The Race that Could Decide Control of the Senate

Republican Senator from Nevada, Dean Heller, is facing a difficult re-election campaign for the November 2018 midterms. As the only incumbent Republican Senator to be running in a state Hillary Clinton won in 2016, Democrats have been eyeing Heller’s seat for a while. 

Nevada is politically a swing state, electing both Democrats and Republicans frequently to state offices in tight races. Most recently, in 2016, Clinton won the state by 2.4% of the vote - a narrow margin, but a clear indication of the state’s tight Democratic edge. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, who won former Majority Leader Harry Reid’s Senate seat in 2016, also won her race by 2.4% against Representative Joe Heck (R). If there is a true “Blue Wave” in November, as polls and special elections have been indicating, even Heller’s incumbency may not stave off a loss. 

Sen. Dean Heller (R)

Dean Heller first won his seat in 2012 when Obama was running for reelection. While Obama won Nevada by about 6.7%, Heller won his race by only 1.2%, an incredibly close margin, but a testament to the strength of his candidacy. As of April 2018, however, Heller’s approval ratings have remained low. According to a Morning Consult poll, only 37% of registered Nevada voters approve of the incumbent, while 40% disapprove. Heller has also come under controversy due to what is deemed “flip-flopping” - holding one position, then abandoning it shortly after to appease a certain group. Heller has flip flopped on key issues such as healthcare, first claiming to oppose any GOP healthcare bill overturning The Affordable Care Act, then shortly after, voting in favor of its repeal. Heller’s controversies, the possibility of a strong “blue wave”, and Nevada’s center-left lean all pose a dangerous threat to Heller’s reelection, and play to the benefit of his opponent, Representative Jacky Rosen. 

Congresswoman Jacky Rosen (D)

Jacky Rosen has represented the 3rd Congressional District of Nevada since 2016, winning by a little more than 1%, while Trump himself won the district by 1% in the same year. Despite having no political experience prior to the 2016 race, Majority Leader Harry Reid asked for Rosen to run in the 3rd District. Rosen holds moderate positions relative to more progressive members of the party, taking standard, center-left positions to appeal to voters in the swing state. 

Polling demonstrates the race is statistically tied, with Representative Rosen narrowly leading in a few polls. Unfortunately, the data is very limited for polling; more information will be produced and published in the following months as the race nears. In terms of fundraising, Heller has $4,920,720 on hand, while Rosen has $2,611,920 on hand. There is still plenty of time to fundraise for both candidates, but this measure will be critical in this toss-up race.

The Nevada Senate race has large repercussions in the battle for control of Congress. Should Democrats manage to pick this seat up, and maintain control of all other 49 seats, they would be in a strong position to pass through a greater Democratic agenda with bipartisan Republicans, such as moderate Senator Susan Collins of Maine. Control of the Senate would be critical for Democrats to block President Trump’s judicial nominees (Federal Circuits and possible Supreme Court vacancies) and disrupting his economic agenda. Should Democrats fail to win this seat, though, their chances of winning back the upper chamber of Congress grow very slim; only victories in all Democratic held seats and possible pick-ups in Arizona and Tennessee would offset this loss. This race is one of the most important ones for Democrats in 2018, and could very well potentially decide control of the chamber for the next several years. 

Can A Democrat Win in Tennessee?

Senator Bob Corker (R-TN)

Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, one of the eight Republican senators up for reelection in the 2018 Midterms, made the momentous decision not to seek reelection on September 27th, 2017. The decision was most likely fueled by an uphill primary battle as well as antagonistic relations with President Trump. The stakes are particularly high in this race; incumbency is a very powerful tool in elections, especially for the Senate, and without an incumbent in Tennessee, a powerful Democratic challenger could potentially win the election in a very conservative state.

2000 Election Results (Wikipedia) 

Tennessee is a Republican stronghold, but it’s not as ruby red as other states, such as Alabama, where Democrat Doug Jones won in an upset against Roy Moore in December 2017. In Tennessee, it wasn’t until 2008 that Republicans were able to take both chambers of the State’s legislature since the Reconstruction era (1860s-1880s). The state is also home to notable Democrats, such as former Senator, Vice-President and later Presidential Nominee Al Gore. Even though contemporaneously the state was closest to voting for a Democrat in 2000 (narrowly voting for Bush over Gore in 2000 by 5%), the state has continuously chosen Republicans in both Presidential and state-wide elections. Republican Senator Alexander Lamar has served since 2003 and Senator Bob Corker has served since 2007, narrowly beating Democrat Harold Ford by 3% in the 2006 election (notably a “wave” election for Democrats). The only exception to a Republican winning in a Tennessee statewide race since the mid 90s is former Governor Phil Bredesen, a Democrat, who beat Republicans for the Governor’s mansion in 2002 and 2006. 

So why then is Senator Corker’s seat even in the conversation for the 2018 Midterms when states such as Nevada, Arizona, Florida, Missouri, and plenty others will be justifiably highly watched? The reason why Tennessee could flip in November is because popular former Governor Phil Bredesen is the front runner for the Democratic Party, and has a good chance of flipping the seat.

Governor Phil Bredesen 

Phil Bredesen is a native Tennessean who has spent a large amount of time in public service. Bredesen was elected Mayor of Nashville in 1991 and served for two terms until 1999. In 1994, Bredesen ran for Governor and won the Democratic primary, but lost in the general election to Republican Don Sundquist 54.3% to 44.7%. In 2002, Bredesen ran once again for Governor, pulling off a narrow victory with 51% of the vote. Bredesen’s term was so successful that he was elected to the Governorship a second time in 2006 with 68.6% of the vote, winning by a margin of almost 38.9%. There is no question Bredesen is one of the strongest candidates Democrats have been able to recruit this cycle to win in November. 


Bredesen is very likely to win his primary on August 2nd, and will most likely face Republican front-runner Rep. Marsha Blackburn. Blackburn has represented Tennessee’s 7th district since 2002, and contributed to Corker’s sudden withdrawal from the race; she posed a threat to the incumbent as a more conservative Trump ally than he.

As an update on how the race has been playing out so far, polling has shown a statistically tied race between Bredesen and Blackburn, with Bredesen taking a slight lead above the Republican. In terms of fundraising, Blackburn has $5,906,913 on hand, while Bredesen has $1,740,547 on hand. There is still plenty of time to fundraise for both candidates, but this measure will be critical in such a close race.

This race is similarly interesting in terms of campaigning traits. Blackburn has identified herself as an unabashed Trump supporter, while Bredesen has instead focused on his history of bipartisanship and considers himself a candidate who can bring people from across the aisle in an era of hyper-partisanship. If Bredesen pulls off a victory it will speak volumes not only in terms of the nation’s views of the Republican Party and Trump, but also on the state of partisan divides and electoral politics. If voters can cross party lines and support a candidate who prides themselves on working across the aisle and calming the “madness” of politics currently, then perhaps future voters will not look for ideological warfare and partisan extremes, but instead will seek out those who will operate in the name of bipartisanship.

The United States of Slavery

Students across the country are taught American slavery ended with the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment. Slavery is a touchy subject: it’s but one major blemish on a proud nation’s history, leaving a twinge of guilt on any American forced to visit the topic. While African-Americans still face oppression, racism, and brutality, we consider them “free”. The notion that all people, regardless of color, are free in the United States is patently untrue, and that fallacy can be found in our own Criminal Justice System.

The Thirteenth Amendment reads, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States”. This amendment seems to be a heroic effort by legislators to change a morally reprehensible system entrenched within the U.S. Constitution, but there is one glaring flaw. Slavery is illegal in all cases save as punishment for a crime, meaning that all slavery is not outlawed. What then does this have to do with African-Americans and the Criminal Justice System?

Restricting African-Americans’ rights are as much a part of our history as the slavery which once bound them. The creation of “Black Codes” in the late 1800s limited the voting rights of freedmen, enacted harsher sentencing, and forced low wage labor for colored individuals. Throughout the 1970s, the U.S. witnessed a mass incarceration of African-Americans at a rapid and devastating pace under Richard Nixon, who criminalized drugs found at a disproportionate rate in African-American communities. Legislation such as three strike laws and mandatory minimums passed during the Reagan administration further accelerated the pace of African-American incarceration. The legal system is fundamentally rigged against African-Americans as they are six times as likely as whites to go to jail for an identical drug charge.

In many states, felons lose fundamental rights such as the right to vote, but the most egregious violation of a prisoner’s freedom is the slavery they are subjected to in the form of prison labor. For-profit prisons, run by corporations, can use the labor of their convicts to work long hours for little to nothing in return. As African-Americans are five times as likely of being incarcerated as whites, they are forced to work in chains on prison-run plantations all too reminiscent of the grim history our nation has tried so hard to overcome.

As long as disproportionally colored prisoners are forced into slavery as sanctioned by the U.S. Constitution’s thirteenth amendment, we should not be considered a free democracy. I call upon legislators at the local, state, and federal level to abolish prison labor and restructure our legal system in order to rectify this blemish on our society.

_______________________________________________________________________________

“Color behind Bars: Racism in the U.S. Prison System: V.1: Historical and Contemporary Issues; V.2: Public Policy and the U.S. Prison System.” Choice Reviews Online, vol. 52, no. 05, 2014, doi:10.5860/choice.187632.

“Cracks in the System: 20 Years of the Unjust Federal Crack Cocaine Law.” American Civil Liberties Union, www.aclu.org/other/cracks-system-20-years-unjust-federal-crack-cocaine-law.

King, Erica Y. “Black Men Get Longer Prison Sentences than White Men for the Same Crime: Study.” ABC News, ABC News Network, 17 Nov. 2017, abcnews.go.com/Politics/black-men-sentenced-time-white-men-crime-study/story?id=51203491.

LoBianco, Tom. “Report: Nixon's War on Drugs Targeted Black People.” CNN, Cable News Network, 24 Mar. 2016, www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html.

“Print.” Color Behind Bars: Racism in the U.S. Prison System [2 Volumes] Page Cover1, publisher.abc-clio.com/9780313399046/1.

Puglise, Nicole. “Black Americans Incarcerated Five Times More than White People – Report.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 18 June 2016, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/18/mass-incarceration-black-americans-higher-rates-disparities-report.

Schwirtz, Michael, et al. “The Scourge of Racial Bias in New York State's Prisons.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 3 Dec. 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/12/03/nyregion/new-york-state-prisons-inmates-racial-bias.html.

Staples, Brent. “The Racist Origins of Felon Disenfranchisement.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 18 Nov. 2014, www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/opinion/the-racist-origins-of-felon-disenfranchisement.html.

Comparing Democracies Across the World

Hey Everyone, 

I submitted a paper for the SAIS review, and while they did not accept my application due to my age (had to be in graduate school), I thought I would share it on here. Hope you enjoy!

______________________________________________________________________________

Developed countries around the world have prided themselves on being bastions of democracy: exemplary models for the rest of the world to aspire to replicate. The founding of the United States of America was brought upon by a greater need by the English colonials for a voice in the laws and governance of the colonies. Upon the success of the revolution, creation of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, and decades of the US as an emerging world power, the first truly successful democratic nation across the world arose. Through the power of voting, citizens were afforded a means to express their own desires in running the country. This idea of a “democracy” eventually blossomed across Western Europe, including the United Kingdom1. While not exactly the same as the Republic found in the US, they were both independently created out of a desire from their own people to vote and express change. Nations such as Norway also borrowed from the American and French constitutions in the early 19th century, but such initiatives were taken not due to pressure from the people but through a desire for independence from Sweden by the nobility. The United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Norway all share very similar institutions, yet are different in the efficiency and functionality of their democratic systems. In these democracies, voters aren’t always entirely represented in their respective government bodies, begging the question of whether those nations’ voters do have a voice in shaping government policy. By examining these specific nations’ electoral systems, I will seek to answer the question of why certain developed countries have stronger democratic frameworks and how this translates to the people’s voting power.

The United States of America is known as the “Leader of the Free World”, and has been in the business of promoting democracy around the globe since the First World War; however, America’s republican system is not consistently representative of the people’s general wishes, consequently diminishing the powers of voters. Upon the success of the American Revolution, the “Founding Fathers” were at a crossroads on how to proceed with the creation of the nation, eventually agreeing on a Constitution and Bill of Rights. Elections for Congressmen would be chosen in a “first past the post” system, where the highest vote-getter wins a seat to the House or Senate, and the President would be chosen by an electoral college. At the time of the institution of the electoral college, most of America was rural and citizens identified with their own state rather than their country, necessitating each state have an equal voice as opposed to a popular vote which would disregard smaller populated states. Opting to provide power to a college of electors may have seemed a strong solution then, when only 6% of the total population was eligible to vote, but voting rights have significantly expanded since that time: property requirements in every state were abolished in 1856, race based discrimination in voting was eliminated in 1870, and the right for women to vote was given in 1920 with the 19th amendment among a plethora of other expansions2. Yet, the method by which the President is elected is still subject to the whim of the states rather than the entire US voting population. The best example of this disproportionate policy is California (55 electoral votes) and Wyoming (3 electoral votes). For every 712,000 people there is one electoral vote in California, while for every 195,000 votes in Wyoming there is one electoral vote3. This indicates a large deficit in the representation voters’ receive in the Presidential election. Furthermore, states which are highly competitive are prioritized by campaigns, meaning candidates spend much of their time trying to sway those individuals, ignoring voters in non-competitive states. This inconsistency is best exemplified in the voter turnout of certain competitive versus non competitive states. In the 2016 Presidential Election, New Hampshire, a swing state, recorded a 72.5% turnout, a significantly higher turnout than the 60% national turnout4. In comparison, Hawaii, a non-swing state, recorded a turnout of only 43%5. By promoting competitive states, and disregarding the predictable states, voters across the country are sidelined as they are deemed unnecessary in the electoral math for victory. The Electoral College does not provide voters the power and voice they require in self-rule, depriving the US of one of the most important tenants in a successful republic. Meanwhile, the House of Representatives is the only body consistently up for an election in every voting period. Lower Houses are common across Parliamentary and Presidential systems across the world, but in the United States, constituencies or districts, are created not by non-partisan means, but through partisan gerrymandering6 7. Gerrymandering is the process of state governments changing the boundaries of a district in order to benefit one party over another. The process of Gerrymandering is used extensively by both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The best examples of Gerrymandering lie in Maryland and North Carolina, a Democratic controlled state and Republican controlled state respectively. In Maryland, Republicans won 35% of the vote, but only 12.5% of the House Seats8, while in North Carolina, Democrats won 47% of the vote, but only 23% of House Seats9. Partisan Gerrymandering destroys the purpose of voting as voters in overwhelmingly safe districts of an opposing party are effectively silenced. Because the House of Representatives makes laws impacting the state itself as well as the entire nation, voters in Gerrymandered states are underrepresented in Congress, mitigating the purpose of a republic. Finally, the US Senate distinguishes itself from other Upper Houses across the world by being directly elected by the people of a state, as well as having more powers than the Lower House, such as the confirmation of Cabinet or other Federal Executive officials, and “advice and consent” on diplomatic treaties. The elections to the US Senate are staggered such that one third of the senate is up for an election every two years. Similar to the problems presented by the Electoral College, Senate elections are very sate specific, and while they are winner take all, this often means voters in “safe states” from the opposing incumbent party don’t have representation in the Senate. Because the institution does also legislate for the entire nation, the makeup of the election map can be unrepresentative of the general population. For example, in the 2016 election, the Democratic Party won 51% of the vote (adjusted for the inconsistency of the California Senate Election where two Democrats appeared on the ballot), but only had control of 48% of the Senate due to past election cycles.10 This method of a changing Senate map means voters will be unable to impact significant change in their state for at most another six years, and at the least two or four when their second Senator is up for reelection. Total turnout in the United States is also drastically less than other developed nations, totalling around 60% for Federal Elections and 40% for midterm elections11, indicating once more voters may not feel the need to vote as they believe their voice doesn’t matter if they are in a state which heavily supports one party or another. The United States’s campaign finance laws are similarly unequal as its electoral system. After the creation of the FEC in 1970 to regulate America’s finance laws, several additions and challenges to campaign finance have arisen in US politics12. The most significant piece of legislation came in the early 2000s with the McCain-Feingold Act, which attempted to limit soft money, unlimited, contributions to political committees13. Significant portions of the bill were later overturned in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case. US campaign laws limit the personal donations individuals are allowed to make, but allow for corporations or labor organizations to donate an unlimited amount to “Political Action Committees” or “PACs”.14 This aspect of American politics ensures politicians can be bought and sold with large campaign contributions by special interest groups or corporations, meaning politicians won’t have the interest of the voters at heart. PACs and other political committees extensively utilize advertisements in order to sway voters, forcing competitive races to boil down to who can control the air waves.

Differing from the United States of America, the United Kingdom adopted a Parliamentary system with its own successes and flaws. Historically, the UK’s democratic system came about through small concessions from the nobles and upper classes to the middle and lower classes, eventually culminating in the creation of two legislative bodies: the House of Commons (Lower House) and the House of Lords (Upper House). In comparison to the House of Commons, the House of Lords has limited powers during the legislative process, and while unable to prevent the passage of a law, they do serve as a check on the Lower House by delaying the passage of bills. The House of Lords is not directly elected, and is instead an appointed body, similar to other Upper Houses found across Europe15. Though not democratically elected, the House of Lords does not have the capacity to decide policy, and therefore does not need consent from voters as much as other Upper Houses such as the United States Senate. In the Lower House, Members of Parliament (MPs) are elected in constituencies, similar to House districts in the US, by a "first past the post" system16. These constituencies are created by a non-partisan board, but they aren't made to be competitive or representative of the entire population. The UK Boundary Commission, a non-partisan organization in charge of shaping the UK’s constituencies, have several goals in the creation of these boundaries, most of which revolve around population requirements17. Voters, like those found in the US, who are packed into “safe constituencies” are denied a voice in Parliament due to "first past the post" voting. This is best illustrated with the recent 2017 election in the UK. The Conservatives secured 48% of seats in the House of Commons while only winning 42% of the vote18. Likewise the Liberal-Democrats won 7% of the vote, but only accounted for less than 2% of parliament. Contrarily, the Labour Party won exactly 40% of the vote as well as 40% of the seats19. Districts found in the United Kingdom are at least more representational than those found in the United States, but the process is still flawed. Midterm elections are nonexistent for the legislative body in the UK, causing general elections to take place every five years, a prolonged amount of time in which both demographics and voter opinions can change dramatically. These prolonged terms may misrepresent voters intentions by preventing the electorate from a means to check incumbent parties in power. In comparison to the United States, however, the UK produces significantly higher voter/or election turnout. As mentioned before, turnout hovers between 40-60% for US elections20 while the UK maintains a significantly larger turnout rate of about 65%-68%21. In the analysis of the success of any republic, turnout numbers are essential to study, as we may conclude UK voters believe they have more of a voice in their government than do American voters. In terms of campaign finance laws, the United Kingdom continues to make strides in removing interest groups and “bought” votes during general elections. As part of the Political Parties, Elections, and Referendums Act of 2000, political parties have a spending cap per district ($42,000), amounting to a total expenditure cap of around $26 million during the election cycle, while individual candidates have a spending cap of around $10,000.22 Parties are also heavily regulated in paid advertisements, unable to buy air time until the very end of the election period.23These campaign finance and advertisement restrictions are to the great benefit of British voters and politicians, who instead of being bought by interest groups and wealthy benefactors, must focus on concrete issues as there are a limited amount of resources available for use.

Finally, Norway distinguishes itself from both the United States and the United Kingdom as a republic which accurately and fairly represents its voters. 

Unlike the two previous examples, Norway’s constitution was not created due to civil instability, but instead as a means by which to gain protection. The 1814 Constitution’s purpose was to recreate a union between Norway and Sweden, and at the time, was one of the most radically liberal constitutions, providing land owning farmers the ability to both vote and run for office; this unique coalition between farmers and the upper class necessitated the system be more equitable to the governing powers24. Therefore, the political system of Norway reflects this voting dynamic, providing citizens the power to shape policy and the organization of government25. Unlike both the US and the UK, Norway utilizes a proportional algorithm in its constituencies as opposed to "first past the post"26. Constituencies are created based on both geography and population size, but partisanship is an unnecessary concern in the creation of such districts due to the proportional representation. Candidates from all parties run on party lists in a constituency; voters will then vote for their party of choice, and the party will win an amount of seats equal to the percent of votes received (i.e winning 20% of the vote results in winning 20% of the seats). This form of proportional representation is the most advantageous in ensuring voters attain a voice in their own government, as it is the most direct measure of their will. Nationally, the turnout reaches close to 78%, one of the highest in the world and significantly outpacing that of the United Kingdom and United States27. This is a strong example of voters feeling confident their views will be properly expressed in the legislative process. Furthermore, because the Norwegian Parliament is allocated proportionally, parties must work in conjunction, forming coalitions in order to secure a ruling government, thereby promoting bipartisan collaboration among parties, ensuring voters across the political spectrum are represented in some way in the executive branch and in policy28. In terms of Norway’s campaign finance laws, over 74% of political parties’ funds come from public funding, while the remaining private donors must be reported in annual reports.29 An independent body administers the campaign finance of Norway’s political parties, adjudicating penalties for failure to abide by the law30. In 2006, Parliament passed the “Broadcasting Act”, outlawing political advertising on TV, and eventually removed advertisements on radio31. By limiting advertisement, voters are forced to both pay closer attention to party manifestos, and parties can reject beholdenment to private enterprises seeking to influence policy. Norway’s democracy is more representative of its voters, and grants them the suitable powers to check the incumbent government.

While the United States, United Kingdom, and Norway all share similarities in both their constitutions and political structures, they vary in how much powers they give to their own voters. The United States, a nation which prides itself on promoting democracy across the world, is less representative of its own voters than other developed nations across the world. The United Kingdom similarly does not represent its people as strongly as a parliamentary political system could. Norway, a nation fairly quiet and less boastful about its democracy, is considerably more representative of its people, affording voters a voice, and subsequently, greater powers in policy making. Voting is a vital right afforded to citizens of these countries, and ensuring this right is adequately protected and fully representative is of critical interest to any self described republic.

1 While the United Kingdom is technically a Constitutional Monarchy and not a Republican Presidential system like the US, the parliamentary systems found in the UK is Republican in its nature.
2US Voting Rights Timeline." Northern California Citizenship Project, 2004, 1-3. doi:10.3897/bdj.4.e7720.figure2f.3Lu, Denise. "Is the electoral college fair?" The Washington Post. Dec. & jan., 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/how-fair-is-the-electoral-college/.4"Voter Turnout Data." United States Elections Project. http://www.electproject.org/home/voter- turnout/voter-turnout-data.5 Ibid6"Gerrymandering in the US." History Learning Site. https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/american- politics/gerrymandering-in-the-us/.7 Note: California and Arizona have non-partisan committees which draw congressional districts
8“Election Statistics, 1920 to Present." US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives. Accessed February 23, 2018. http://history.house.gov/Institution/Election-Statistics/Election-Statistics/.9“North Carolina 2016 Statewide Results." NC SBE Contest Results. http://er.ncsbe.gov/?election_dt=11%2F08%2F2016&county_id=0&office=FED&contest=0.
10“Election Statistics, 1920 to Present." US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives. Accessed February 23, 2018. http://history.house.gov/Institution/Election-Statistics/Election-Statistics/.
11"Voter Turnout ." Fair Vote . http://www.fairvote.org/voter_turnout#voter_turnout_101.
12"The FEC and the Federal Campaign Finance Law." Federal Election Commission . https://classic.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml.
13Gitell, Seth. "Making Sense of McCain-Feingold and Campaign-Finance Reform." The Atlantic. July 01, 2003.https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/07/making-sense-of-mccain-feingold-and- campaign-finance-reform/302758/.14"The FEC and the Federal Campaign Finance Law." Federal Election Commission . https://classic.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml.
15"What is the House of Lords?" UK Parliament. http://www.parliament.uk/education/about-your- parliament/mps-lords-monarch/what-is-the-house-of-lords/.16"The work of the House of Commons." UK Parliament. http://www.parliament.uk/business/commons/what-the-commons-does/.
17“About the Boundary Commission.” Boundary Commission. https://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/about-us/
18"Results of the 2017 General Election." BBC News. http://www.bbc.com/news/election/2017/results/england.19 Ibid20 “Voter Turnout ." Fair Vote . http://www.fairvote.org/voter_turnout#voter_turnout_101.21"General election turnout 1945 – 2017." Voter turnout at UK general elections 1945 – 2017 | UK Political Info. http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm.22Feikert, Clare. "Campaign Finance: United Kingdom." Campaign Finance: United Kingdom | Law Library of Congress. April 01, 2009. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaign-finance/uk.php.23“Broadcasting Act of 1990”. The National Archives, 1990, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/42/contents
24Holmoyvik, Eirik and Nagel, Anne-Hilde,“The Norwegian Constitution 1814: From Autocracy to Democracy”. University of Bergen. November 28, 2013. http://www.uib.no/en/news/48544/1814- autocracy-democracy25Adams, Ben and Smith, Alexander “Norway is the ‘World’s Best Democracy’ - We Asked Its People Why”. NBC News, February 22, 2017. https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/trumps-address-to- congress/norway-world-s-best-democracy-we-as ked-its-people-why-n720151
26“OSCE/ODIHR Election Expert Team Report: Norway Parliamentary Elections” Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. December 4, 2017 https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/norway/360336?download=true27DeSilver, Drew. "U.S. trails most developed countries in voter turnout." Pew Research Center. May 15, 2017. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/15/u-s-voter-turnout-trails-most-developed- countries/.
28Llanos, Mariana “Explaining Coalition Performance in Presidential Systems: The Importance (of a Parliamentary-style) Coalition Management”. Institute for Iberoamerican Studies, German Institute for Global and Area Studies Hamburg, 2006.

29“OSCE/ODIHR Election Expert Team Report: Norway Parliamentary Elections” Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. December 4, 2017 https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/norway/360336?download=true
30 Ibid
31“Broadcasting Act 1990.” Legislation.gov.uk, Statute Law Database www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/42/contents. 

Why Your Vote Counts

As American citizens, one of our most important rights is the right to vote. Voting is an expression of someone’s voice in their government: it impacts both the big-picture and more minute details of a person’s life. The beauty of living in a Republic is that one person can make a small difference just by showing up to vote, and not voting by choice is akin to disregarding one’s own right to shape their future. In this piece, I will make the case of why voting is so important and how one vote can literally decide the fate of elections.

In the 2016 US Presidential Race, only a little more than half (55.7%) of registered voters exercised their right to vote. Those who refrained from voting most likely did so due to a lack of interest, a dislike for both candidates, a belief their vote doesn’t count, or because of voter restriction laws. I firmly believe abstaining from voting is a significant mistake. At the most basic level, the job of a policymaker is to write and vote in favor of legislation benefiting the constituents of the district or state; policymakers can do this because they have a mandate from voters: winning an election means at least a plurality of voters support that person’s policies. Failing to show up and vote is failing to look out for your own interests; a Democrat losing in a very close election against a Republican due to low turnout on their side disadvantages the possible Democratic voters who decide to stay home.

The way our system works is the person with the most votes wins everything (named First Past the Post, or FPTP): if only 48% of people in a certain district support one candidate, and 45% support the other, the first candidate will now represent 100% of that districts voters, but will only vote for policies supported by less than half of voters. The policies they make will impact not only voters in that constituency, but also voters in that states or the country as a whole. Take, for example, the recent GOP effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The endeavor ended up narrowly failing, but was able to pass in the House and failed in the Senate by only one vote. The repeal only had the support of 36% of the population, while 50% opposed the action taken by the GOP. Political actions like the repeal effort have wide ranging implications for millions of Americans, and, a citizen relying on Obamacare who did not vote, would be faced with a crisis jeopardizing their, and possibly their families, health. Their vote maye have seemed unimportant in the grand scheme of their life, but it has the potential to directly affect the trajectory of that person’s life.

Voters who think their vote doesn’t matter or count when in the grand scheme of elections there are millions of votes have a fair reason to doubt their vote actually matters. One vote may not necessarily make the difference in large elections for the Senate or President, but it’s the mentality of a couple of thousand people thinking their vote doesn’t count which has a significant impact. Take, for example, the 2000 Presidential election: Gore lost the state of Florida by 537 votes. If only a few hundred more people had decided to show up and vote for Gore, he would have been President (ignoring the hanging chads). In the 2016 New Hampshire Senate Race, Incumbent Senator Kelly Ayotte (R) lost the reelection by only 1,017 votes to Governor Maggie Hassan; if Ayotte had won, the balance of the senate would be 52 to 48, making the Democratic chances of winning back the Senate in 2018 incredibly more difficult than it is now. Those 1,017 people who decided to show up and vote for the Democrat might have changed the course of history in politics for the next decade. In the 2016 Presidential race, Donald Trump won Wisconsin by 23,748 votes, Pennsylvania by 44,292 votes, and Michigan by 10,704 votes; these may not seem like very close numbers compared to the last two examples provided, but in Presidential elections 30,000 votes can make a huge difference. These close margins were all wins less than one percentage point for Donald Trump. Your vote counts in large-scale elections, and often times make the difference.

More specifically, in the oft ignored local elections, a small amount of votes makes a big difference. The best example of which is in the 2017 Virginia House of Delegates Election. Democrats were able to sweep the election, taking their 33 seats and winning 16 more. In the 94th District, the race was decided by only one vote, and this race would decide whether the Republicans would control the House of Delegates, or whether it would be a tie (50 Democrats and 50 Republicans). In the end, a three-judge panel ruled the one vote was invalid, and the race was an exact tie, forcing the winner to be decided by lottery (drawing a name out of a hat). One more person going out to vote for the Democratic candidate would have decided the fate of this election, and the fate of the House of Delegates.

Elections as small as your local city council and as large as a presidential race can be decided by a few people deciding to exercise their rights, and those elections, no matter the scale, have impacts on not only your everyday life, but every other person living in this country. Your vote counts, and it’s important to remember politics affects so much of our lives that not voting can hurt us in the end.

The 2018 Midterms - Senate

On Tuesday, November 6th, 2018, voters will go to the polls to cast their votes deciding the fate of thirty four senate seats and 435 House seats. The midterms are infamously a period of time where there is substantially less voter turnout compared to presidential elections (voter turnout reached 58% in 2008 and 55% in 2012 presidential years, compared to midterm elections with voter turnout of 41% in 2010 and 36% in 2014) and are n generally  beneficial to  the opposing party. The reason midterms are advantageous to the party out of power is because these elections  usually serve as a check on the majority party if the President is fairly unpopular or simply not popular enough to excite their base to turnout in elections.

The 2018 Midterm Elections are being closely watched for a multitude of reasons,  primarily  to measure the political environment as well as  the President’s popularity. In the 2006 Midterm Elections, Democrats experienced a “wave”, or surge in political power, by retaking the House for the first time in a decade and retaking the Senate under George W Bush’s presidency. Similarly, in 2010, Republicans took back the House with an overwhelming majority and weakened the healthy Democratic majority from 57 seats to 51 seats during Obama’s presidency. There is past precedent of the parties out of party taking back a large control of Congress if the President is unpopular and the base is motivated - luckily for Democrats, they meet both of these conditions going into the 2018 midterms.

The 2018 Midterm at a Glance

The 2018 midterms elections are shaping up to be a matter of concern for both the Democrats and Republicans. In order to retake the House from Republicans, Democrats would need to pick up 24 seats, 23 of which Hillary Clinton beat Trump in 2016. The Generic Ballot Poll, which asks those surveyed who they would support between a generic Democrat and generic Republican, has consistently shown a polling edge favoring the Democrats by an average of an 8-10 point lead, showing signs of a Democratic “wave” (an election where one party makes significant gains in either the House, Senate, or both). In the Senate election, Democrats must defend 25 senate seats (including Senator Al Franken’s seat which will be up in 2018 as a special election), while Republicans only need to defend eight Senate seats. In those 25 Democratic senate seats, ten Senators are in states Donald Trump won in 2016, and five are in states Donald Trump won by 18% or more. The Democrats face a daunting task of winning all their seats as well as winning two more seats from the Republicans to take control of the Senate (51 senators). In the following graph, you’ll find the states with senate seats up for reelection, who currently holds those seats, and by what margin Donald Trump won the state in 2016.

The "State" column is the state's which will be holding Senate elections in 2018, the "Incumbent Party" column is which party currently holds the seat as of December 2017, and the "Trump Margin of Victory" column is the percent by which Trump won (or lost) to Clinton. 

The 2018 Senate Races - Advantages and Disadvantages for The Democrats

Democrats have a significant amount of seats to defend in states Trump won, with the added burden of winning an additional two seats currently held by Republicans. That said, Democrats do have a few  advantages to offset their challenges.

Advantages:

Despite Democrats controlling 10 senate seats in Trump States, they have popular incumbents. Their candidates in these states were elected because they know their state’s culture well and vote on more conservative legislation than the rest of the Democratic caucus. Paired with a popular incumbency, Democrats have performed strongly in many special elections in 2017. Democratic candidates have managed to turn out their base, while the GOP has significantly lagged behind in getting their base to vote. If this trend continues in the 2018 Midterm Elections, which it most likely will, Democrats will be in a position of strength when competing in “swing states” such as Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and many others with Democratic incumbents facing reelection in 2018. In non incumbent states, specifically Nevada, Arizona, Tennessee, and Texas, Democrats have begun the recruitment for powerful competitors who areable to compete in these red states. This turnout can only be so effective, however, and won’t be of much help in states such as Missouri, Indiana, Montana, North Dakota, and West Virginia. The Congressional Ballot polling,mentioned previously, is predictive of a large Dem victory (8-10 points); this is a good indication of the political environment, which shows the Democrats are favored. Independents are supporting Democrats more than Republicans, and the Democratic base is very supportive of their own party. Finally, the last big advantage for the Democrats is Trump’s unpopularity. Trump’s favorability hovers around 37%, while 57% of the population disapproves of him. If Democrats can focus not only on policy, but also the voter’s disapproval of the President, they’ll be able to keep Republican turnout low enough that Democratic turnout can eclipse them enough to assure safe victories for the party.

Disadvantages:

The greatest disadvantage for the Democrats lies in the large number of states they must defend. Republicans will be targeting all ten of the states Trump won, forcing Democratic resources to split among these states leaving the others under-funded. Furthermore, in the most vulnerable Democratic seats, losing even one makes the chances of retaking the Senate significantly more complicated. As it stands, Republicans hold 51 seats to the Democrats 49 seats (two of which, Senators Angus King and Bernie Sanders are independents who “caucus”, or support, the Democratic party), meaning any loss in the Democrats seats would dramatically decrease their chance of a majority.

The 2018 Senate Races - Advantages and Disadvantages for the Republicans

Currently, the Republicans hold a slim majority of 51 seats in the senate. They can afford to lose one more seat in order to maintain their majority, as Vice President Mike Pence would break the 50-50 tie in favor of Republicans.

Advantages:

Republicans have a straightforward path to guarding their majority. Out of the eight senate seats they’re defending, only one (Nevada) voted for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. Arizona favored Trump by only 3%, while the other six voted for trump by nine points or more. If the GOP were to win all their seats, minus Nevada, they would still control the Senate. The Republicans can further expand their majority by targeting the ten states Trump won in 2016. The political environment is very bad for the Republicans right now, but they have incumbents in very safe seats, and if they focus all their resources on a few seats, it makes the Democrat’s chances of taking back the senate much more difficult.

Disadvantages:
The same advantages of the Democrats are major disadvantages for the Republicans: a political environment and strong polling favoring the Democrats, Trump’s low favorability ratings, and the strength of the Democratic candidates. Republicans must overcome their own legislative failures, which include failing to pass an Obamacare repeal bill, despite controlling Congress and the Presidency, and passing an unpopular tax cut.  A divisive agenda will hurt turnout for the Republicans, while providing Democrats the incentive they needed to mobilize and vote.

In the following weeks and months, I’ll be focusing on six “toss-up” races: Tennessee, Arizona, Nevada, Missouri, Indiana, and West Virginia, all states which could either go for the Democrats or the Republicans, and will decide the majority for 2019-2021.

Can Doug Jones Win in Alabama

Recent allegations against the Republican nominee for the Senate, Roy Moore, have pushed the special election in Alabama from a probable Republican victory to a toss-up. The scandal, which broke earlier this month, detailed accounts of now eight women who were allegedly sexually harassed by Moore. Since then, the Democratic nominee for the Senate, Doug Jones, has seen an increase in his poll numbers and political analysts are now asking the question of whether or not a Democrat can feasibly win in the ruby red state of Alabama.

Past Election Results And Polls

The last time a Democrat won a statewide race in Alabama was in 1992 with Senator Richard Shelby who won by a margin of 64.8% to 33.1%. In 1994, however, Shelby switched to the Republican party and is currently still serving in the Senate. Elections in Alabama since ‘92 haven’t been so kind to Democrats: they’ve lost Presidential races in that state by margins of 15% to 27%, with senate and gubernatorial races taking on a similar form.

Most polls from September to early November showed Republican candidate Moore ahead of Democratic candidate Jones by high single to low double digits. The polls which showed Jones and Moore in a deadlock were outliers in a sea of data which showed a GOP hold on the state. This isn’t very much of a surprise as Alabama has consistently been a stronghold for the Republican party in the last 20 years, and its demographics don’t allow much room for change. Over 70% of Alabama’s population is white, while only 26% are african-american. Nationally, 58% of white voters align more with the GOP while only 37% align with the Democratic party, while 88% of african-american voters support the Democrats compared to only 8% for the GOP. These numbers heavily favor the GOP in Alabama, making any Democrat’s victory a difficulty based on the demographics alone.

The Implications of the Scandal and New Polls

Once the allegations against Moore broke, including one harassment claim by a minor at the time, it appeared the race might move in an entirely new direction. In response, dozens of GOP lawmakers pulled their endorsements from Moore. The most significant denouncements of Moore came from the GOP establishment: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senator Cory Gardner, Vice President Mike Pence, as well as other prominent members such as Senators John McCain, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Jeff Flake, who went as far as to say he would vote for the Democrat if he were an Alabama voter. Despite members of the Senate abandoning Moore, Alabama republicans have a negative opinion of the GOP establishment wing, and the lack of endorsements will likely have little impact on the larger electorate of the state.

More recent polling has shown a change in the minds of Alabama voters. New  polls report Doug Jones ahead of Moore by as much as 8 points, while others show a slight Jones advantage, a toss-up, or a slight Moore advantage. This data is good news for Jones as it shows a shift in either the Republican or undecided base against Moore. The election is still three weeks away, meaning these polls may change over time as voters either forget about the scandal or other unforeseen events unfold.

What Jones would need to win in Alabama

Evidence in this year’s special elections have all pointed to a political environment which favors the Democrats, as evidenced in major victories in the Virginia House of Delegates and Virginia Governor race, strong results in special House elections, and other down ballot races. The generic ballot poll which asks likely voters who they would vote for in an election with a generic Democratic candidate vs a generic Republican candidate show strong signs of a Democratic “wave”, where Democrats beat Republicans by a margin of 7% to 15%. Additionally, Trump has the lowest approval rating for any President who has served less than a year in office: the President has an average approval rating of 39%. Despite all these signs pointing to a strong showing by Democrats in the 2018 midterms, flipping a state that has consistently gone for the Republicans by double digits is no easy task, and until a few weeks ago, seemed an unattainable fantasy for the Democratic party.

Despite the Moore Scandal, some Republican voters are still defending Moore, while others are begrudgingly voting for him to ensure the Republicans maintain their slim majority in order to pass their Tax Reform initiative and other campaign promises made by the party. Moderate Republicans are less likely to hold their nose, and that is where Jones has a shot at victory.

If moderate Republicans or Conservatives, outraged by Moore’s scandal, refuse to vote for the GOP nominee, Jones has a chance to win. If there is depressed turnout on the Republicans side, Jones’s coalition of millenials, African Americans, other registered Democrats, and moderate Republicans could squeak by with just enough turnout and support to narrowly beat Moore.

Moore  has never concealed his paleoconservative side - a “Bannonite” who follows the anti-establishment, nationalistic, ideology of former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon. He’s repeatedly attacked Republicans such as Mitch McConnell and has alienated himself from the moderate base of the party. If these moderate Republicans switch over to Doug Jones, they pad his coalition of normally Democratic voters which can allow him to reach a plurality of votes and secure a victory over Moore.

Another possible election scenario is one where moderate Republicans and disgruntled Conservatives refuse to vote for either candidate, instead opting to write-in someone such as incumbent Senator Luther Strange, who had lost the Republican primary to Roy Moore. In this case, a three-way race between Moore, Jones, and write-in Strange, would leave Jones with some chance to win, but still slim. Before the scandal, Jones had a polling average of around 41%, whereas Moore had an average of around 50%. After the allegations, both Moore and Jones have been polling at approximately 45%. These numbers shifted most likely due to Republicans switching sides, but if a write-in candidate, such as Strange, were added into the equation, we can expect Jones’s numbers to maintain at close to 41% (his base before the scandal), and Moore’s numbers remaining at about 45% (his base after the scandal), with a write-in getting maybe 10% or more, but not enough to win. The only way in which Jones could win in this scenario would be by courting enough undecideds onto his side in order to narrowly beat Moore.

In both scenarios, a Jones upset is a toss-up and this race remains incredibly tight. Assuming no other scandals break and no write-in campaign begins, Jones has only a few options in pulling off an upset in the race.

As was mentioned earlier, Moore may lose support from moderate Republicans and other Conservatives, but those votes can only help Jones so much. In order to get more votes than Moore, Jones has to rile up his coalition in order to maximize turnout to beat his opponent.

There is a large african-american population in Alabama which gives Jones an advantage in the race, but the challenge is getting them to turnout in large numbers. Turnout may be depressed in these voters, or not as high as Jones needs them to be, which poses problems for his campaign. This demographic is key to his victory: with them, he doesn’t automatically win but without them he automatically loses. Jones has been targeting areas with a sizeable african-american population in order to drive up voter registration numbers before the deadline of November 27th. Part of Jones’s campaign message to these voters has been to highlight his career as an attorney for Alabama who prosecuted two members of the KKK who killed four African-American girls in a church bombing. Jones’s goal is to contrast his work and time in public service with Moore’s time in which he was removed twice as a member of the Alabama Supreme Court for defying the law - once for failing to remove the ten commandments from a public area and another for failing to follow the Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage.

The second demographic Jones has been attempting to capture is the millennial/student vote. Often considered a shoe-in for Democrats, Millenials don’t always turnout in elections, especially special and midterm elections where there is generally less participation from the electorate as a whole. Jones has targeted college campuses to drive up registration.  The key to his victory rests upon millenials and students getting out to vote.

Jones’s coalition of voters, as shown above, is instrumental in his success. If there is high turnout from african american voters, millennials and students, and a few traditionally republican voters, there’s a chance he can win the race and turn ruby red to light blue.