Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:43:01.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public Discourse or Strategic Game? Changes in Our Conception of Elections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Kristi Andersen  and
Stuart J. Thorson
Kristi Andersen
Affiliation:
Syracuse University
Stuart J. Thorson
Affiliation:
Syracuse University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Much has been written about the “new technology” of U.S. elections: computerized letters, data banks of potential contributors, advanced video advertising techniques, speedy transportation and communication, and instant analysis of polling data. If one examines these discussions for a sense of how the growing use of these new technologies has changed the politics of elections, one finds several themes. Many scholars and journalists have described, for example, the high dollar costs of technology-dependent campaigns, the consequent influence of political action committees, how presidential candidates in particular are “marketed,” via the media, like toothpaste or breakfast cereal, and the prevalence in campaigns of superficial image rather than issues. We argue here that these changes in the way elections are conducted are associated with a deeper change in the conception of elections. The core of this argument is that changes in election technology have made possible the conduct of campaigns in which “strategy” has taken on a new meaning, and that leaders and the public share a view of elections that has progressively less to do with education, public discourse, or participation.

Type
Research Notes
Information
Studies in American Political Development , Volume 3 , Spring 1989 , pp. 262 - 278
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

An earlier version of this essay was presented to the core faculty of the Center for the Study of Citizenship of the Maxwell School, and we are grateful for the resulting thought-provoking discussion. We also thank John Agnew, Larry Herson, Ralph Ketcham, Tom Patterson, Roger Sharp, Manfred Stanley, and David Sylvan for their comments and suggestions.

1. See, for example, Alexander, Herbert, Financing Politics: Money, Elections, and Political Reform (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1982)Google Scholar; Agranoff, Robert, The New Style in Election Campaigns, rev. ed. (Boston: Holbrook, 1976)Google Scholar; Drew, Elizabeth, American Journal: The Events of 1976 (New York: Random House, 1982)Google Scholar; Sabato, Larry, The Rise of Political Consultants (New York: Basic Books, 1981)Google Scholar; McGinnis, Joe, The Selling of the President, 1968 (New York: Trident Press, 1969)Google Scholar; Patterson, Thomas E., The Mass Media Election (New York: Praeger, 1980)Google Scholar.

2. Quoted in Nelson, Brian R., Western Political Thought: From Socrates to the Age of Ideology (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1982), 277Google Scholar.

3. State and local campaigns differ in many ways from presidential campaigns, but the centrality of the presidential elections in American political life, and the disproportionate emphasis of the mass media on them, means that our collective understanding of all elections is very much shaped by the way we see presidential elections.

4. For example, Patterson, , The Mass Media Election, and Patterson, Thomas E. and McClure, Robert D., The Unseeing Eye: The Myth of Television Power in National Politics (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1976)Google Scholar.

5. For interesting notes on earlier surveys, see Marsh, Catherine, The Survey Method (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1982)Google Scholar, as well as Boyd, Richard and Hyman, Herbert, “Survey Research,” in Greenstein, F. and Polsby, N., eds., Handbook of Political Science, vol. 7 (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1975)Google Scholar.

6. Glad, Paul W., McKinley, Bryan and the People (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1964), 176–79Google Scholar; McSeveney, Samuel, The Politics of Depression: Political Behavior in the Northeast, 1893–1896 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972), 179Google Scholar.

7. Polsby, Nelson and Wildavsky, Aaron, Presidential Elections, 5th ed. (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1980), 163–64, 185Google Scholar.

8. See, for example, the discussion of tracking polls in Salmore, Stephen E. and Salmore, Barbara G., Candidates, Parties and Campaigns (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1985), 168–72Google Scholar.

9. Wirthlin, Richard, Breglio, Vincent, and Beal, Richard, “Campaign Chronicle,” Public Opinion, 02–03 1981Google Scholar.

10. Gienapp, William E., “Politics Seem to Enter into Everything,” in Maizlish, S. E. and Kushma, J. J., eds., Essays on American Antebellum Politics, 1840–1860 (College Station: Texas A & M University Press, 1982), 61Google Scholar.

11. Bryce, James, The American Commonwealth, 1894, vol. 2 (London, 1894) 250Google Scholar; cited in Jensen, Richard, The Winning of the Midwest (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971), 4Google Scholar.

12. Patterson, The Mass Media Election, 3.

13. We used a conventional interpretation of “having to do with the presidential election,” which meant that we selected stories that dealt mainly with the candidates, their speeches and travels, predictions about the vote, and the election itself. Thus although a story about the state of the economy might well have had an impact on perceptions of the campaign, we did not include it in our sample. The stories were categorized according to their primary emphasis: (1) a campaign event (trips, plans, rallies); (2) a candidate's or supporter's speech; (3) predictions, assessments of strength; (4) an endorsement or repudiation of candidate by individual or group; (5) an accusation or defense; (6) the election campaign as a whole, a summary or analyais; (7) plans/finances/strategy of one or more campaigns; (8) focus on voters, reasons for vote, voting behavior of population groups.

14. Nelson, Michael, “Evaluative Journalism: A New Synthesis,” Virginia Quarterly Review 58 (Summer 1982): 419–34Google Scholar.

15. See also Patterson, Thomas E. and Davis, Richard, “The Media Campaign: Struggle for the Agenda,” in Nelson, Michael, ed., The Elections of 1984 (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1985)Google Scholar.

16. Paul L. Light and Celinda Lake, “The Election: Candidates, Strategies and Decisions,” in The Elections of 1984, 100.

17. Kessel, John H., “A Game Theory Analysis of Campaign Strategy,” in Jennings, M. K., Zeigler, L. H., eds., The Electoral Process (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1966), 291Google Scholar.

18. Barber, Benjamin, Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 174–75, 198Google Scholar.