from norm of consensus meant acceptance of losing
?
Acceptance of losing would not emerge if individual citizens
felt they would always be on the losing side
(think about slavery)
?
Again—helped by Federalism and
Separation of Powers
15
?
Ongoing example of close competition between the
parties was critical
?
Once this happened, individuals would be more likely to
feel their vote was worth something
?
Once this happened, party leaders would realize they
needed to work harder to secure victories (chicken and
egg question)
See charts
?
16
8
7/8/2020
17
Chicken and Egg
?
Was it competition that led to increased turnout and then
party organizational development?
?
Was it party organizational development that led to increased
turnout and then competition?
?
Probably, simultaneous
18
9
7/8/2020
Partisanship extremely important/competition very high
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Presidential victors (Federalists Gone—”Era of Good Feelings”=“Era of no
one cared about national elections but then” :
1828-Jackson (DR)/Adams (NR)
1832-Jackson (DR)/Clay (NR-Whig)
1836-Van Buren (D)/Harrison (Whig)
1840- Harrison (W)/Van Buren (D)
1844-Polk (D)/Harrison (Whig)
1848-Taylor (W)/Cass (D)
1852-Pierce (D)/Scott (W)
1856-Buchanan (D)/Fremont (R)
1860-Lincoln (R)
1864-Lincoln (R)
19
U.S.House
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Note: unlike Republicans, Whigs are a national party
1836-barely Democratic (+1)
1838-Dem (+6)
1840-W (+31)
1842-1844-D (strongly Dem.)
1846-W
1848-D
1850-1852-strongly D
1854-R
1856-D
1858-R
20
10
7/8/2020
21
Change from Pre-Party to Party Era (1800-1830s)
?
1. Increase in democratization, including extension of
franchise
?
2. Acceptance of Party as legitimate means of organizing
political action
?
3. Most importantly, acceptance of party competition
22
11
7/8/2020
Continues Throughout and After Civil War
?
Civil War as evidence of both strength and demise of “norm of
competition”
?
1864—McClellan (D) wins 45% of Northern presidential vote
Dems win several state houses and legislatures
?
?
?
?
?
Up to 1900, no single party wins Presidency with more than 55.6% of
popular vote
Many extremely close elections (
Purchase answer to see full
attachment