tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/john-kasich-19312/articlesJohn Kasich – The Conversation2023-08-30T12:17:52Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2100442023-08-30T12:17:52Z2023-08-30T12:17:52ZGovernors may make good presidents − unless they become ‘imperial governors’ like DeSantis<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/544785/original/file-20230825-17-4q4pb7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C2635%2C8188%2C2684&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Of the eight Republicans on stage at the party's first presidential debate, six were current or former governors.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/republican-presidential-candidates-former-arkansas-gov-asa-news-photo/1621999903">Joshua Lott/The Washington Post via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Many people believe governors make good presidents. In fact, a 2016 Gallup Poll found that almost <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/189119/state-governor-best-experience-presidency.aspx">74% of people</a> say that governing a state provides excellent or good preparation for someone to be an effective president. As a result, many political commentators have tried to explain why Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is stumbling in his campaign for president. </p>
<p>Some say it is because he is <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/politics/ron-desantis-campaign-challenges.html">stiff or awkward on the campaign trail</a>, or his path to the nomination is not really to the political right of former President Donald Trump, or he needs to step up and directly confront the former president.</p>
<p>But as the former executive director of the <a href="https://www.nga.org/">National Governors Association</a> for 27 years, I have worked with well over 300 governors. During that time I have been part of many conversations with governors regarding other governors running for president. So I know that some current and former governors on both sides of the aisle would have another reason for why DeSantis is stalling. If you were to ask them, I expect they would mostly smile and say quietly, “It is because he has become an imperial governor” – one who believes he is all-powerful and that all his decisions will be just applauded and never questioned or opposed.</p>
<h2>A dominant position</h2>
<p>Unlike presidents, who are seldom able to politically dominate Washington, D.C., many governors can dominate their states – so much so that some begin to believe they can do nothing wrong. Essentially, they believe they can do anything. </p>
<p>That experience often creates a false impression that what they did in their states they can do for the nation. A recent Miami Herald opinion article called DeSantis an <a href="https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/article277104213.html">anti-woke, anti-LGBTQ+ politician</a> who has become known for fighting drag queens, critical race theory and Disney.</p>
<p>These are not exactly issues important to citizens of most other states and thus not useful as a foundation for a presidential campaign. This is clearly reflected in a recent New York Times poll of Republicans, where <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/06/us/politics/woke-republicans-poll.html">only 17% supported an anti-woke campaign</a>, while 65% supported a law-and-order campaign.</p>
<h2>Significant power</h2>
<p>Governors traditionally have more constitutional and legal powers than do presidents, particularly in terms of budgets and in cases of emergency.</p>
<p>In fact, former governors Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were known to remark, when they were president, that they <a href="https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/02/01/UPI-Spot-News-Weekender-Line-item-veto-on-Reagan-wish-list-again/1481539154000/">wished they had the budget powers</a> <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/wp062698.htm">they had</a> <a href="https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/03/text/20060306-7.html">when they were governor</a>. Often, I heard these comments during discussions with governors at National Governors Association meetings.</p>
<p>To reduce federal spending, Congress and the president must agree.</p>
<p>But <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/4082783-line-item-veto-explained/">most governors have line-item veto authority</a> over budgets, allowing them to strike funding for specific programs, subject only to the override by a super-majority of the legislature.</p>
<p>Similarly, many governors can <a href="https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2022/03/how-states-can-manage-midyear-budget-gaps">cut previously enacted state budgets by up to 5%</a> without consent from the legislature.</p>
<p>Some governors can even spend federal funds sent to the state without legislative approval. For instance, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a Republican, unilaterally expanded Medicaid eligibility in his state in 2013 under the Affordable Care Act – <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/us/medicaid-expansion-is-set-for-ohioans.html">over the objections of his fellow GOP members</a> who controlled the state General Assembly.</p>
<p>By contrast, President Joe Biden has struggled to <a href="https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/supreme-court-rejects-student-loan-relief-plan/2023/06">reduce the burden of student loan debt</a>, and, in fact, his plan was overturned by the Supreme Court.</p>
<p>Governors also typically have more power than presidents during emergencies. During the pandemic, <a href="https://nashp.org/states-covid-19-public-health-emergency-declarations/">all 50 governors declared states of emergency</a> that allowed them to expand health care workers’ ability to provide care, reducing hospitals’ and doctors’ liability to lawsuits, and protected consumers from price gouging on necessities. They were also able to require certain groups of people to wear masks and get vaccinated, and even shut down bars and restaurants for periods of time. </p>
<p>When then-President Trump declared a <a href="https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-declaring-national-emergency-concerning-novel-coronavirus-disease-covid-19-outbreak/">federal COVID-19 emergency</a>, his powers were largely restricted to the health care programs that the federal government administers, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and efforts by the Department of Health and Human Services.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/544787/original/file-20230825-21-tmcf8s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A man in a vest swings a baseball bat." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/544787/original/file-20230825-21-tmcf8s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/544787/original/file-20230825-21-tmcf8s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/544787/original/file-20230825-21-tmcf8s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/544787/original/file-20230825-21-tmcf8s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/544787/original/file-20230825-21-tmcf8s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/544787/original/file-20230825-21-tmcf8s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/544787/original/file-20230825-21-tmcf8s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis swings a baseball bat during a presidential campaign stop in Iowa in August 2023.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/Election2024DeSantis/3e78128c336546f3b3cb79f4894e0589/photo">AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Political prominence</h2>
<p>Governors often are the dominant political force in their states. They particularly tend to overshadow the legislative and judicial branches – which significantly limit the power of the president at the federal level. </p>
<p>Governors dominate the legislature, in part, because state lawmakers tend to have <a href="https://www.ncsl.org/about-state-legislatures/size-of-state-legislative-staff">very few staff</a> to help them – if any at all. By contrast, U.S. House members each have <a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43947">about 18 staff members</a>,
and senators average about 40 staffers.</p>
<p>And that doesn’t include committee staff members or the support organizations of the <a href="https://www.usa.gov/agencies/congressional-research-service">Congressional Research Service</a>, the <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/">Congressional Budget Office</a> and the <a href="https://www.gao.gov/">Government Accountability Office</a>, which work for committees and members.</p>
<p>In addition, most state legislators are part time and may only be in session a few weeks per year. The commonwealth of Virginia is like many states, <a href="https://www.djj.virginia.gov/pages/about-djj/legislative-process.htm">only meeting for 60 days</a> in even years and 30 days in odd years – though those sessions are often extended by up to 15 days.</p>
<p>It is also true that many governors have legislatures with huge majorities of the same party, which often minimizes any opposition. In Florida, for instance, <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/2023_Florida_legislative_session">28 of the 40 senators are Republican</a>, and 85 of the 120 House members are as well. This adds up to a veto-proof majority for DeSantis. </p>
<p>Governors tend to dominate state supreme courts, too. Most states’ justices, who are typically appointed by the governor, have <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Length_of_terms_of_state_supreme_court_justice">both term limits and age limits</a>, which means turnover is much more rapid. Therefore, states’ top judges are more likely to have been appointed by the current sitting governor – as opposed to the federal Supreme Court, where <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-judicial-branch/">judges have life appointments</a> and can serve through many presidencies.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/544807/original/file-20230825-15-1rmqq5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A woman smiles while holding a microphone." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/544807/original/file-20230825-15-1rmqq5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/544807/original/file-20230825-15-1rmqq5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/544807/original/file-20230825-15-1rmqq5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/544807/original/file-20230825-15-1rmqq5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/544807/original/file-20230825-15-1rmqq5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/544807/original/file-20230825-15-1rmqq5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/544807/original/file-20230825-15-1rmqq5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley speaks during a presidential campaign event in Iowa in August 2023.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/Election2024AbortionCandidates/f3b2a649196d48319450820fe8556d85/photo">AP Photo/Jeff Roberson</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A matter of timing</h2>
<p>A governor most often begins to view himself as imperial during the first couple of years after a very successful reelection – and only in states with large populations.</p>
<p>The last governor that I remember who reached imperial status was <a href="https://www.nga.org/governor/scott-walker/">Scott Walker</a>, Wisconsin’s governor from 2011 to 2019. He ran for president in 2016 but <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/scott-walker-2016-drops-out-213894">withdrew after only two months</a> because of his poor showing in the polls.</p>
<p>This year, in addition to DeSantis, five other former or current governors have declared they are running for president. And at least one is still considering doing so. But most of them are not imperial governors nor at risk of becoming one.</p>
<p>Mike Pence, the former governor of Indiana, never became imperial because he never ran for reelection. Instead, he was chosen by Donald Trump to be his vice president. In addition, many in his party believe he would have had <a href="https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2016/05/27/gov-mike-pence-facing-tough-re-election-afte-social-issues-stands/85023730/">difficulty in his bid for reelection</a>.</p>
<p>Former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey never reached imperial status because he governed in a state where the legislature was dominated by the opposite party. Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson served in a very small state, with only 3 million people. Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley also served in a small state, of 5 million people. Any power she might have carried from the governorship into a run for the presidency has dissipated in the six years she has been out of office, including serving as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota serves in an even smaller state, with less than a million people. Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin is reportedly <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/08/15/virginia-voters-glenn-youngkin-2024/70549023007/">still considering a run</a>.</p>
<p>DeSantis, by contrast, is a second-term governor of a large state. Florida is the <a href="https://www.census.gov/library/stories/state-by-state/florida-population-change-between-census-decade.html">third most-populated state</a>, with <a href="https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/FL/PST045222">22.2 million residents</a> as of July 2022. And in 2022, <a href="https://www.wuft.org/news/2022/11/08/desantis-wins-2022-florida-governors-race-by-largest-margin-in-40-years/">DeSantis won reelection in a landslide</a> with <a href="https://www.politico.com/2022-election/results/florida/statewide-offices/">59.4% of the vote</a>.</p>
<p>The state legislature is dominated by people of the same political party, and DeSantis has appointed <a href="https://www.wptv.com/news/state/desantis-appoints-fifth-justice-to-current-state-supreme-court-meredith-sasso">five of the seven justices</a> on the state supreme court.</p>
<p>There is no question that <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-poll-indictments-2023-08-20/">Trump’s recent indictments</a> have made him a stronger candidate for the nomination. Whether this strength will last is unclear as the court cases play out.</p>
<p>But if DeSantis continues to be an imperial governor, he will not be able to take advantage of any erosion in support for the former president and risks being just a footnote in the 2024 race – and may have to forget about 2028 as well.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/210044/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Raymond Scheppach does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A former executive director of the National Governors Association explains what it is about certain governors that makes them less suited for the presidency.Raymond Scheppach, Professor of Public Policy, University of VirginiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/963252018-05-09T03:31:32Z2018-05-09T03:31:32ZOhio voters make conservative choices in governor’s primary – picking DeWine, Cordray<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218214/original/file-20180509-34006-1c7y3ha.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It's DeWine versus Cordray in the Ohio governor's race.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/John Minchillo</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Ohio politics is shifting to the right.</p>
<p>As a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=list_works&hl=en&user=5GMIqMwAAAAJ">political scientist</a> at Ohio State University, that’s my takeaway from seeing Mike DeWine and Richard Cordray win overwhelming victories to secure their parties’ nominations in the primary for governor on <a href="https://www.cnn.com/election/2018/primaries/ohio/all/democratic">May 8</a>.</p>
<p>It could be the sign of things to come in Ohio. </p>
<h2>Red</h2>
<p>Republican candidates spent most of the primary rejecting their party’s incumbent. Term-limited John Kasich is <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/approval_rating/governor/oh/governor_kasich_job_approval-3503.html">popular statewide</a>, but his approval among Republicans is a <a href="http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=b21c66fb-ba89-4b8c-9171-30457f6997d2">fairly tepid 55 percent</a>. </p>
<p>Kasich’s attempts to make the national Republican Party more moderate during a lackluster presidential run in 2016 may have endeared him to independent voters, but it’s clearly cost him support on the right in his home state. Republican candidates Attorney General DeWine and Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor spent most of the race fighting over <a href="https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/05/05/ohio-primary-election-2018-governor/569220002/">who could be the most conservative</a>. At one point, a DeWine allied SuperPAC targeted Taylor with a mailer suggesting Ohio <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/henrygomez/supporting-john-kasich-has-become-an-attack-line-in-ohios?utm_term=.cu2ygpeVQ#.bjEYGlmwL">“can’t afford a third Kasich term”</a> – a stunning attack on a leader of his own party. Both candidates promised to rescind Kasich’s acceptance of the Medicaid expansion. </p>
<p>In spite of her attempts at repudiating him, Taylor’s association with Kasich, who endorsed her, led Republican primary voters to DeWine, who was perceived as a purer conservative. DeWine cruised to victory with a 19-point margin. </p>
<h2>Blue</h2>
<p>By selecting Richard Cordray, the former Ohio attorney general and former director of the embattled Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Democratic voters made a moderate choice. Cordray is a mainstream Democrat who has pushed moderately progressive proposals while emphasizing his ties to <a href="https://youtu.be/_qTPrmd74RE">former President Barack Obama</a> and the need to fight the state’s opioid <a href="https://secure.cordrayforohio.com/page/content/on-the-issues/">crisis</a>. </p>
<p>Cordray will likely have more appeal to moderate voters than second-place finisher Dennis Kucinich, whose more radical <a href="https://kucinich.com/the-issues/">platform</a> rested on creating a statewide single-payer healthcare system. Though the former mayor of Cleveland has been a player in Ohio politics for decades, Kucinich may simply be too liberal for a statewide election in 2018 Ohio. Cordray won over 60 percent of the vote.</p>
<p>Both parties made choices that may reflect the future of Ohio politics. While it has long been considered a swing state, <a href="https://theconversation.com/voters-in-texas-north-carolina-ohio-and-florida-are-changing-the-swing-state-map-67920">Ohio’s demographics have been trending rightward</a>. President Trump won the state by nine points in 2016. Democrats may hope that result is an aberration, but Ohio’s primary results suggest the state could see more centrist Democrats running against hard-line conservative Republicans.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96325/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nathaniel Swigger does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In this Speed Read, a political scientist from Ohio State University ponders an ideological shift in the May 8 gubernatorial primary.Nathaniel Swigger, Associate Professor of Political Science, The Ohio State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/692062016-12-02T02:59:47Z2016-12-02T02:59:47ZHow majority voting betrayed voters again in 2016<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148160/original/image-20161130-17000-nguzzj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What if this was our choice on Election Day?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photos/Gary Landers and Paul Sancya</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The system for electing the U.S. president went woefully wrong from the very beginning of 2016. </p>
<p>First, the two <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-distaste-for-both-trump-and-clinton-is-record-breaking/">most disliked candidates ever nominated</a> – Hillary Rodham Clinton and Donald J. Trump – emerged victors from their parties’ primaries, but shouldn’t have. Second, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/three-common-arguments-for-preserving-the-electoral-college-and-why-theyre-wrong-68546">increasingly controversial</a> Electoral College system will formally elect Trump on December 19 despite Clinton’s lead of over two million in the popular vote.</p>
<p>The system is “rigged” all right, not for a candidate but against the voter. It fails to elect candidates the voters really want. Why? And what should be done about it? </p>
<p><a href="http://www.ams.org/samplings/feature-column/fcarc-apportionii3">Years of work</a> in developing <a href="http://www.mathaware.org/mam/08/EliminateGerrymandering.pdf">fair</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-make-the-house-of-representatives-representative-32921">methods</a> of representation and systems for <a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/majority-judgment">electing candidates</a> that truly respond to the opinions of the electorate have convinced me that the real culprit is majority voting and not the Electoral College. I will give my reasons.</p>
<h2>Majority voting’s failures</h2>
<p>Majority voting (MV) is an extremely crude approximation of the opinion of the electorate that has often elected a candidate counter to the popular will. </p>
<p>Walter Lippmann – claimed by many to be the most influential American journalist of the 20th century – <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Phantom_Public.html?id=fnk-a3IX5ZgC">realized this in 1925</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“But what in fact is an election? We call it an expression of the popular will. But is it? We go into a polling booth and mark a cross on a piece of paper for one of two, or perhaps three or four names. Have we expressed our thoughts … ? Presumably we have a number of thoughts on this and that with many buts and ifs and ors. Surely the cross on a piece of paper does not express them … [C]alling a vote the expression of our mind is an empty fiction.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>There have been 57 presidential elections. By my count, 12 of them elected candidates that were almost certainly not the true choices of the electorate, the last three occurring in 1912, 1992 and 2000. </p>
<p>Woodrow Wilson was <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1912">elected in 1912</a> (with 41.8 percent of the popular vote) against incumbent Republican President William Howard Taft (23.2 percent) because of the Bull Moose candidacy of the former Republican President Teddy Roosevelt (27.4 percent): Either of them would most likely have won head-to-head against Wilson.</p>
<p>A similar <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992">scenario occurred in 1992</a> with Bill Clinton (43.0 percent) winning against George H. W. Bush (37.4 percent) because of the candidacy of Ross Perot (18.9 percent): Bush (father) would almost surely have beaten Clinton head-to-head. </p>
<p>And in 2000 George W. Bush (47.9 percent) <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2000">won with a bare majority</a> of 271 Electoral College votes against Al Gore (48.4 percent) because of the candidacy of Ralph Nader. Bush’s lead of a mere 537 (out of nearly 6 million) votes in Florida would have easily been erased if the 97,000 who voted for Nader could have expressed their preference for Gore.</p>
<p>Why does this happen? Because, as Lippmann suggested, MV does not permit voters to express their opinions fully.</p>
<p>In 1912 it was impossible for a Roosevelt voter to express a preference for Taft over Wilson, or a Taft voter to express a preference for Roosevelt over Wilson. Similarly, it was impossible for voters to express their preference for Bush (father) and Perot over Clinton in 1992, or for Nader voters in Florida to express their preference for Gore rather than Bush (son) in 2000. Had they been able to express their opinions of the candidates more accurately, the outcomes would have been different.</p>
<p>MV, as old as the hills, is merely a mechanism that has been accepted by force of habit. As Thomas Paine <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/147/147-h/147-h.htm">wrote in 1776 in “Common Sense”</a> – “the <a href="https://www.amrevmuseum.org/read-the-revolution/biography/revolutionary-characters">most incendiary and popular pamphlet</a> of the entire revolutionary era”:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Majority voting is such a thing. It is thought to be democratic, but isn’t, as these examples (and many others) show. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148164/original/image-20161130-17047-civz9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148164/original/image-20161130-17047-civz9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148164/original/image-20161130-17047-civz9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148164/original/image-20161130-17047-civz9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148164/original/image-20161130-17047-civz9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148164/original/image-20161130-17047-civz9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148164/original/image-20161130-17047-civz9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Don Lamb, an employee of La Scala Restaurant in Little Rock, Arkansas, cleans the front window of the restaurant, Saturday, Oct. 31, 1992.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Danny Johnston</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Ranked voting’s failures</h2>
<p>Some reformers advocate another mechanism, “ranked voting” (RV). Instead of choosing one among the candidates the voter lists them all from their most to their least preferred.
This <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borda_count">18th-century idea</a> (from the French mathematician and political scientist <a href="http://gerardgreco.free.fr/IMG/pdf/MA_c_moire-Borda-1781.pdf">Jean-Charles de Borda</a>) is a better scheme for voters to express themselves – and so it must have seemed to the narrow majority of 51.99 percent of <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Maine_Ranked_Choice_Voting_Initiative,_Question_5_(2016)">Maine’s voters</a> who adopted one version of the possible methods based on RV, Ranked Choice Voting, in a statewide vote on November 8. </p>
<p>However, I argue that they were sold a bill of goods: RV’s drawbacks completely disqualify it. </p>
<p>First and foremost, RV is far from permitting an adequate expression of the voters’ opinions. A voter cannot reject all candidates, cannot consider two candidates equally good and cannot express strong versus lukewarm support (or rejection). </p>
<p>Furthermore, when RV has actually been used by juries in such competitions as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISU_Judging_System">figure skating</a>, <a href="http://www.fig-gymnastics.com/publicdir/rules/files/mag/MAG%20CoP%202013-2016%20(FRA%20ENG%20ESP)%20July%202015.pdf">gymnastics</a> and <a href="http://www.fina.org/content/diving-rules">diving</a>, its results have sometimes been so wildly peculiar that increasingly it has been abandoned in favor of methods that ask judges to evaluate competitors instead of ranking them. Figure skating juries’ rules, for example,<a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/majority-judgment"> made the change</a> in response to the 2002 winter Olympic scandal in pairs figure skating. </p>
<h2>Majority judgment</h2>
<p>My colleague, Rida Laraki, and I <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-and-clinton-victorious-proof-that-us-voting-system-doesnt-work-58752">have developed a new method</a> of voting, <a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/majority-judgment">majority judgment (MJ)</a>, which avoids the drawbacks of MV and RV. </p>
<p>MJ asks voters a simple and natural question such as that recently posed by the Pew Research Center: “What kind of president do you think each of the following would be – a great, good, average, poor or terrible president?” In its <a href="http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/11/03170033/10-27-16-October-political-release.pdf">last national survey </a> of registered voters (Oct. 20-25) Pew reported the following results (here adjusted to sum to 100 percent):</p>
<iframe id="datawrapper-chart-VlROX" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/VlROX/2/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="270"></iframe>
<p>All one needs to do is look at the evaluations of the two candidates in the table above to conclude that Clinton is better evaluated than Trump. </p>
<p>But what exactly is the majority opinion? </p>
<p>Clinton would be an Average President because in a majority vote between Average and any other “grade,” it wins. This is most easily seen by noting that a majority of 8%+27%+20%=55% believes she would be at least Average – so Average defeats any lower grade – and a majority of 20%+11%+34%=65% that she would be at most Average – so Average defeats any higher grade. It suffices to start from each end of the spectrum adding percentages until a majority is reached; in practice the sums from both directions will always reach a majority at the same grade. </p>
<p>Similarly, a majority believes Trump would be a Poor President because 54 percent believes he would be at least Poor and 57 percent that he would be at most Poor. With these evaluations majority judgment elects Clinton since the majority evaluates her above Trump. </p>
<p>MJ simply uses the majority principle – the idea that the majority can represent the whole – to deduce the electorate’s evaluation of every candidate, called their majority-grades, instead of using it to compare the number of votes each candidate receives. </p>
<p>No system is perfect. But majority judgment is far superior to any other known system. Here’s why:</p>
<ul>
<li>It is easier and more natural for voters since grading is familiar since school days; </li>
<li>It obtains more information from voters and puts more confidence in them by permitting them to express their opinions accurately;</li>
<li>It gives more information about the standing of candidates in the eyes of the public – had Clinton won she would have known her standing: Average;</li>
<li>Most importantly, it elects the candidate highest in the esteem of the electorate.</li>
</ul>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148161/original/image-20161130-17028-73izta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148161/original/image-20161130-17028-73izta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=438&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148161/original/image-20161130-17028-73izta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=438&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148161/original/image-20161130-17028-73izta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=438&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148161/original/image-20161130-17028-73izta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=550&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148161/original/image-20161130-17028-73izta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=550&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148161/original/image-20161130-17028-73izta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=550&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">John and Colleen Kramer, of Stockton, Missouri, vote at the Caplinger Mills Trading Post on Tuesday, Nov. 8, 2016, in Caplinger Mills, Missouri.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What happened this year?</h2>
<p>Pew Research – without realizing that their question serves as the basis of a method of voting – posed exactly the same question this year in January, March and August as well as late October. </p>
<p>In every case the majority evaluated Clinton an Average President and Trump a Poor President; moreover, their respective grades remained remarkably similar over all four polls, suggesting that despite all the hoopla – emails, sexism, racism, walls, FBI, secret speeches, jail and so much more – the electorate’s opinions concerning the two candidates remained very much the same throughout the year. </p>
<p>And yet Trump beat Clinton. Why? MV denied voters the right to express their opinions adequately in the state face-to-face encounters. </p>
<p>U.S. voters were in revolt, determined to show their exasperation with politicians. But how, with the majority vote, could they express this disgust other than by voting for Trump? </p>
<p>With majority judgment some of them would surely have rated Clinton as Poor or Terrible to make the point, but Trump as Poor or Terrible as well, exactly as the Pew survey shows. </p>
<p>This could well have been the case in each of several states where their total votes were close such as <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/florida">Florida</a> (a difference of 1.3 percent in their vote totals), <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/michigan">Michigan</a> (a difference of 0.3 percent), <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/wisconsin">Wisconsin</a> (a difference of 0.8 percent) and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/pennsylvania">Pennsylvania</a> (a difference of 1.1 percent). With MJ the result would then have been much closer to a true expression of voters’ opinions and so of the popular will: 307 Electoral College votes for Clinton, 231 for Trump.</p>
<p>Well before the vote on Nov. 8 something else went wrong. Trump and Clinton should not have been the victors in the Republican and Democratic primaries – they are, after all, generally considered to be the least popular candidates of recent history. But the primaries were decided by majority vote as well. Had the primaries used <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-and-clinton-victorious-proof-that-us-voting-system-doesnt-work-58752">majority judgment</a>, the general election would have pitted Bernie Sanders against John Kasich. </p>
<p>Imagine how different the country and the world would feel today – and be tomorrow – had they been the candidates!</p>
<p>The time has come to replace the obviously undemocratic mechanism of the majority vote by a method that captures the true will of the electorate: majority judgment.</p>
<p><em>Editor’s note: this article was updated to make clear that Ranked Voting has different versions, including Ranked Choice Voting.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/69206/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michel Balinski is related to an employee of The Conversation US. </span></em></p>In this year’s election, the system of majority voting didn’t allow voters to express their opinions adequately. If they had, the choice would have been between Kasich and Sanders.Michel Balinski, American Applied Mathematician, Mathematical Economist, and O.R. Analyst. "Directeur de recherche de classe exceptionnelle" (emeritus) of the C.N.R.S., École polytechniqueLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/629492016-07-28T01:36:18Z2016-07-28T01:36:18ZCandidates control their own social media. What message are they sending?<p>We live in the age of social media. Indeed, many of us likely saw something about the Republican and Democratic conventions on Facebook, Twitter or even Instagram over the last few weeks. </p>
<p>A recent <a href="http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/18/candidates-differ-in-their-use-of-social-media-to-connect-with-the-public/">Pew Research Center study</a> finds that the public is getting more of their news this election cycle from social media than ever before. </p>
<p>This finding makes sense since <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/data-trend/internet-use/latest-stats/">87 percent</a> of the American public is on the internet today. Over <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/social-networking-fact-sheet/">70 percent</a> of those internet users are on Facebook. Although only about 20 percent of them are on Twitter, journalists and political commentators are heavy users. So, Twitter impacts much of the news and information the public sees. </p>
<p>In light of these enormous changes in the way Americans get their news, it seems reasonable to ask: What is the public getting from the campaigns on social media? </p>
<p>Ideally, presidential campaigns provide the electorate the opportunity to reflect on the issues that face the country. The best campaigns for our democracy are ones where the candidates offer clear, detailed policy positions. The public can then evaluate and choose which candidate they think will best serve their interests as president. </p>
<p>As we shift out of the primaries and conventions into the general election, our project, <a href="http://illuminating.ischool.syr.edu/#/platforms/1,2/dates/2016-07-20,2016-07-27/candidates/5,10/types/8&9,5&6">Illuminating 2016</a>, analyzed social media messages from Republican nominee Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton to see how they used Twitter and Facebook during two phases of the campaign season. </p>
<p>The first stage ran from October 2015 through January 2016, when the candidates began to introduce themselves and their positions to the public. We call this the surfacing stage. </p>
<p>We also looked at the primaries stage from February through June 2016, when each state’s Republican and Democratic parties held caucuses or primaries to pick which one from the many candidates running should be the eventual nominee.</p>
<h2>How we did the analysis</h2>
<p>We use <a href="http://illuminating.ischool.syr.edu/blog/view/Using-machine-learning-to-understand-real-time-presidential-candidate-social-media-messages">computational approaches</a> to analyze the text of the messages. Analysis activities include creating a set of categories to describe the social media messages, having two or more people read a sample of the messages and tagging them with those categories, and then using computer software that identifies patterns and features in messages that share the same category. The software then generates algorithms or a set of rules that specify what features to look for in messages to assign them to the proper category. </p>
<p>People agree about 70 percent of the time when they categorize samples of the candidates’ social media messages. Our algorithms, by comparison, are more accurate than people. They are correct between 75 and 85 percent of the time (<a href="http://illuminating.ischool.syr.edu/data-and-models">depending on the category</a>). </p>
<p>The benefit of algorithms is that we can efficiently categorize all of the candidates’ messages rather than using samples, and the algorithm is consistent and less likely to be influenced by subjective perceptions that humans naturally bring to communication analysis. </p>
<p>Our analysis suggests that the public is not getting from the candidates what they need to make a good judgment of who should be president.</p>
<h2>Republicans less likely to talk issues online</h2>
<p>There are stark differences in the ways Clinton and Trump used social media to strategically construct their vision for the country. </p>
<p>Clinton often produced almost three times as many messages as Trump about the issues, such as education, the economy and women’s issues.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/C1jIn/4/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>Indeed, the main candidates for the Democratic Party were more likely to post messages on policy and issue matters than the most popular candidates for the Republican Party. This is true if they are posting messages that articulate their own policy positions or attack others’ policy positions.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/HJBcm/4/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/3wnPO/3/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>The style of Trump’s posts on the issues is distinct when compared with Clinton. Where she routinely provided reasons, facts and statistics in support of her positions, Trump offered broad generalizations or generic claims with little evidence to back them up.</p>
<p>Take for example, these posts from Clinton on Twitter:</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"658125627707564032"}"></div></p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"660065123948560385"}"></div></p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"666762920555057152"}"></div></p>
<p>By comparison, Trump’s positions were declared rather than reasoned. Additionally, he often retweeted messages from supporters instead of articulating his personal stance on issues:</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"668458837670805504"}"></div></p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"656626835623555072"}"></div></p>
<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FDonaldTrump%2Fposts%2F10156398099315725&width=500" width="100%" height="542" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true"></iframe>
<h2>Trump is not consistently negative</h2>
<p>Political pundits and campaign watchers have declared Trump to be profoundly negative. The New York Times even <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html?_r=0">documented</a> all of the people he has insulted on Twitter. Some have predicted this might be one of the <a href="http://fortune.com/2016/05/23/why-2016-will-be-the-most-negative-campaign-in-history/">most negative campaigns in history</a>. </p>
<p>But when you look in aggregate rather than anecdotally at each candidate’s individual social media posts, you get a different picture. </p>
<p>During the surfacing stage, when the candidates need to introduce themselves to the public, Trump advocates for himself more frequently than does Clinton on Twitter, and he attacks more, but not disproportionately so. The same pattern holds for Facebook.</p>
<p>When you look at the primaries, though, a noteworthy change occurs. Clinton attacks more than Trump on Twitter, especially during February, March and April, when she attacks at nearly twice the rate. It’s not until May that Trump goes on the attack – primarily against Clinton. This coincides with Trump becoming the presumptive nominee for the Republicans when his rivals ends their campaigns. Once he starts to attack Clinton, he stays on the attack in June.</p>
<iframe id="datawrapper-chart-dhDDM" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/dhDDM/4/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>When you look at the substance of the attacks, there are noteworthy distinctions. When Trump goes on the attack, his attacks are often personal. In February, for example, when the voting begins, Trump primarily attacks Bush, but Rubio and Cruz are not spared. </p>
<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FDonaldTrump%2Fposts%2F10156690229250725&width=500" width="100%" height="607" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true"></iframe>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"696734735578615808"}"></div></p>
<p>By contrast, Clinton’s attacks in February and March are more subtle. She doesn’t name Sanders explicitly in her attacks but instead calls out weaknesses with issues he is advocating. By April, she begins actively attacking Trump, where she does get more blunt in her critiques, but does not turn to consistent pejorative labeling. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"695430320485629952"}"></div></p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"732592944662892545"}"></div></p>
<h2>The voters need better</h2>
<p>With the public increasingly turning to social media to get their news about the campaign, the candidates, especially Trump, fail to give them the breadth and depth of policy positions to make meaningful judgments about who is the best candidate to lead the country. Nevertheless, while Trump provides only thin policy claims, he is not constantly on the attack, unlike the public perception of his Twitter stream. Indeed, Clinton tends to be more negative than Trump on social media.</p>
<p>Negativity is not necessarily toxic to democracy, though. The style of the attack matters. When candidates attack their opponents on the issues, it helps the electorate potentially gain a different perspective on the policy solutions or stances of candidates. They should spend time critiquing the positions of their opponents, as that helps our elected officials be accountable for their past legislation and their future plans. But, when candidates belittle or demean their opponents solely on issue or character, that alone is not enough for the electorate to make a good judgment.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62949/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennifer Stromer-Galley receives funding from the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at the Columbia School of Journalism to support this research. She is currently a Fellow at the Tow Center.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Patrícia Rossini receives funding from Capes Foundation, Ministry of Education, Brazil. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jerry Robinson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Scholars studied every tweet sent and Facebook post made by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump since before the primaries. Here’s what they learned about issues and negativity.Jennifer Stromer-Galley, Professor of Information Studies, Syracuse UniversityJerry Robinson, Ph.D. Candidate - Information Science, Syracuse UniversityPatrícia Rossini, Derby Fellow, University of LiverpoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/587522016-05-09T15:17:46Z2016-05-09T15:17:46ZTrump and Clinton victorious: proof that US voting system doesn’t work<p>Having outlasted all his opponents, Donald Trump is the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party. Hillary Clinton is closing in on locking up the Democratic nomination. </p>
<p>Clinton and Trump may have won primaries, but are they really representative of what the American people want? In fact, as we will show, it is John Kasich and Bernie Sanders who are first in the nation’s esteem. Trump and Clinton come last. </p>
<p>So how has it come to this? The media has played a big role, of course, but that Trump versus Clinton will almost surely be the choice this November is the result of the totally absurd method of election used in the primaries: majority voting. </p>
<p>This is a strong statement. But as mathematicians who have spent the last dozen years <a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/majority-judgment">studying voting systems</a>, we are going to show you why it’s justified and how this problem can be fixed. </p>
<h2>The problem with majority voting</h2>
<p>With majority voting (MV), voters tick the name of one candidate, at most, and the numbers of ticks determine the winner and the order of finish. It’s a system that is used across the U.S. (and in many other nations) to elect presidents as well as senators, representatives and governors. </p>
<p>But it has often failed to elect the candidate preferred by the majority. </p>
<p>In 2000, for example, George W. Bush was elected president because of Ralph Nader’s candidacy. In the contested state of Florida, Bush had 2,912,790 votes, Al Gore 2,912,253 (<a href="http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm">a mere 537 fewer</a>) and Nader 97,488. There is little doubt that the <a href="http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/lewis/pdf/greenreform9.pdf">large majority of those who voted for Nader</a>, and so preferred him to the others, much preferred Gore to Bush. Had they been able to express this preference, Gore would have been elected with 291 Electoral College votes to Bush’s 246. Similar dysfunctions have also occurred in <a href="https://theconversation.com/pour-eviter-un-nouveau-21-avril-instaurons-le-jugement-majoritaire-58178">France</a>.</p>
<p>Imagine how different the U.S. and the world might be today if Gore had won. </p>
<h2>The 2016 primaries</h2>
<p>A quick glance at the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html">U.S. presidential primaries and caucuses held on or before March 1</a> shows that when Trump was the “winner,” he typically garnered some 40 percent of the votes. However, nothing in that result factors in the opinions of the 60 percent of voters who cast ballots for someone else. </p>
<p>As Trump is a particularly divisive candidate, it is safe to suppose that most – or at least many – of them strongly opposed him. The media, however, focused on the person who got the largest number of votes – which means Trump. On the Democratic side of the ledger, the media similarly poured its attention on Hillary Clinton, ignoring Bernie Sanders until widespread enthusiastic support forced a change. </p>
<h2>The source of the problem</h2>
<p>An election is nothing but an invented device that measures the electorate’s support of the candidates, ranks them according to their support and declares the winner to be the first in the ranking. </p>
<p>The fact is that majority voting does this very badly. </p>
<p>With MV, voters cannot express their opinions on all candidates. Instead, each voter is limited to backing just one candidate, to the exclusion of all others in the running. </p>
<p>Bush defeated Gore because Nader voters were unable to weigh in on the other two. Moreover, as we argue further on, majority voting can go wrong even when there are just two candidates. </p>
<p>The point is that it is essential for voters to be able to express the nuances of their opinions.</p>
<h2>What is to be done? Use majority judgment</h2>
<p>Majority judgment (MJ) is a new method of election that we specifically designed to <a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/majority-judgment">avoid the pitfalls of the traditional methods</a>. </p>
<p>MJ asks voters to express their opinions much more accurately than simply voting for one candidate. The ballot offers a spectrum of choices and charges voters with a solemn task:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>To be the President of the United States of America, having taken into account all relevant considerations, I judge that this candidate as president would be a: Great President | Good President | Average President | Poor President | Terrible President</p>
</blockquote>
<p>To see exactly how MJ ranks the candidates, let’s look at specific numbers. </p>
<p>We were lucky to find on the web that the above question was actually posed in a March <a href="http://www.people-press.org/files/2016/03/03-31-2016-Political-topline-for-release.pdf">Pew Research Center poll</a> of 1,787 registered voters of all political stripes. (It should be noted that neither the respondents nor the pollsters were aware that the answers could be the basis for a method of election.) The Pew poll also included the option of answering “Never Heard Of” which here is interpreted as worse than “Terrible” since it amounts to the voter saying the candidate doesn’t exist. </p>
<p>As is clear in the table below, people’s opinions are much more detailed than can be expressed with majority voting. Note in particular the relatively high percentages of voters who believe Clinton and especially Trump would make terrible presidents (Pew reports that <a href="http://www.people-press.org/files/2016/03/3-31-16-March-Political-release-1.pdf">Trump’s “Terrible” score increased by 6 percent since January</a>.)</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Lt6PR/4/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="350"></iframe>
<p>Using majority judgment to calculate the ranked order of the candidates from these evaluations or grades is straightforward. Start from each end of the spectrum and add percentages until a majority of voters’ opinions are included. </p>
<p>Taking John Kasich as an example, 5 percent believe he is “Great,” 5+28=33 percent that he is “Good” or better, and 33+39=72 percent (a majority) that he is “Average” or better. Looked at from the other end, 9 percent “Never Heard” of him, 9+7=16 percent believe he is “Terrible” or worse, 16+13=29 percent that he is “Poor” or worse, and 29+39= 68 percent (a majority) that he is “Average” or worse. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/121600/original/image-20160507-32021-ihpi5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/121600/original/image-20160507-32021-ihpi5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121600/original/image-20160507-32021-ihpi5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121600/original/image-20160507-32021-ihpi5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121600/original/image-20160507-32021-ihpi5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121600/original/image-20160507-32021-ihpi5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121600/original/image-20160507-32021-ihpi5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Governor Kasich on the presidential campaign trail.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/80038275@N00/17214592312">Michael Vadon</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Both calculations end on majorities for “Average,” so Kasich’s majority-grade is “Average President.” (Mathematically, the calculations from both directions for a given candidate will always reach majorities at the same grade.) </p>
<p>Similarly calculated, Sanders, Clinton and Cruz all have the same majority-grade, “Average President.” Trump’s is “Poor President,” ranking him last.</p>
<p>To determine the MJ ranking among the four who all are rated “Average,” two more calculations are necessary.</p>
<p>The first looks at the percentage of voters who rate a candidate more highly than his or her majority-grade, the second at the percentage who rate the candidate lower than his or her majority-grade. This delivers a number called the “gauge.” Think of it as a scale where in some cases the majority grade leans more heavily toward a higher ranking and in others more heavily toward a lower ranking. </p>
<p>In Kasich’s case, 5+28=33 percent evaluated him higher than “Average,” and 13+7+9=29 percent rated him below “Average.” Because the larger share is on the positive side, his gauge is +33 percent. For Sanders, 36 percent evaluated him above and 39 percent below his majority-grade. With the larger share on the negative side, his gauge is -39 percent.</p>
<p>A candidate is ranked above another when his or her majority-grade is better or, if both have the same majority-grade, according to their gauges (see below). This rule is the logical result of <a href="https://portail.polytechnique.edu/economie/fr/recherches/publications/cahiers-de-recherche/2016">majorities</a> deciding on candidates’ grades instead of the usual rule that ranks candidates by the numbers of votes they get. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/K0vMf/6/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="280"></iframe>
<p>When voters are able to express their evaluations of every candidate – the good and the bad – the results are turned upside-down from those with majority voting. </p>
<p>According to majority judgment, the front-runners in the collective opinion are actually Kasich and Sanders. Clinton and Trump are the trailers. From this perspective the dominant media gave far too much attention to the true trailers and far too little to the true leaders.</p>
<p>Tellingly, MJ also shows society’s relatively low esteem for politicians. All five candidates are evaluated as “Average” presidents or worse, and none as “Good” presidents or better.</p>
<h2>Majority voting’s failure with two candidates</h2>
<p>But, you may object, how can majority voting on just two candidates go wrong? This seems to go against everything you learned since grade school where you raised your hand for or against a classroom choice. </p>
<p>The reason MV can go wrong even with only two candidates is because it does not obtain sufficient information about a voter’s intensity of support.</p>
<p>Take, as an example, the choice between Clinton and Trump, whose evaluations in the Pew poll are given in the first table above. </p>
<p>Lining up their grades from highest to lowest, every one of Clinton’s is either above or the same as Trump’s. Eleven percent, for example, believe Clinton would make a “Great” president to 10 percent for Trump. Trump’s percentages lead Clinton’s only for the Terrible’s and Never Heard Of’s. Given these opinions, in other words, it’s clear that any decent voting method must rank Clinton above Trump.</p>
<p>However, majority voting could fail to do so. </p>
<p>To see why, suppose the “ballots” of the Pew poll were in a pile. Each could be looked at separately. Some would rate Clinton “Average” and Trump “Poor,” some would rate her “Good” and him “Great,” others would assign them any of the 36 possible couples of grades. We can, therefore, find the percentage of occurrence of every couple of grades assigned to Trump and Clinton. </p>
<p>We do not have access to the Pew poll “ballots.” However, one could come up with many different scenarios where the individual ballot percentages are in exact agreement with the overall grades each received in the first table. </p>
<p>Among the various scenarios possible, we have chosen one that could, in theory, be the true one. Indeed, you can check for yourself that it does assign the candidates the grades each received: reading from left to right, Clinton, for example, had 10+12=22 percent “Good,” 16+4=20 percent “Average,” and so on; and the same holds for Trump. </p>
<p>So what does this hypothetical distribution of the ballots concerning the two tell us? </p>
<p>The first column on the left says 10 percent of the voters rated Clinton “Good” and Trump “Great.” In a majority vote they would go for Trump. And moving to the tenth column, 4 percent rated Clinton “Poor” and Trump “Terrible.” In a majority vote this group would opt for Clinton. And so on. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/B6jVY/1/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="240"></iframe>
<p>If you add up the votes in each of these 11 columns, Trump receives the votes of the people whose opinions are reflected in four columns: 10+16+12+15=53 percent; Clinton is backed by the voters with the opinions of columns with 33 percent support; and 14 percent are undecided. Even if the undecided all voted for Clinton, Trump would carry the day.</p>
<p>This shows that majority voting can give a very wrong result: a triumphant victory for Trump when Clinton’s grades are consistently above his!</p>
<h2>A bird’s-eye view</h2>
<p>Voting has been the subject of intense mathematical research since 1950, when the economist Kenneth Arrow published his famous <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/256963">“impossibility theorem,”</a> one of the two major contributions for which he was awarded the 1972 Nobel Prize.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/121601/original/image-20160507-32037-1atmha2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/121601/original/image-20160507-32037-1atmha2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=692&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121601/original/image-20160507-32037-1atmha2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=692&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121601/original/image-20160507-32037-1atmha2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=692&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121601/original/image-20160507-32037-1atmha2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=870&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121601/original/image-20160507-32037-1atmha2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=870&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121601/original/image-20160507-32037-1atmha2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=870&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Marquis de Condorcet (1743-1794) was a French philosopher and mathematician.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This theorem showed that if voters have to rank candidates – to say, in other words, who comes first, second and so forth – there will inevitably be one of two major potential failures. Either there may be no clear winner at all, the so-called <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voting-methods/#3.1">“Condorcet paradox”</a> occurs, or what has come to be called the “Arrow paradox” may occur. </p>
<p>The Arrow paradox is familiar to Americans because of what happened in the 2000 election. Bush beat Gore because Nader was in the running. Had Nader not run, Gore would have won. Surely, it is absurd for the choice between two candidates to depend on whether or not some minor candidate is on the ballot!</p>
<p><a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/majority-judgment">Majority judgment</a> resolves the conundrum of Arrow’s theorem: neither the Condorcet nor the Arrow paradox can occur. It does so because voters are asked for more accurate information, to evaluate candidates rather than to rank them. </p>
<p>MJ’s rules, based on the majority principle, meet the basic democratic goals of voting systems. With it:</p>
<ul>
<li>Voters are able to express themselves more fully, so the results depend on much more information than a single vote.</li>
<li>The process of voting has proven to be natural, easy and quick: we all know about grading from school (as the Pew poll implicitly realized). </li>
<li>Candidates with similar political profiles can run without impinging on each other’s chances: a voter can give high (or low) evaluations to all.</li>
<li>The candidate who is evaluated best by the majority wins.</li>
<li>MJ is the most difficult system to manipulate: blocs of voters who exaggerate the grades they give beyond their true opinions can only have a limited influence on the results.</li>
<li>By asking more of voters, by showing more respect for their opinions, participation is encouraged. Even a voter who evaluates all candidates identically (e.g., all are “Terrible”) has an effect on the outcome. </li>
<li>Final grades – majority-grades – enable candidates and the public to understand where each stands in the eyes of the electorate.</li>
<li>If the majority decides that no candidate is judged an “Average President” or better, the results of the election may be rescinded, and a new slate of candidates demanded.</li>
<li>It is a practical method that has been tested in elections and used many times (for judging prize-winners, <a href="https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00753483/document">wines</a>, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/opre.2014.1269">job applicants,</a> etc.). It has also been formally proposed as a way to <a href="http://tnova.fr/rapports/reformer-l-election-presidentielle-moderniser-notre-democratie">reform the French presidential election system.</a></li>
</ul>
<h2>Reform now</h2>
<p>It should come as no surprise that in answer to a recent Pew poll’s question “Do you think the primaries have been a good way of determining who the best qualified nominees are or not?” only <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/05/voters-have-a-dim-view-of-primaries-as-a-good-way-to-pick-the-best-candidate/">35 percent</a> of respondents said yes. </p>
<p>Democracies everywhere are suffering. Voters protest. Citizens don’t vote. Support for the political extremes are increasing. One of the underlying causes, we argue, is majority voting as it is now practiced, and its influence on the media. </p>
<p>Misled by the results of primaries and polls, the media concentrates its attention on candidates who seem to be the leaders, but who are often far from being deemed acceptable by a majority of the electorate. Majority judgment would correct these failings.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58752/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michel Balinski is related to a member of The Conversation's editorial team. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rida Laraki does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Two mathematicians explain why majority voting often fails to elect the candidate preferred by the majority and propose an alternative, ‘majority judgment.’Michel Balinski, Applied mathematician and mathematical economist, "Directeur de recherche de classe exceptionnelle" (emeritus) of the C.N.R.S., École polytechniqueRida Laraki, Directeur de recherche CNRS au LAMSADE, Professeur à l'École polytechnique, Université Paris Dauphine – PSLLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/561932016-03-16T03:47:47Z2016-03-16T03:47:47ZThe view from Ohio: Kasich’s win and what’s next<p>After Tuesday’s voting, the outcome of the Democratic presidential primary appears settled. Thanks to decisive wins in Florida, Ohio and North Carolina, Hillary Clinton can breathe easier. </p>
<p>For Republicans, however, the path forward has suddenly become less clear.</p>
<p>With Marco Rubio out and John Kasich carrying his – and my – home state of Ohio, we may need to wait until July to meet to the ultimate Republican nominee.</p>
<h2>Kasich’s hope: a contested convention</h2>
<p>Kasich’s Ohio victory makes a contested Republican convention more likely. </p>
<p>Since he carried Florida, Trump still has a chance to win a delegate majority necessary to secure the party’s nomination, but his path for doing so has become far narrower.</p>
<p>By contrast, Kasich’s hope rests entirely on a deadlocked convention. With his current delegate count, even a late surge in the polls in the remaining states would make it <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/delegate-math-what-happens-if-trump-wins-ohio-and-florida-loses-both-or-splits/article/2585127">mathematically impossible</a> for Kasich to win an outright delegate majority.</p>
<p>The Ohio victory highlights Kasich’s potential popularity in pivotal battleground states. It may help boost his appeal to delegates at the Cleveland convention in July. Still, it’s important not to exaggerate the magnitude of his winning margin. Even though he ended in first place in Ohio, Kasich has still won fewer than half of the total Republican primary vote here.</p>
<p>His first-place finish looks even less impressive in light of Kasich’s current standing among Ohio voters. Most <a href="http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/cnn-24022">preelection polls</a> put the governor’s approval among Republican voters in the state somewhere between 70 and 80 percent. Yet, despite their approval, only about half of these voters ultimately ended up backing Kasich at the polls. </p>
<p>If the governor can count on the votes of only half of the folks from his home state who approve of his performance in office, the extent of his national appeal is far from clear.</p>
<h2>Strategic voting on the right?</h2>
<p>As Kasich’s standing in Ohio polls improved in recent weeks, little of his newfound support appears to have come from Trump enthusiasts. Trump’s support <a href="http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-ohio-republican-presidential-primary">hardly budged</a> since early February. His vote share in Ohio appears to be largely in line with his trajectory over the past month. Concerted campaigning in Ohio by Republican heavyweights such as Mitt Romney and growing controversy over <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35801214">violence</a> at Trump’s Chicago rally did little to change his course.</p>
<p>While some of Kasich’s recent bump may be attributed to him winning over undecided voters, much of it seems to have come from previous supporters of Rubio and Cruz. Just days before Ohio’s primary, Rubio personally <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/marco-rubio-ohio-strategic-voting-220666">urged</a> his Ohio supporters to back Kasich, noting that the governor was the only person with a decent shot of edging Trump in the state.</p>
<p>Cruz never conveyed the same message to his supporters. But similar strategic logic may have encouraged at least some of them to back Kasich as well, since the governor’s victory has created new roadblocks for a Trump nomination and helps keep Cruz’s candidacy alive.</p>
<h2>Rethinking primaries and polarization</h2>
<p>Perhaps the most important lesson from Ohio’s vote on Tuesday is what it tells us about the relationship between party primaries and political polarization.</p>
<p>Among political commentators, the idea that primaries are driving the growing divide between Democrats and Republicans both in <a href="http://voteview.com/political_polarization_2014.htm">Congress</a> and in <a href="https://bshor.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/shor-and-mccarty-2011-final-apsr.pdf">state legislatures</a> has become well-worn <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/whats-the-answer-to-political-polarization/470163/">conventional wisdom</a>. </p>
<p>Few districts are competitive in the general election, perhaps in part thanks to <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2710831">gerrymandering</a> but probably mostly due to natural <a href="http://www.umich.edu/%7Ejowei/florida.pdf">“political geography”</a> that results in most Democrats living in big urban areas and most Republicans living outside them. This means that many elections are increasingly being decided in the primary rather than general election, creating an incentive for candidates to appeal to their base by adopting extreme policies.</p>
<p>Ohio provides a useful case in point. The last round of redistricting produced a map with many <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2015/06/gerrymandering_has_tilted_poli.html">safe seats</a>. Since the Republican majority took control in 2010, the state legislature has adopted a number of conservative policies, including many that appear to be <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2456809">out of step</a> with the preferences of a majority of voters. For example, lawmakers recently cut funding to Planned Parenthood, even though polls showed that most voters <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2015/08/ohio_voters_oppose_iran_deal_b.html">opposed the move</a>.</p>
<p>Tuesday’s vote should raise doubts about the extent to which partisan primaries force candidates remain ideologically pure – at least in Ohio. </p>
<p>Between the two of them, Kasich and Trump won more than 80 percent of the Republican vote, and yet both candidates have a history of supporting policies outside of the conservative mainstream.</p>
<p>Although Kasich has built a record of a <a href="https://theconversation.com/john-kasichs-rhetoric-versus-his-record-in-ohio-54872">social conservative</a> in Ohio, he was also <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/28/us/politics/state-level-brawls-over-medicaid-reflect-wider-war-in-gop.html">one of the few</a> Republican governors who expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Similarly, despite Trump’s bellicose anti-Muslim rhetoric and his controversial positions on immigration, his liberal record on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage have been much closer to what one would expect from a Democrat rather than a Republican. Trump has said that his positions are “<a href="https://www.thewrap.com/donald-trump-grilled-by-cnns-jake-tapper-on-gay-marriage-stance-video/">changing rapidly</a>” and moving to the right.</p>
<p>Surprisingly, this didn’t seem to matter much to Ohio Republicans. Indeed, when one <a href="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/03/09/reloh1ohio.pdf">recent Ohio poll</a> asked Republican voters which candidate they thought would do the best job handling social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, Trump came in second after Kasich. He beat out the much more conservative Cruz.</p>
<p>In short, Republicans who turned out in Tuesday’s Ohio primary appear to have tolerated political heresy to a much greater extent than expected. Of course, whether other elected officials interpret this week’s result as message about the virtues of political moderation remains to be seen.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56193/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Vladimir Kogan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A brokered convention just got more likely for the Republicans.Vladimir Kogan, Assistant Professor of Political Science, The Ohio State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/562522016-03-16T03:26:31Z2016-03-16T03:26:31ZTrump crushes Rubio, but fails to shut down the race<p>With five more states weighing in, Donald Trump has cemented his status as Republican frontrunner – but he still hasn’t sealed the deal. </p>
<p>Trump netted the lion’s share of delegates available, winning North Carolina, Illinois, and the night’s biggest prize, Florida, where he won by such a humiliating margin that the state’s favourite son, Marco Rubio, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/us/politics/marco-rubio.html">suspended his campaign</a>. </p>
<p>But it was hardly a sweep. Conservative hero Ted Cruz, who has already won several states, gave Trump a serious scare in Missouri, while John Kasich <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/public/2016/primary-election/ohio-gop-presidential-primary-results.html">won his home state of Ohio</a>. Together, they’ve ensured that an already extended political battle will be a long haul. </p>
<p>Kasich’s survival will be a comfort to the Republican establishment, to whom he’s the only remaining acceptable candidate. But his first win of the primaries, it must feel somewhat pyrrhic: he is, after all, Ohio’s two-term governor, and he still has fewer delegates under his belt than Rubio did when he bowed out. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, by rejecting Trump and keeping Kasich in the race, the voters of Ohio have seriously cut Trump’s chances of clinching the nomination before the national convention this June. Regardless of how team Trump spins the latest rash of contests, without Ohio, it’s now a very tall order for him to muster the 1,237 delegates necessary to clinch the nomination. </p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/4hgiS/1/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<hr>
<p>Of course, it’s not as if either Cruz or Kasich has a better shot. The fact remains that no-one is likely to gather enough delegates in upcoming primaries and caucuses to win the nomination outright.</p>
<h2>To the bitter end</h2>
<p>The big winner in all this, of course, is the state of Ohio, which has not only derailed the Trump train but which is set to be the epicenter of the convention battle. When Republicans meet in July to choose a nominee, they will do it in Cleveland, on Ohio’s northern lakeshore. If Kasich can hang on till then, he’ll be on home turf, and given the rarity of brokered conventions, he stands a chance as a compromise candidate. </p>
<p>There’s ample precedent for an Ohioan nominee: eight chief executives have hailed from the state, earning it the nickname the “mother of presidents”, but not since <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/presidents/warrenharding">Warren G. Harding</a> sat in the Oval Office from 1921-1923 has an Ohioan lived in the White House. (Funnily enough, Harding was also a compromise candidate that only carried his home state and won the Republican nomination at a brokered convention.)</p>
<p>The big loser in all this is the Republican Party. The overarching theme of this election has been the voters’ rejection of the traditional party’s standard-bearers. A contested convention brokered by the establishment, while possibly the only way of stopping Trump, might only fracture the party even further. </p>
<p>The nub of the dilemma is this: if Trump wins a clear plurality across the nation and the party fails to back him as the nominee, his supporters will bolt. Likewise, if the party formally backs Trump at the convention, it will enter a noxious alliance with the most divisive figure in the US, and will potentially see an exodus of moderates from its voter base. </p>
<p>If Cleveland is where the final decision is made, that will augur ill indeed for the party’s future. And recent history proves just how disastrous contested conventions can be. </p>
<p>The last time the Republican Party went to its national convention without a clear winner from the primaries was 1976, when President Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan split the delegates, and eventually the party. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115223/original/image-20160316-8453-1x09irt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115223/original/image-20160316-8453-1x09irt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115223/original/image-20160316-8453-1x09irt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115223/original/image-20160316-8453-1x09irt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115223/original/image-20160316-8453-1x09irt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=664&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115223/original/image-20160316-8453-1x09irt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=664&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115223/original/image-20160316-8453-1x09irt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=664&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Reagan and Ford split the difference.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3A1976_Republican_National_Convention-cropped_to_Reagan_and_Ford.jpg">William Fitz-Patrick, via Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When they met at the convention in Kansas City, Reagan promised to choose liberal Pennsylvania Senator <a href="http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1976/07/28/page/5/article/reagan-gambles-all-in-schweiker-choice/index.html">Richard Schweiker</a> as his running mate in an effort to unite Republicans – but it backfired. Conservatives who enthusiastically backed Reagan’s anti-establishment campaign abandoned him when he attempted to compromise. Ford won the nomination, but the moderate element of the Republican Party was forever weakened; Reagan stormed to victory in 1980, and transformed the party for good. </p>
<p>Or take 1968, when the Democrats had no clear winner from primary contests. When the party finally nominated the sitting vice-president, Hubert Humphrey, the city of Chicago <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93898277">erupted in violence</a> stoked by political protesters and the police. </p>
<p>It’s impossible to forecast what Cleveland will be like in June. But if Trump hasn’t been stopped by then, and if history is a prophet, expect more party sleight-of-hand: the media has already started picking over the possible ways the GOP could play the event, reminding its audience that pledged delegates are only bound to vote according to primary results for the first and second ballot. </p>
<p>And more worryingly, we can surely expect to see social unrest. <a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-chicago-protest-213728">As they already did in Chicago</a> only days before Illinois voted, Trump supporters and detractors will do battle in Cleveland. And as can have escaped no-one’s attention during this astonishing electoral cycle, no matter who wins the nomination, the Republican Party will never be the same.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Correction: this piece originally said the Republican convention will be in June, not July. This has been amended.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56252/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Patrick Cullinane does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Donald Trump saw off one contender, but Ted Cruz and John Kasich fight on. Where will it end?Michael Patrick Cullinane, Reader in US History, Northumbria University, NewcastleLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/559692016-03-14T20:27:37Z2016-03-14T20:27:37ZTrump smells victory as Republicans hurtle into the Ides of March<p>The Ides of March, or March 15, has long been associated with doom and destruction. In 44BC, confident populist Julius Caesar ignored a soothsayer’s warning and met his demise at the height of his adulation by an adoring public. It was also the day that Czar Nicholas II in 1917 <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/clips/z8wjmp3">formally abdicated his throne</a>, and the day that Germany occupied Czechoslovakia in 1939. And now it’s the turn of the Republican Party. </p>
<p>This year’s Ides of March could prove pivotal for the US presidential race, as the primaries roll into <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-march-15-will-be-make-or-break-for-the-presidential-candidates-56000">five big states</a>: Florida, Ohio, Illinois, North Carolina and Missouri. With firebrand insurgent Donald Trump still denying all the Republicans’ attempts to stop him, the day’s massive delegate haul threatens to put him firmly on the path to the nomination. </p>
<p>Much will depend on what happens in Florida and Ohio, the home states of Florida Senator <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/14/magazine/the-end-of-marco-mentum.html?_r=0">Marco Rubio</a> and the Governor of Ohio, <a href="https://theconversation.com/john-kasichs-rhetoric-versus-his-record-in-ohio-54872">John Kasich</a>. Kasich has pledged to withdraw from the contest if he loses Ohio, while Rubio has himself said that whoever wins Florida “<a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/rubio-florida-winner-gop-nominee-220461">will be the nominee of the Republican Party</a>.” If he falls behind, he will be under enormous pressure to bow out.</p>
<p>This confronts Trump’s conservative rival, Ted Cruz, with a fiendish dilemma. He’s won a fair number of states, but to have a decent chance at winning the nomination, Cruz needs Kasich and especially Rubio to drop out. So Cruz wants them to do poorly. But if either or both lose their home state, it’s Trump, not Cruz, who’s most likely to grab their delegates – a hefty 99 in Florida and a chunky 66 in Ohio, all allocated on a winner-take-all basis. </p>
<p>On the other hand, if Rubio somehow rallies to win Florida, he’s very likely to stay in, as is Kasich if he wins Ohio. This puts Cruz and other anti-Trump forces in the awkward position of needing Rubio and Kasich both to trump Trump and to fall short.</p>
<p>The best outcome Cruz can hope for is for Rubio and Kasich to do just enough to win Florida and Ohio respectively, therefore denying Trump the winner-take-all delegates, but to do so badly elsewhere that they drop out anyway. Not impossible, but unlikely.</p>
<p>So where does that leave us? </p>
<h2>Splitting the difference</h2>
<p>Trump just needs to seize Ohio and Florida to put him in touching distance of the prize, but that’s a big task, especially in Ohio. Illinois and Missouri offer a combined total of 121 delegates. North Carolina’s 72 delegates are in play as well, but those are allocated on a proportional basis, so grabbing the gold isn’t quite as important there.</p>
<p>So if Trump picks up Florida, Ohio and does well in Illinois and/or Missouri, the fight for the Republican nomination could be all but over by Wednesday morning. But that outcome is far from pre-ordained.</p>
<p>Let’s say Trump loses either Ohio or (less likely) Florida, but not both. That puts his chance of clinching a majority of delegates before the convention in jeopardy, maybe Illinois and/or Missouri tipping the scale. But if he loses both Ohio and Florida, he’s extremely unlikely to win a majority of the delegates before the convention in July.</p>
<p>If that’s the case, anything could happen. If it is ultimately not possible to construct a winning coalition of delegates around any of the current four horsemen of the Republican Party’s political apocalypse, the party could even turn outwards, to anoint a different saviour. This would presumably be someone undamaged by the internecine warfare that would have brought the party to that impasse. That would now seem to rule out Mitt Romney, given his recent full-on personal attacks upon Donald Trump. Instead they are more likely to look to a unifier, though they would need to change the convention rules to do so.</p>
<p>They have called upon someone fresh in dire straits before. At the end of 2015, the party could find nobody to replace John Boehner when he suddenly stood down as speaker of the House of Representatives. Then they found someone who at first said he wasn’t interested, but later relented: Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s running mate in 2012.</p>
<p>Is this a likely outcome? Not at all. While chatter around a possible Ryan candidacy suddenly spiked as March 15 loomed, a fundraising group formed to “draft” him recently <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/11/committee-to-draft-paul-ryan-for-president-shuts-down/">shut down</a> after his aides disavowed its work. </p>
<p>It’s far more likely that Trump will emerge as the Republican nominee, followed by Cruz, then Kasich and Rubio. But if no one can garner a majority of delegates to win the first ballot at the convention, any number of scenarios could play out. </p>
<p>As the <a href="http://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/archive/maths_worksheets/gambling_and_elections.doc">betting markets</a> currently see things, by far the most electable against a Democratic opponent in the general election are John Kasich and Marco Rubio. Of these two, Kasich is rated by the markets as much more likely to win the nomination. If he scrapes a win in the Ohio primary and finally starts winning delegates, might he somehow emerge from the pack at a contested convention, perhaps with Rubio or even Cruz in tow as his running mate? We shall see.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/55969/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Leighton Vaughan Williams does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Could the Republicans’ biggest nightmare finally be about to come true?Leighton Vaughan Williams, Professor of Economics and Finance and Director, Betting Research Unit & Political Forecasting Unit, Nottingham Trent UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/560002016-03-09T17:42:20Z2016-03-09T17:42:20ZWhy March 15 will be make-or-break for the presidential candidates<p>The strangest and most volatile presidential race in modern history got even more unpredictable on Tuesday night. </p>
<p>On the Republican side, Donald Trump overcame a relentless wave of establishment attacks to win <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-wins-mississippi-michigan-primaries/2016/03/08/ecb576d6-e539-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop_b">Mississippi, Michigan and Hawaii</a> by large margins. Trump’s only defeat of the night was by Ted Cruz in the Idaho caucuses. </p>
<p>On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders proved the polls and pundits wrong by narrowly edging out Hillary Clinton in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news">Michigan</a>. Equally important, however, Clinton won a landslide victory over Sanders in Mississippi. </p>
<p>So what does it all say about the state of the 2016 presidential race? Here are the four most important takeaways from Tuesday’s vote:</p>
<h2>1. Trump’s momentum is becoming unstoppable</h2>
<p>Trump’s <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news">victories on Tuesday night</a> were extremely impressive. He won Michigan by 12 percentage points, Mississippi by 11 points and Hawaii by 9. The only contest he lost – Idaho – was one in which he had no campaign organization and made no effort to win. </p>
<p>As a result, Trump has nearly a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results">100-delegate lead</a> over his rivals. </p>
<p>Just a few days ago, Trump seemed to be losing steam, particularly after his opponents aired a series of <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/04/anti-trump-group-expands-attack-into-illinois/">television attack ads</a> in key states. The attacks focused on Trump’s business record, such as the fraud lawsuits that surround <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/29/a-trio-of-truthful-attack-ads-about-trump-university/">Trump University</a> and the billionaire’s <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432518/donald-trumps-failures-his-excuses-resemble-obamas">four bankruptcies</a>. The 2012 GOP nominee <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/us/politics/mitt-romney-speech.html">Mitt Romney</a> piled on by calling Trump a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/03/mitt-romney-trump-is-a-phony-a-fraud-who-is-playing-the-american-public-for-suckers">phony and a fraud</a> who would likely <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/07/in-new-robocall-mitt-romney-says-donald-trump-would-lose-to-hillary-clinton/">lose to Hillary Clinton</a> in the general election. </p>
<p>But none of the attacks on Trump worked.</p>
<p>Trump’s crushing victories in Mississippi and Michigan were striking because they once again demonstrated his broad appeal to all segments and all regions of the Republican electorate. He won evangelicals, working-class voters and college graduates, just as he has in previous primaries. He also once again showed great geographical range, winning in the Deep South and in the heart of the industrial Midwest. By any conventional measure, Trump is a truly national candidate, at least among Republican voters.</p>
<p>Trump’s victories on Tuesday dealt a body blow to the campaigns of Marco Rubio and John Kasich. Rubio finished at or near the bottom in every race, and Kasich performed far worse than expected in Michigan, a Midwestern state he should have won. Consequently, Rubio’s campaign is on the verge of collapse and Kasich’s may not be far behind. </p>
<p>And although Ted Cruz’s victory in Idaho keeps his campaign viable, his victories have largely been confined to southern states and small caucus states. At this point, Cruz does not look like a national candidate. </p>
<p>The simple fact is the only candidate in the race who has broad support among all wings of the Republican Party is Donald Trump. </p>
<h2>2. Sanders proved pundits and pollsters wrong</h2>
<p>On the Democratic side, Sanders <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/michigan">barely won Michigan</a>, carrying the state over Clinton by a margin of 49.8 percent to 48.3 percent. </p>
<p>But despite the narrow margin, it was an extremely impressive victory for Sanders. Michigan is a big state with demographics that resemble the nation as a whole. By winning in Michigan, Sanders showed that he has much broader appeal in the Democratic party than many pundits, including me, believed. </p>
<p>Sanders’ win also represented one of the biggest comeback victories of the year. On the eve of the Michigan primary, Sanders trailed Clinton in the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/09/polling-in-michigan-was-way-off-that-happens-more-than-we-recognize/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_fix-clinton-735am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory">state’s polls by 20 points</a>. But on election day, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/michigan">Sanders beat Clinton</a> by about 19,000 votes, a tremendous come-from-behind victory.</p>
<p>How did he do it? </p>
<p>The key to the Vermont senator’s success in Michigan was his focus on <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/03/09/456e780e-e53a-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_democrats-1230am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory">protectionist trade policies</a>. Heavily dependent on the auto industry and manufacturing, Michigan has been hit hard by job losses to foreign competition. </p>
<p>Michigan’s painful economic history made it ripe territory for the protectionist messages of Trump and Sanders. In rhetoric strikingly similar to that employed by Trump, Sanders focused his efforts in Michigan on angry and bitter <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/09/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news">condemnations of international trade agreements</a>. His passionate defense of protectionist policies clearly resonated with Michigan voters. </p>
<p>The success of <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/08/the-two-big-warning-signs-for-hillary-clinton-in-michigan/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_fix-clinton-735am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory">Sanders’ anti-trade message</a> will likely carry over into other Midwestern manufacturing states, like Ohio, Illinois, Missouri and Wisconsin. Michigan demonstrates there are many more states available for Sanders to win if he focuses on trade and jobs. </p>
<h2>3. Clinton still has a daunting delegate lead</h2>
<p>Without question, Sanders had a great showing in Michigan. And yet he still has little chance of winning the nomination.</p>
<p>How can that be?</p>
<p>The fundamental problem facing Sanders is the Democratic Party’s delegate awards process. Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats have no “winner-take-all” states. The delegates from every Democratic primary and caucus are awarded on a proportional basis. Consequently, once a candidate races out to a big delegate lead, it is exceedingly difficult for others to catch up.</p>
<p>Tuesday night was a perfect example of why. Clinton won <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results">Mississippi</a>, a state of three million people, and Sanders won Michigan, a state of 10 million people. But Clinton came out of the night with more delegates because she won Mississippi by a far larger margin than Sanders won <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results">Michigan</a>. </p>
<p>Clinton now has over a 200-delegate lead among <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html">pledged delegates</a> – the delegates awarded through the nominating contests – and more than a 400-delegate lead among <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html">superdelegates</a> – Democratic elected officials and party powerbrokers. In all, Clinton has a delegate lead of <a href="http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/delegate-count-tracker">1,221 to 571</a> over Sanders. The first candidate to reach 2,383 delegates wins the nomination.</p>
<p>Even if Sanders wins a majority of Democratic voters from here on out, it is highly unlikely that he can overtake Clinton. The reason is the proportional delegate award system. To catch Clinton, he would need to win landslide victories in most of the remaining states. Indeed, he would need to win states like Ohio, llinois, New York and California by the same margin as Clinton won Mississippi on Tuesday night. That is the only way he can make up the difference in the delegate totals.</p>
<p>But close wins like Michigan won’t do it for him. </p>
<p>On Tuesday night, Sanders won 65 of Michigan’s delegates and Clinton won 58. No matter how many states Sanders wins between now and July, coming away with 7-delegate victory margins won’t be enough to deny Clinton the nomination. He needs to win by blowout margins to change the dynamics of the race and overcome the delegate math that is stacked against him. </p>
<h2>4. Circle March 15 on your calendar</h2>
<p>Everything now rests on the March 15 primaries of Florida, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri and North Carolina. </p>
<p>Starting on March 15, many of the states on the GOP primary calendar become “winner-take-all,” which means whoever finishes in first takes all the state’s delegates. Up until now, all of the Republican contests have awarded delegates on a proportional basis. But that changes on March 15 with delegate-rich Florida and Ohio, both of which are winner-take-all states. </p>
<p>Winner-take-all states are crucial to Trump’s path to the nomination because so far he has been winning primaries with an average of about <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/10/upshot/divided-they-fall-as-donald-trump-enjoys-another-big-night.html">35 to 40 percent</a> of the vote. In winner-take-all states, Trump will get 100 percent of the delegates even if he wins with only 35 percent of the vote. Thus, if Trump wins both Florida and Ohio, it will be <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/07/why-florida-and-ohio-are-the-only-states-that-matter-in-the-republican-presidential-race-in-3-charts/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_trail">extremely difficult for his opponents to stop him</a> from winning the 1,237 delegates he needs to clinch the GOP nomination before the Cleveland convention in mid-July.</p>
<p>On the Democratic side, Sanders has a real chance to win Ohio, Illinois and Missouri on March 15. But in light of her immense strength among minority voters, Clinton is highly likely to win North Carolina and Florida. </p>
<p>Therefore, in order to get back in the race, Sanders needs to win states by huge margins. If he wins blowout victories on March 15, particularly in states he is not expected to win, then all bets are off. If he doesn’t, any chance Sanders has of winning the nomination will be over. </p>
<p>The bottom line is that March 15 looms as a momentous date on the 2016 presidential race calendar.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56000/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anthony J. Gaughan is a registered independent. </span></em></p>Trump’s momentum is unchecked by establishment critics, Sanders surprises in Michigan and other key takeaways from the voting on March 8.Anthony J. Gaughan, Associate Professor of Law, Drake UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/554732016-03-03T11:19:16Z2016-03-03T11:19:16ZPresidential candidates offer sharp differences on the future of renewable energy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113601/original/image-20160302-25905-zwugqj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Ivanpah Concentrating Solar Electric Generating System, built on public land in California's Mojave Desert.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/7552532@N07/15898828220/in/photolist-qdVDHW-qe4YW6-qtcVm9-qvingi-ciht19-dF2Rqk-qvifyv-qvt81t-qdVBoy-j5wBi2-pyHhzt-dF2RCn-qDK4HU-qe2mfB-qdUt3s-qdVmny-rwsem3-qPU5um-r7k6gt-r7kaVt-qQ2vbn-oKgKRe-qaFR3Z-qaFQZc-qPU5wL-r7kaRF-nm6NQQ-o3Q5cT-gip4J1-nm6P3y-nnQ22x-nm4vBX-rWyepQ-pVHpBY-nkM8T4-kY3Fct-nm6NfS-5sfXLS-kWoVFT-mE3d8F-pz4V7R-oVANbj-pDc6Uq-iZSrMt-pRv278-oUDwPY-pz3YP3-A11mkk-AiW1Vd-AUAEyY">ATOMIC Hot Links/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>We are in the middle of a <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/news/global-energy-transition-underway-iea">long-term global transition</a> away from fossil fuels and toward more efficient, renewable-based energy systems. This shift will deliver many benefits, including jobs, reduced air pollution, lower greenhouse gas emissions and less exposure to the volatility and risks of extracting, storing and transporting fossil fuels. It also will offer individuals, households and communities <a href="http://www.centerforsocialinclusion.org/energy-democracy-community-led-solutions-three-case-studie/">more local control</a> over their energy systems. </p>
<p>The next U.S. president will have a significant impact on how the United States positions itself for this transition. </p>
<p>Renewable energy is growing rapidly, and is triggering far-reaching <a href="http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/earth-and-environmental-science/environmental-policy-economics-and-law/smart-grid-revolution-electric-power-struggles">social and institutional changes</a> in how energy is used and managed in the electric grid, in buildings and in transportation. Two types of policies will determine how quickly the United States shifts from fossil fuels to renewable-based energy systems: first, measures that support energy efficiency and renewable energy, and second, measures that reduce support for and reliance on fossil fuels. </p>
<p>There is a sharp divergence between the current Republican and Democratic presidential candidates’ positions on how to manage the dramatic changes that are taking place in our energy system and prepare for the future.</p>
<h2>The Republican candidates</h2>
<p>Most of the leading Republican candidates deny that a link exists between fossil fuel energy use and climate change; strongly support fossil fuels; and oppose providing incentives for renewable energy deployment. </p>
<p>Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that he <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/09/24/donald-trump-i-dont-believe-in-climate-change/">does not believe in climate change</a>, which he calls <a href="http://www.lcv.org/assets/docs/presidential-candidates-on.pdf">a hoax</a>. Trump has made few substantive comments about energy policy beyond asserting that wind turbines <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426591/donald-trump-new-hampshire-primary-ballot-rubio-bush">kill lots of birds</a>. He sued unsuccessfully to <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/16/news/donald-trump-golf-course-scotland-wind-farm/">block construction</a> of offshore wind turbines near one of his golf resorts in Scotland, arguing the turbines were ugly and would ruin the view and reduce tourism. </p>
<p>Senator Ted Cruz has called climate change a <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fact-check-ted-cruzs-claims-about-climate-change-science/">“pseudo-scientific theory</a>.” Cruz advocates strongly for an <a href="https://www.tedcruz.org/issues/jobs-and-opportunity/">“all-of-the-above” energy strategy</a>, is calling for an <a href="http://qctimes.com/news/local/government-and-politics/elections/cruz-says-end-all-energy-subsidies/article_0ca6a302-9d66-5e92-a18a-a6c0f0aee7c7.html">end to all energy subsidies</a>, and criticizes the Obama administration for <a href="http://www.lcv.org/assets/docs/presidential-candidates-on-renewable.pdf">waging a “war”</a> on coal, oil and natural gas. Although he represents Texas, the state with the most wind generation capacity in the country, Cruz does not directly acknowledge opportunities offered by a rapidly accelerating transition toward more renewable based energy systems. </p>
<p>Senator Marco Rubio has <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/may/14/has-marco-rubio-backtracked-climate-change/">said</a> that he believes that climate change is occurring, but not that it is caused by human activity. Rubio released a <a href="https://marcorubio.com/issues-2/energy-policy-proposals/">detailed energy plan</a> that focuses on achieving energy independence and reducing U.S. reliance on Middle East oil by promoting energy efficiency and domestic fossil fuel production. Rubio wants to deregulate oil and gas drilling; reduce federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) for oil and gas; open up new areas for offshore oil and gas drilling; and expedite natural gas exports. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113603/original/image-20160302-25891-1wt16zs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113603/original/image-20160302-25891-1wt16zs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113603/original/image-20160302-25891-1wt16zs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113603/original/image-20160302-25891-1wt16zs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113603/original/image-20160302-25891-1wt16zs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=455&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113603/original/image-20160302-25891-1wt16zs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=455&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113603/original/image-20160302-25891-1wt16zs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=455&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">College students design prototype wind turbines in the U.S. Department of Energy’s Collegiate Wind Competition.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/departmentofenergy/24939292636/in/album-72157664379857612/">Department of Energy/Flickr</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Both Cruz and Rubio have <a href="http://www.lcv.org/assets/docs/presidential-candidates-on-renewable.pdf">voted against</a> extending production tax credits for wind energy generation, providing support for rooftop solar installations, and setting a national goal of generating 25 percent of U.S. electricity from renewable fuels by 2025.</p>
<p>In contrast to other Republican candidates, John Kasich has <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/225073-kasich-touts-climate-belief-but-wont-apologize-for-coal">said</a> that he believes climate change is happening and is concerned about it. But Kasich, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/25/us/politics/john-kasich-balances-his-blue-collar-roots-and-ties-to-wall-street.html">whose grandfather was a coal miner</a>, does not support curbing use of fossil fuel, although he has promoted carbon capture and storage as a way to reduce emissions from coal-burning power plants. </p>
<p>His energy <a href="https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/john-kasich-assets/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Kasich-Plan-Fact-Sheet-Energy.pdf">plan</a> calls low-cost, reliable energy “the backbone of America’s economy” and supports “more energy production from a broad base of sources,” including fossil fuels, nuclear power and renewables, along with energy efficiency and conservation. His specific energy proposals, however, focus on fossil fuels. Kasich pledges to increase oil and gas production on federal lands, approve the Keystone XL pipeline, scrap the Clean Power Plan to limit carbon emissions from power plants and end an existing ban on U.S. oil exports.</p>
<p>Kasich has sent mixed signals on renewable energy incentives. As governor of Ohio, he <a href="https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/john-kasich-assets/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Kasich-Plan-Fact-Sheet-Energy.pdf">signed a bill</a> in 2014 that placed a two-year freeze on the state’s mandate for utilities to generate an increasing share of their power from renewable sources. Critics argued that the renewable energy standard was driving up energy prices and making the state less competitive. Recently, however, Kasich has <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2016/01/kasich_to_ohio_lawmakers_dont.html">warned</a> Ohio lawmakers not to gut the renewable energy requirements, and pointed out that if the legislature cannot come up with an acceptable compromise version, the original standards will be restored in 2017. </p>
<h2>The Democratic candidates</h2>
<p>Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders contend that it is urgent for the United States to accelerate its transition away from fossil fuels to clean, sustainable energy. Both candidates say that doing so will create new jobs and help mitigate the impacts of global climate change. </p>
<p>Clinton has set <a href="https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/26/renewable-power-vision/">two broad goals</a> for expanding renewable energy. First, she has pledged to install 50 million solar panels by the end of her first term, which would represent roughly a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/28/is-hillary-clintons-ambitious-solar-energy-goal-for-the-us-workable">seven-fold increase</a>. However, solar energy is already growing rapidly – the U.S. solar market <a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/solar-is-so-hot-right-now-check-out-the-latest-numbers/">grew by 17 percent in 2015</a> – so it is possible that this increase might happen even if Clinton’s plan were not enacted. Second, Clinton pledges that within 10 years of her taking office, the United States will generate enough renewable energy to power every home in the country. </p>
<p>Clinton emphasizes the importance of bringing the benefits of energy efficiency and renewable energy to <a href="http://www.lcv.org/assets/docs/presidential-candidates-on-renewable.pdf">low-income communities</a>, and she also has released a <a href="https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/11/30/clinton-infrastructure-plan-builds-tomorrows-economy-today/">plan to modernize North American infrastructure</a> that includes investments in hydropower and modernization of the electric grid. In her campaign launch speech, Clinton pledged to <a href="https://www.hcn.org/articles/hillary-would-charge-new-fees-for-fossil-fuel-extraction">increase fees and royalties on fossil fuel production</a> and use the revenues to help support a clean energy transition. She also supports production tax credits for wind and solar power. </p>
<p>Among all of the major candidates, Bernie Sanders has proposed the most urgent and specific <a href="https://berniesanders.com/people-before-polluters/accelerate-a-just-transition-away-from-fossil-fuels/">policies</a> for shifting rapidly toward 100 percent reliance on renewable fuels, taxing carbon and <a href="http://leave-it-in-the-ground.org/">leaving fossil fuels in the ground</a>. Sanders has <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/23/politics/bernie-sanders-pope-climate-change-income-inequality/">referenced statements by Pope Francis</a> to support his argument that moving away from fossil fuels toward renewables is a moral imperative to protect the planet. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113607/original/image-20160302-25872-9ej23n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113607/original/image-20160302-25872-9ej23n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113607/original/image-20160302-25872-9ej23n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113607/original/image-20160302-25872-9ej23n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113607/original/image-20160302-25872-9ej23n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113607/original/image-20160302-25872-9ej23n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113607/original/image-20160302-25872-9ej23n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Researcher at the Joint Bioenergy Institute, a partnership between federal laboratories, the Carnegie Institution for Science and the University of California.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/berkeleylab/2825702325/in/album-72157606891739175/">Roy Kaltschmidt, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the Senate, Sanders has introduced <a href="http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-energy-policy/">multiple bills</a> designed to expand access to renewable energy, including the Low-Income Solar Act, the Residential Energy Savings Act and the Green Jobs Act. Sanders has also proposed legislation to <a href="http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-merkley-leahy-introduce-bill-to-ban-new-drilling-on-public-land">ban all new fossil fuel production leases</a> on public lands, and supports production tax credits for wind and solar power. </p>
<p>The U.S. fossil fuel industry is very politically powerful, and fossil fuels still provide <a href="https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/flow/css_2014_energy.pdf">just over 80 percent</a> of total U.S. energy consumption. Thus, it is not surprising that few candidates are willing to take positions that are directly opposed to fossil fuels. </p>
<p>Both Clinton and Sanders advocate stricter regulation of fracking, but Sanders has also proposed a series of specific <a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/6-things-bernie-sanders-would-do-to-crack-down-on-fracking-even-if-congress-doesnt-go-along/">actions to limit fracking</a>. Clinton and Sanders also have expressed frustration with their political colleagues who deny the link between fossil fuel combustion and climate change. </p>
<h2>New energy thinking</h2>
<p>As we move toward more efficient, renewable energy systems, we need to acknowledge that the process of transition is disruptive and uncertain. Research on other <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.04.009">energy system transitions</a> suggests that as entrenched actors who profit from the current fossil fuel regime feel increasingly threatened by ongoing changes, we can expect resistance to strengthen before it begins to weaken. </p>
<p>The renewable energy transition is changing fundamentally how we produce, use and distribute energy. This means that we have to <a href="http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/earth-and-environmental-science/environmental-policy-economics-and-law/smart-grid-revolution-electric-power-struggles">reevaluate and reframe</a> long-held cultural and institutional assumptions about energy planning. Advances in rooftop solar, distributed renewables, energy storage and electric vehicles have opened up new possibilities for decentralized and distributed energy system management. </p>
<p>As utilities, regulators, renewable energy developers, communities and customers gain experience with new technologies, policies and practices, it is becoming easier for them to let go of long-held assumptions about limitations of alternative energy compared to fossil fuels. </p>
<p>In the presidential race, the Democratic candidates are openly embracing the positive potential of America’s inevitable transition to renewable energy systems, while the Republican candidates are resisting change and holding tightly to conventional assumptions of the fossil fuel era.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/55473/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennie C. Stephens receives funding from the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. She is affiliated with Vermont Public Interest Research Group, the Council for Energy Research and Education Leaders, and Renewable Energy Vermont Education Fund. </span></em></p>The U.S. energy system is gradually transitioning away from fossil fuels and toward renewables. Will the next president speed up America’s shift to renewable energy or step on the brakes?Jennie C. Stephens, Associate Professor of Sustainability Science and Policy, University of VermontLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/556842016-03-03T00:42:26Z2016-03-03T00:42:26ZWill Republican tax plans make America great again?<p>As the old saying goes, there are only two things certain in life: <a href="http://freakonomics.com/2011/02/17/quotes-uncovered-death-and-taxes/">death and taxes</a>. While being taxed is a certainty, the rate and types of income being taxed is not. </p>
<p>Each of the five remaining GOP hopefuls – <a href="https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform">Donald Trump</a>, <a href="https://www.tedcruz.org/tax_plan/">Ted Cruz</a>, <a href="https://marcorubio.com/issues-2/rubio-tax-plan/">Marco Rubio</a>, <a href="https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/john-kasich-assets/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Kasich-Plan-Fact-Sheet-Cutting-Taxes-1.pdf">John Kasich</a> and <a href="https://www.bencarson.com/issues/tax-reform">Ben Carson</a> (who appeared on the verge of dropping out as this article was written) – has released tax proposals on his official website. Examining these plans provides a rough idea of what will happen to the tax system if a GOP candidate wins the November presidential election.</p>
<p>And with Tax Day approaching, a top question in most voters’ minds is, “How much will I have to pay the federal government?” </p>
<p>Since few voters or politicians are currently discussing the taxes to support programs like Social Security, Medicare (payroll taxes), fix the nation’s highways (gasoline taxes) or curb public health problems (“sin” taxes on cigarettes and alcohol), my analysis will adhere to the candidates’ laser-like focus on income and business taxes.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/RkR9B/3/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="420"></iframe>
<h2>Number of individual brackets</h2>
<p>Currently, the federal government has <a href="http://taxfoundation.org/article/2016-tax-brackets">seven tax brackets</a> for individuals. All five of the GOP candidates want to reduce the number of tax brackets. </p>
<p>Brackets are designed to make the tax system progressive so that richer people pay a higher percent of their income in taxes than poorer people. Reducing the number of brackets simplifies the tax system but also reduces progressivity, leading to a system where the rich and poor people pay similar percentages.</p>
<p>The debate over whether it is fair for the rich and poor to pay similar percentages has a very long history. This question was brought up by the earliest economists like <a href="http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html">Adam Smith</a> and John Stuart Mill. </p>
<p>Mill, in his book <em><a href="http://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlP.html">Principles of Political Economy</a>,</em> wrote that the rich should pay more taxes than the poor by arguing, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The subjects of every state ought to contribute to the support of the government as nearly as possible in proportion to their respective abilities. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>While most people today agree that the rich should pay more (in absolute terms) than the poor, there are <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/06/millionaires-taxes-survey_n_5272647.html">numerous arguments</a> as to whether they should or should not pay proportionally more.</p>
<p>Today’s GOP candidates approach Mill’s proposal very differently. </p>
<p>Trump supports the most progressivity by proposing the current system be scaled back from seven brackets to four. Rubio and Kasich both support three brackets. Cruz and Carson are on the other end entirely, with both supporting a single bracket flat tax, which has no progressivity.</p>
<h2>Top individual rate</h2>
<p>Another element of progressivity is what’s the top rate.</p>
<p>At the moment, the federal government has individual tax rates ranging from <a href="https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf">10 percent to 39.6 percent</a>, with each bracket applied to different levels of income. For example, today the top rate doesn’t kick in until income levels reach over US$410,000 for singles and over $460,000 for married couples filing jointly. </p>
<p>All five GOP candidates want to lower the top rate. A high tax rate means the wealthy provide billions to the government in revenue, at least temporarily. </p>
<p>However, an effective tax system should affect economic decisions as little as possible. High rates often provide a <a href="http://www.laffercenter.com/the-laffer-center-2/the-laffer-curve/">disincentive</a> to work and invest. This means that high rates potentially can kill the golden goose of high government revenue. If high rates cause people to work less, than there will be less income for the government to tax.</p>
<p>While all five candidates want the top rate figure to fall, their proposals vary widely.</p>
<p>Rubio wants to lower the top rate the least by proposing a ceiling of 35 percent. Cruz with his flat tax proposes cutting the top rate the most by taxing everyone just 10 percent, no matter what they earn. Trump (top rate 25 percent), Kasich (28 percent) and Carson (14.9 percent) all feel the optimal number for high income earners is a figure somewhere between Rubio’s and Cruz’s values.</p>
<h2>Top business rate</h2>
<p>Corporate tax reform has been a big issue in recent years and one that increasingly has received some degree of bipartisan support. Both Republicans and Democrats have argued the top <a href="http://taxfoundation.org/article/corporate-income-tax-rates-around-world-2015">business tax rate</a> of 39 percent is too high. </p>
<p>Business taxes can be controversial because some people <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/2014/09/21/axes-do-companies-pay-their-fair-share-of-taxes-depends-how-you-ask.html">view them as unfair</a>. For example, if you are self-employed, the money earned doing that job is taxed just once at the individual rate. However, if you incorporate the business and do the same work, the money is taxed twice, once at the corporate level and a second time when the business gives the profits to the individual.</p>
<p>Another problem is that many large corporations have some leeway in which countries they book profits. While some transactions are clearly local, it is difficult to determine where some transactions actually occur. For example, if a person living in the U.S. buys a song from an Irish band over the Internet from a computer server located in Canada, which country has the right to tax the transaction?</p>
<p>These jurisdictional issues mean companies try to book profits in a country with the lowest tax rate. Currently, many corporations favor Ireland because in 1987 the country slashed the maximum corporate tax rate to <a href="http://taxfoundation.org/article/corporate-income-tax-rates-around-world-2015">12.5 percent</a>. This dramatic drop resulted in many multinational businesses moving their European operations to this low-tax haven.</p>
<p>All five candidates want the top business tax rate to fall, but in a variety of ways. Rubio and Kasich both want to lower the top rate the least by proposing a new top rate of 25 percent. </p>
<p>The other three, however, prefer to slash it much more, seeing the optimal top rate closer to 15 percent. Specifically, Carson targets 14.9 percent, Trump 15 percent and Cruz 16 percent.</p>
<p>Still, no candidate proposes a maximum rate that would undercut Ireland. </p>
<h2>The only thing dead certain</h2>
<p>No matter who wins the GOP nomination this summer, it is relatively simple to predict the type of tax legislation that will be pushed by a Republican president in 2017: fewer brackets and lower maximum tax rates.</p>
<p>The reduction in brackets would most likely lead to a less progressive tax system, but it’s less certain how each plan would affect tax revenue and U.S. <a href="http://businessmacroeconomics.com/">gross domestic product</a> (GDP). </p>
<p>All five claim that their proposals would dramatically boost economic growth. For example, Cruz believes his proposal would boost GDP by 13.9 percent over the next decade – or an average of about 1.4 percent a year – while Carson assures us GDP will be 16 percent higher if his flat tax plan is enacted. Many of the candidates claim this greater growth will offset any reduction in revenue because of the lower rates.</p>
<p>Will these predictions of accelerated economic growth prove accurate and result in overflowing tax coffers? Or will these reductions in rates lead to a fiscal crisis?</p>
<p>There are too many unknowns to accurately predict the result. This leaves us with the cold comfort that death is now the only thing with true certainty.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/55684/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
There’s nothing as certain as death, taxes and a Republican with a plan to cut them. But how do the candidates’ proposals stack up?Jay L. Zagorsky, Economist and Research Scientist, The Ohio State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/554422016-02-26T06:19:52Z2016-02-26T06:19:52ZThree important quotes from the GOP debate, explained<p><em>The 10th Republican debate offered an opportunity for establishment candidates to slow Donald Trump’s momentum just five days before Super Tuesday. On the Texas stage were just five candidates: Trump, Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Ted Cruz, neurosurgeon Ben Carson and Ohio Governor John Kasich. We asked three academics to choose key quotes from the debate and explain their significance.</em></p>
<h2>Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg, Tufts University</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>I won every one. I am building a much bigger, much stronger Republican Party. - Donald Trump</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Tonight Donald Trump made a false assertion, just as he did during his Nevada victory speech when he said <a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/2/24/11107788/donald-trump-poorly-educated">“We won with young.”</a> Since <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/live-nevada-republican-caucuses-entrance-poll-analysis/story?id=37145367">he didn’t win the state’s youth vote</a>, he did not win every group. </p>
<p>In fact, Trump has not had much success winning young voters. In Nevada, Marco Rubio won the youth votes. In <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sanders-cruz-won-huge-iowa-youth-vote/article/2582188">Iowa</a> and <a href="http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/02/21/confirmed-ted-cruz-won-younger-voters-south-carolina/">South Carolina</a>, young people chose Ted Cruz. New Hampshire is the only state so far in which Trump won the youth vote.</p>
<p>It is worth questioning Trump’s next claim that he is building a bigger and stronger Republican Party. It is true that <a href="http://civicyouth.org/nevada-caucuses-2016/">young Republicans participated in larger numbers</a> than ever before in all four states in which early contests have occurred. But given young voters’ refusal to support Trump, the high levels of participation in the Republican contests so far are at least partially attributable to young voters coming out to vote against, not for, Trump. </p>
<p>If Trump wins the nomination, would young voters feel at home in his Republican Party and support him in the general election? Maybe, but not likely. Trump’s rhetoric and policies simply go against most young right-leaning voters’ views. For instance, young Republicans embrace immigrants <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/">as assets</a> to this country far more than the older Republicans. More than six out of 10 hold at least some liberal views even when they identify with the Republican Party. Trump is a candidate who continues to argue for exclusion of Muslims and building of a “very, very tall” wall at the U.S.-Mexico border. He also wants to <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Education.htm">diminish the Department of Education</a>. </p>
<p>Would it matter if young conservatives don’t care for Trump? Definitely. Despite a common myth, the Pew Research Center found <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/25/the-gops-millennial-problem-runs-deep/">over one-third</a> of young people consider themselves Republicans or lean toward the Republican Party. That is approximately 18 million young voters that could support a Republican candidate. Young people were hardly mentioned in tonight’s debate by Trump, Rubio or Cruz. Kasich was a notable exception; he used his opening statement to encourage young people to “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/25/the-cnntelemundo-republican-debate-transcript-annotated/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_debate-web%3Ahomepage%2Fstory">shoot for the stars</a>.” </p>
<p><a href="http://civicyouth.org/at-least-80-electoral-votes-depended-on-youth">Young people took down Mitt Romney in 2012</a> because they overwhelmingly supported President Barack Obama in key states. The Republican Party made a mistake of disregarding youth vote then and it is on the same track again. </p>
<h2>Hadar Aviram, University of California, Hastings</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>Arizona put in very tough laws on illegal immigration, and the result was illegal immigrants fled the state. - Donald Trump</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Trump <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-thorny-economics-of-illegal-immigration-1454984443">is referring to</a> Arizona’s SB 1070, <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf">parts of which have been found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court</a>. The law awards local officials the authority to racially profile potential undocumented immigrants.</p>
<p>Trump is correct that the law caused immigrants to flee the state, but many critics say that’s not necessarily a good thing. Much of the bravura regarding immigration ignores how much <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-farms-idUSN1526113420070723">U.S. agriculture depends on Mexican hands.</a> </p>
<p>In his book <em><a href="http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140100741940">Border Games</a>,</em> Brown University scholar Peter Andreas highlights the paradox of the extreme enforcement on the U.S.-Mexico border and the seemingly borderless economic flow of people working in the agriculture industry. And <em>Atlantic</em> writer Eric Schlosser, in his book <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003KK5E7Q/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1">Reefer Madness</a>,</em> exposes the hypocrisy of cracking down on undocumented immigration while exploiting the work of defenseless laborers and employing them under profitable conditions that would not be permissible with locals.</p>
<p>Interestingly, five years after the enactment of SB 1070, undocumented immigrants are defying the legislation. <a href="http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/3/23/five-years-after-sb-1070-arizona-immigrants-defy-law.html">Al-Jazeera</a> quotes Petra Falcon, founder of the Latino civic advocacy organization Promise Arizona, who says that the legislation “created this massive movement to fight back, and that was more significant than the exodus because you had protests every day … What’s come out of that is new organization and new coalitions.” </p>
<p>The civil rights group Puente Arizona has successfully obtained an injunction against the sheriff’s office that has halted workplace raids. </p>
<p>While Trump might rejoice in the reduction in immigrant numbers, it is important to consider the grimmer effects of the Arizona legislation. <a href="https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2010/11/pdf/az_tourism.pdf">The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, has estimated</a> that Phoenix lost US$141 million in tourism and convention industry business in the four months after SB 1070 was passed. Moreover, the notorious anti-immigration enforcement policy of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio (an <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/23/sheriff_joe_arpaio_speaks_at_trump_rally_in_las_vegas.html">avid Trump supporter</a>) has incurred the wrath of a federal judge, who found in 2013 that Arpaio’s department engaged in racial profiling in its immigration enforcement practices and appointed a monitor to institute reforms – a decision <a href="http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-arpaio-immigration-20150814-story.html">confirmed by the D.C. Circuit</a>.</p>
<p>Finally, the Arizona legislation led almost immediately to a backlash among the Latino community, causing <a href="http://archive.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/06/08/20100608arizona-immigration-law-backlash.html">a five-fold increase</a> in Latino voters registering for the Democratic Party – something that would upset even Donald Trump.</p>
<h2>Andra Gillespie, Emory University</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>Here’s a guy that inherited $200 million. If he hadn’t inherited $200 million, you know where Donald Trump would be right now? Selling watches.
–Marco Rubio</p>
<p>That is so wrong … I took $1 million and I turned it into $10 billion.
–Donald Trump</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Like Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy before him, Donald Trump proves that candidates do not necessarily have to have common origins to have mass appeal. To the amazement of his rivals, Trump has proven skilled at outmaneuvering the establishment by presenting himself as the rich man’s version of Horatio Alger – something that must annoy rivals like Rubio who really do have humble origins. </p>
<p>Trump has been able to tap into real frustrations within some segments of the electorate. These voters believe that America is in a state of decline. They also believe that Beltway insiders overcomplicate things, lack common sense, and get nothing done. </p>
<p>By presenting himself as a plainspoken, take-no-prisoners and take-charge kind of guy, Trump distinguishes himself from the rest of the field. The kind of voters who are drawn to him – and by now, we need to accept that they are many – aren’t looking for specifics. They are looking for someone who promises to get things done. Critics may legitimately argue that Trump is light on specifics. But his supporters care more about affect than details. When Trump offers pat, matter-of-fact solutions, they resonate, especially when he offers up his personal success as evidence of his ability to be proactive.</p>
<p>Some may wonder why Trump’s own wealth has not proven to be a stumbling block. Why do working-class voters identify with him? For starters, many desire his perceived wealth more than they would criticize it. And despite the fact that Trump essentially built his wealth upon an inheritance, he does project more of a “new money” image, giving people the idea that he is self-made. </p>
<p>Trump has clearly figured out how to speak the language of those who are rallying around him. Until his rivals learn to speak that language, they will continue to trail him in the primaries.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/55442/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andra Gillespie has received funding support from NSF and the Ford Foundation. She also directs an institute that is funded by the Mellon Foundation. She also worked for Democratic pollster Mark Mellman in 2004, when he served as John Kerry's pollster.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg receives funding from William T. Grant Foundation, Spencer Foundation, Democracy Fund, Library of Congress, Corporation for National and Community Service, Youth Engagement Fund, and University of Central Florida. She is affiliated with the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, Nonprofit VOTE and Generation Citizen. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hadar Aviram does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The 10th Republican debate offered a chance for establishment candidates to slow Donald Trump’s momentum just five days before Super Tuesday.Andra Gillespie, Associate Professor, Political Science, Emory UniversityHadar Aviram, Professor of Criminal Justice and Corrections, University of California College of the Law, San FranciscoKei Kawashima-Ginsberg, Director, Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement in the Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life, Tufts UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/548722016-02-18T10:46:17Z2016-02-18T10:46:17ZJohn Kasich’s rhetoric versus his record in Ohio<p>Since coming in a surprisingly strong <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/john-kasich-says-he-feels-gratified-after-new-hampshire-primary-n515611">second</a> in the New Hampshire Republican primary last week, Ohio Governor John Kasich has been on a roll. His campaign has reported “<a href="http://observer.com/2016/02/kasich-camp-fundraising-has-been-gangbusters-since-strong-new-hampshire-showing/">gangbusters</a>” fundraising and Kasich’s national poll numbers posted a <a href="http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary">sizable bounce</a>.</p>
<p>More Republican voters are giving the Ohio governor a second look, and some appear to like what they see. But does reality match Kasich’s rhetoric?</p>
<p>As <a href="http://u.osu.edu/kogan.18/research/">a political scientist from Ohio</a>, I’d like to offer some perspective on Kasich’s self-described strengths – his role in balancing the state budget and improving the Ohio economy, his moderate policy outlook and his record of electoral victories in the most purple of America’s swing states. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YIy5YoMFp5Q?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">John Kasich makes his pitch.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In my view, Kasich’s campaign is significantly overselling the governor’s record, claiming credit for successes at least partially beyond the governor’s control while downplaying a number of significant policy failures and disappointments.</p>
<h2>Balancing the budget and creating jobs</h2>
<p>When Kasich was sworn in as Ohio’s governor in 2011, the state’s public and private sectors were both a mess. Kasich inherited a huge budget deficit, and the unemployment rate was near a <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2014/07/how_accurate_is_the_kasich_cam.html">historic high</a>. Today, the state’s budget is balanced and unemployment, at 4.7 percent, is <a href="http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LASST390000000000003">the lowest</a> it’s been in more than a decade.</p>
<p>To be sure, Kasich made job creation a top priority in his years in office. Under his watch, the state <a href="http://www.governing.com/topics/mgmt/gov-state-economic-development-privatization.html">privatized</a> its economic development agency, offered private companies significant tax incentives to create (or relocate) jobs in Ohio, and <a href="http://www.tax.ohio.gov/ohio_individual/individual/annual_tax_rates.aspx">reduced</a> its income tax rates substantially.</p>
<p>But is it fair for Kasich to take credit for Ohio’s economic recovery?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111843/original/image-20160217-19232-1yjit1i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111843/original/image-20160217-19232-1yjit1i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111843/original/image-20160217-19232-1yjit1i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111843/original/image-20160217-19232-1yjit1i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111843/original/image-20160217-19232-1yjit1i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111843/original/image-20160217-19232-1yjit1i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111843/original/image-20160217-19232-1yjit1i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111843/original/image-20160217-19232-1yjit1i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Unemployment in California and Ohio.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bureau of Labor Statistics (Graph created by author)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To answer this question, it is useful to compare Ohio with California, another state that experienced significant pain during the Great Recession and where a new governor also took office in January 2011. Compared to Ohio, however, California has pursued very different policies. Under Democratic Governor Jerry Brown, California <a href="http://www.dailynews.com/social-affairs/20131110/proposition-30-a-year-later-california-schools-seeing-benefits-of-tax-measure">increased</a> its income taxes and <a href="http://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2013/nov/clinic-story-10.html">eliminated</a> several economic development programs.</p>
<p>Since January 2011, interestingly, California’s economy has <a href="http://www.bls.gov/lau/">outperformed</a> Ohio’s. Unemployment has fallen by 6.2 percent in California compared to 4.5 percent in Ohio, and the number of people with jobs has increased 11 percent compared to 4 percent in Ohio. </p>
<p>The main lesson from this comparison is that state economic fortunes are, to a large extent, tethered to the national economy. National recessions batter state economies. National recoveries, like the one that has benefited both Ohio and California over the past half-decade, help them. This occurs largely regardless of what policies are adopted at the state level. At minimum, it should make clear that Kasich cannot credibly claim that his policies alone are responsible for Ohio’s improving economy. Like Brown, Kasich was just lucky enough to be in the right office at the right time.</p>
<h2>A predictable cycle</h2>
<p>The robust national economy also helps explain Ohio’s (and California’s) much-improved state finances over the past five years. </p>
<p>As I’ve <a href="https://u.osu.edu/kogan.18/files/2015/10/etrds0035-2lmm154.pdf">written elsewhere</a>, state government budgets are locked into a permanent cycle of feast and famine. State governments get much of their revenue from income and sales taxes, and these revenues boom predictably when the economy is strong.</p>
<p>Yet, a large fraction of state expenditures go to pay for welfare services such as Medicaid. This year in Ohio, Medicaid will make up over <a href="http://www.lsc.ohio.gov/fiscal/budgetinbrief131/budgetinbrief-hb64-en.pdf">50 percent</a> of Ohio’s operating budget. Enrollment in social welfare programs tends to shrink when the economy is doing well – for example, people tend to enroll in private health insurance when they have jobs. As a result, states frequently post large surpluses during good economic times, as their revenues go up even as expenditures on many programs shrink. The flip side is that during recessions, revenues fall even as demand for government programs goes up, creating massive cyclical deficits. The national economic recovery, in other words, has greatly helped Kasich balance the state budget.</p>
<h2>Mr. Moderate?</h2>
<p>Kasich is often described as one of the most moderate presidential contenders in his party – a Republican who works with the other side to achieve bipartisan policy victories. To a certain extent, these accolades are deserved, although they exaggerate the the governor’s record of legislative success.</p>
<p>More than other Republican candidates, the governor has taken controversial positions on a number of public policies that remain deeply unpopular within his party. For example, Kasich supported legislative reforms to fix Ohio’s <a href="http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/OH_CHARTER%20SCHOOL%20REPORT_CREDO_2009.pdf">underperforming</a> charter schools, has been an outspoken advocate of the <a>Common Core</a> education standards and aggressively defends his decision to <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/08/06/republican_presidential_debate_john_kasich_gives_an_incredibly_stirring.html">expand Medicaid in Ohio</a> under the Affordable Care Act. </p>
<p>Despite their unpopularity among the grassroots, however, many of these issues have enjoyed strong support from other Republican elites, who deserve some of the credit (or blame depending on your perspective) for these achievements. Ohio’s Medicaid extension offers a useful example.</p>
<p>When Kasich announced that Ohio would participate in the expansion, the decision attracted a great deal of (often behind-the-scenes) support from other top Republican officials and major campaign contributors. Ohio’s Chamber of Commerce <a href="http://ohiochamber.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Ohio-Chamber-Backs-Medicaid-Expansion-press-release-1.pdf">endorsed</a> the move. Just days before a pivotal state commission was set to consider the proposal, the Republican speaker of Ohio’s House of Representatives <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2013/10/medicaid_expansion_likely_to_p.html">reshuffled several appointments</a> on the commission to ensure that Kasich would get the sufficient number of “yes” votes.</p>
<p>For issues lacking similar support among his party’s leaders, the governor has had much less luck – even though Republicans have enjoyed huge supermajorities in Ohio’s state legislature during his entire tenure. Last spring, for example, the legislature <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/04/22/ohio-house-passes-budget.html">rejected</a> the governor’s proposal to increase cigarette and fracking taxes to pay for an income tax cut. They also voted down a Kasich-backed overhaul of Ohio education funding that sought to redirect state aid to poor school districts.</p>
<p>In many cases, when the governor and the legislature have agreed, they have adopted policies that put them well to the right of the average Ohio (and national) voter. </p>
<p>Since Kasich took office, for example, the state has adopted many new abortion regulations that have reduced the number of abortion providers in the state by <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article20147466.html">more than half</a>. These regulations have had their intended effect of limiting access, reducing the number of abortions to <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2015/09/abortion_total_for_2014_was_oh.html">historic lows</a>.</p>
<p>One of Kasich’s first policy priorities upon taking office in 2011 – an overhaul of Ohio’s public sector union laws – proved <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2456809">so unpopular</a> among not only Democrats but also many Republicans that many observers at the time predicted he would be a one-term governor. Fortunately, an improving economy and embarrassingly scandal-prone opponent proved these predictions wrong, helping Kasich win reelection by a large margin. </p>
<h2>Electability in a purple state</h2>
<p>Kasich’s self-proclaimed electability is perhaps his biggest trump card. But on this score, the evidence is again not particularly favorable.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111705/original/image-20160216-19232-1vz12dg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111705/original/image-20160216-19232-1vz12dg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111705/original/image-20160216-19232-1vz12dg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=341&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111705/original/image-20160216-19232-1vz12dg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=341&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111705/original/image-20160216-19232-1vz12dg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=341&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111705/original/image-20160216-19232-1vz12dg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111705/original/image-20160216-19232-1vz12dg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111705/original/image-20160216-19232-1vz12dg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Comparing Ohio’s electorate in 2012 and 2014.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Catalist (Graph created by author)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It is true that Kasich has won two gubernatorial elections in Ohio, a state that voted for President Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012. But Kasich’s name did not appear on the ballot in those years. Instead, the governor’s two elections came during the midterms, when turnout was <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/blogs/the-daily-briefing/2014/11/05112014---low-turnout.html">substantially lower</a> and the partisan composition of the voters was much different. Detailed voter data on Ohio voters from a big <a href="http://catalist.us/">national vendor</a> show that conservatives made up a minority of Ohio voters in 2012 when Obama carried the state but a sizable majority two years later when Kasich was reelected. </p>
<p>The voters who turn out in Ohio this year are much more likely to resemble the electorate in 2008 and 2012 than 2010 and 2014. That may explain why poll numbers have shown Kasich <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/oh/ohio_kasich_vs_clinton-4079.html">trailing</a> Hillary Clinton in his home state until fairly recently.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54872/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Vladimir Kogan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Republican presidential candidate John Kasich likes to tout his record as governor of Ohio. Is it a case of oversell?Vladimir Kogan, Assistant Professor of Political Science, The Ohio State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/542102016-02-10T05:18:56Z2016-02-10T05:18:56ZRepublican race remains congested after a New Hampshire pile-up<p>The <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/new-hampshire-primary-highlights/">New Hampshire primary</a> is over, and the contest for the Republican nomination remains tumultuous and muddled. The Granite State may have a reputation for winnowing the election field, but it seems likely that most candidates will go on to the next contest in South Carolina on February 20. </p>
<p>Donald Trump won comfortably enough. <a href="https://theconversation.com/us-election-what-do-the-iowa-results-actually-mean-53574">Iowa cacuses</a> winner Ted Cruz slipped, but not fatally. Marco Rubio crashed, perhaps catastrophically, into fifth place. Two governors did respectably, while another was effectively counted out. So what next for the Republican contenders?</p>
<h2>The outsiders</h2>
<p>Trump’s hearty showing may do something to staunch a flow of <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/trump-team-struggles-with-candidate-who-wont-adjust-218983">skeptical stories</a> about the efficacy of his threadbare organisation and freewheeling campaigning style. He tends to dismiss criticism of his ground game as irrelevant, since his success is fuelled principally by his money and personality: as he told CNN on the eve of the primary, “<a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/08/politics/trump-rubio-momentum-interview/">I’m the product</a>”.</p>
<p>The muddle for second place and Rubio’s tumble certainly helped Trump. For now, his chances are next to impossible to predict, since there is precious little precedent for his campaign. What’s clear is that he benefits from the pile-up behind him: the more candidates in play for the consensus lane, the stronger his chances of clinching the nomination.</p>
<p>Ted Cruz, meanwhile, was always going to struggle in New Hampshire, since his Iowa win relied heavily on that state’s much larger evangelical population. And so his team spent the week-long New Hampshire campaign <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/new-hampshire-primary-2016-live-updates/2016/02/new-hampshire-primary-ted-cruz-marco-rubio-donald-trump-219003">dampening expectations</a>, already keen to get to South Carolina and begin what they hope is a successful swing through favourable states in March. </p>
<p>Cruz has a potentially plausible path to the nomination, and will hope to rack up delegates and build an unstoppable momentum over the next month. He has strong organisation in many Southern states, with support from Tea Party activists in many instances. But he’ll face severe challenges if he can’t broaden his appeal: <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/chapter-4-social-and-political-attitudes/">only around 8% of Americans identify as “very conservative”</a>, the core of his vote.</p>
<h2>The governors</h2>
<p>The most interesting performances were those of the race’s three governors. John Kasich, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie all want to be the successful “consensus” candidate, appealing to moderate conservatives and receiving establishment support. As experienced executives with moderate records, they should have the best claims to the throne – but this logic seems not to apply in a year when voters are furious with the government and uninterested in experience claims. Bush, Kasich and Christie have duly found their resumés all but useless so far.</p>
<p>The governors needed results strong enough to allow them to make a plausible case for staying in the race: ultimately, two of them did. </p>
<p>Kasich exceeded expectations by coming second, which will easily propel him to South Carolina. He fought a positive campaign in New Hampshire, upbeat in style. He presented himself as the most moderate of the Republican candidates, preaching pragmatism and bipartisanship. But he has a long way to go to be the leading consensus candidate; so far, he has a paltry campaign organisation and limited national support.</p>
<p>Bush’s team, meanwhile, spent the run-up to the primary saying he only needed to do well enough to justify continuing to South Carolina, where his operation is <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/jeb-bush-south-carolina-ads-219014">well advanced</a>. While some donors are apparently itching for him to withdraw, Bush has built a national infrastructure and still has a hard core of supporters. In particular, he’ll be looking forward to his home state of Florida’s winner-take-all primary on March 15 – but he has to make it there first. </p>
<p>Christie <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/chris-christie-works-to-build-on-his-new-hampshire-debate-performance-1454887184">won admirers</a> for his gutsy performance in the last debate, but it came too late to bump him up the rankings in New Hampshire. He’s duly let it be known he is withdrawing, and it’s not hard to see why: he had raised little money and assembled only a weak campaign infrastructure, and would have had to pull in a lot more donors quickly to plot a credible path to the nomination.</p>
<p>For now, the other two governors muddle on, but probably with little enthusiasm for the looming primaries. As long as they’re chasing the same pool of centre-right votes and cannibalising each other’s support, Cruz and Trump will be free to take the initiative. </p>
<h2>The boy in the bubble</h2>
<p>The biggest disappointment was Florida Senator Marco Rubio. His team have long been pushing him as the candidate who <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429092/marco-rubio-conservative-polls-beats-hillary-clinton">can beat Hillary Clinton</a>, and the only major Republican candidate who could win the national vote. After coming a surprisingly strong third in Iowa, he began picking up endorsements, and there were signs the media were ready to anoint him as the chosen establishment candidate. </p>
<p>He needed a strong showing in New Hampshire to maintain a sense of momentum, to stall critics and put the debate behind him, and to maybe knock Bush, Christie or Kasich completely out of the race. But then came the <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/08/politics/rubio-debate-new-hampshire-2016/">Republican debate on February 6</a>, and the conservative commentariat and GOP donors soured on him after he robotically repeated a pre-prepared line four times. That humiliation’s now been borne out with a drubbing at the polls, and they’ll now be asking if he really has what it takes to win the presidency.</p>
<p>The result has left him facing some big questions. Will the party establishment give up on him? How will he perform at the next debate on February 13? And will he end up remembered as a freshman senator who over-performed in Iowa, or in Christie’s words, as “<a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/02/politics/marco-rubio-attacks-chris-christie/">the boy in the bubble</a>”?</p>
<p>The Republican battle has a long way yet to run. To be sure, there are 28 states in play between now and mid-March, but they may not be enough to end the saga. Republican Party rules require states that vote before March 15 to award delegates proportionally (though each state interprets this in its own way), which makes it difficult for a candidate to pull far ahead of the rest.</p>
<p>As the campaigns swing south, the mainstream lane to the nomination is still congested. The Republican establishment has yet to anoint its candidate of choice – and as long as it waits to do so, its outsiders will keep running amok.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article has been updated to reflect Chris Christie’s decision to end his campaign.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54210/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Liam Kennedy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>With the results in, Trump stands proudly on top of what looks like a five-way car crash. What now?Liam Kennedy, Professor of American Studies, University College DublinLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/536922016-02-03T22:42:08Z2016-02-03T22:42:08ZAre the media killing the New Hampshire primary?<p>Is the New Hampshire primary over the hill? </p>
<p>After 20 years of observing and analyzing the contest as a professor at Dartmouth College, I fear the answer might be “yes.”</p>
<p>The primary is turning 100 this year, but its relevance is in doubt as the national media threaten the state’s traditional function of vetting the candidates.</p>
<p>In this election cycle, for example, I’ve observed that polls – designed, funded and analyzed by the press – started earlier, involved more organizations and occurred more frequently compared to the previous five primaries I have analyzed. They have overshadowed every aspect of the 2016 campaign. Consequently, the face-to-face contact in town meetings and small groups for which the state is renowned has had far less effect on the candidates’ standing in the state than in the past. </p>
<h2>A big spotlight</h2>
<p>The state’s prominence in the presidential nominating process results from its first-in-the-nation primary status and its voters’ penchant for defying conventional wisdom. </p>
<p>For decades, reporters have descended on New Hampshire looking for the big story about unexpected upsets and emerging front-runners. Candidates have braved the Granite State winters because they want to become that big story.</p>
<p>The phenomenon of surprising verdicts began in the 1952 primary with Senator Estes Kefauver’s upset of President Harry Truman and General Dwight Eisenhower’s defeat of “Mr. Republican,” Senator Robert Taft, even though Ike didn’t campaign in New Hampshire. A more recent example was in 2000, when Senator John McCain’s Straight Talk Express overwhelmed Texas Governor George W. Bush. Until the Democratic primary in 1992, no candidate who lost New Hampshire ever had won the nomination. </p>
<p>In years with less political drama, the state enables candidates to build momentum after a caucus win in Iowa or to attract a second look from donors and activists. With journalists crowding the state, they have a good chance of making news with an apt quote or a crowd-pleasing message.</p>
<h2>How retail politics used to work</h2>
<p>The self-interested strategies of journalists and politicians thus create an information-rich environment for New Hampshire voters.</p>
<p>Candidate visits are newsworthy in the tiny state and are covered extensively in local newspapers and in its efficient television market dominated by Manchester-based WMUR. Citizens can meet candidates with relatively little effort or tap into firsthand accounts of events from friends or coworkers.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/3088402?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">My research</a> on the 1996 primary indicates that voters who met a candidate or attended a rally developed a more favorable opinion of that candidate and could identify more traits about him or her. So, retail politics can make a difference.</p>
<p>Interactions with individual voters have historically proven valuable to candidates, as well. New Hampshire’s small scale enables those who aspire to the presidency to run relatively low-cost campaigns in the state. Local officials are accessible for building networks, and citizens are accustomed to volunteering. It is a playing field highly favorable to underdogs. Moreover, candidates can practice their messages and fix mistakes before the intense glare of the national spotlight focuses on them, much as Broadway producers schedule plays for out-of-town performances before the opening on Broadway.</p>
<p>At least, that’s the way it is supposed to work.</p>
<h2>Change in 2016</h2>
<p>Retail politics is still happening in New Hampshire’s 2016 primary, but something is amiss with the Republican contest. </p>
<p>Donald Trump’s celebrity status made him the immediate front-runner in the polls last summer with voters who were not paying attention to the nominating contest. After Trump burst on the political scene, he immediately enjoyed support in statewide polls of roughly <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html">25 percent</a>.</p>
<p>Trump, as one might expect from a reality show host, proved masterful in exploiting the worst vices of the media for conflict, scandalous behavior and the pseudo-objectivity of opinion surveys. His startling statements consumed the public space not already devoted to reporting poll results. A week before the primary, he still led with an average of 32 percent as other candidates struggled for the notice of <a href="http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/new-hampshire-republican/">the press</a>.</p>
<p>What happens in the Republican primary could have potentially severe consequences for New Hampshire’s tradition of personal contact between voters and candidates. Trump has made only a handful of visits to the state, all of them large-scale rallies. Neither Cruz nor Rubio has spent much time in New Hampshire, although they are here now trying to build momentum from Iowa. </p>
<p>Trump’s other opponents, particularly Governors Chris Christie, Jeb Bush and John Kasich, have worked diligently to meet citizens in diverse community settings, but they have not yet altered the dynamics of the race established last summer. Face-to-face campaigning is the only route these candidates can take to overcome the media’s obsession with The Donald and his polls. If the strategy does not work for one of them, however, retail politics in the Granite State may no longer be perceived as a viable path to the White House.</p>
<p>The New Hampshire primary is now one of the few places remaining in the United States to see democracy, with a small “d,” in action. In an electoral system dominated by professional consultants, negative ads and mega-donors, the state’s unique political culture has presented an alternative vision of politics in which ordinary people still matter. </p>
<p>The state – and the nation – can hang on to something precious, at least for a while longer, by resisting the media’s and their polls’ distorted coverage of this election.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/53692/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Linda Fowler does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>For 100 years, retail politics has ruled the New Hampshire primary. We may be seeing a new dynamic emerge in 2016.Linda Fowler, Professor of Government, Dartmouth CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/523742015-12-16T06:19:38Z2015-12-16T06:19:38ZPass or fail? Profs grade GOP foreign policy debate<p><em>Two weeks after a terrorist attack in California, the GOP candidates for president met to discuss foreign policy. We asked two national security experts to grade the ideas they expressed.</em></p>
<h2>Henry Kissinger, how I’m missing you</h2>
<p><strong>Bear F Braumoeller, Ohio State University</strong></p>
<p>In the past, foreign policy debates have generally favored Republicans: the party of Nixon and Reagan has long been <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2015/02/26/democrats-have-more-positive-image-but-gop-runs-even-or-ahead-on-key-issues/">perceived as more competent</a> when it comes to national security issues. In the context of their party’s history, it is especially surprising that the candidates fared so poorly when it came to articulating a competent policy for dealing with the Islamic State (ISIS). </p>
<p>For example, a competent terrorism policy should at minimum avoid overt violations of international law. Unfortunately, Ted Cruz’s <a href="http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/carpet-or-area-bombing/">advocacy of carpet bombing</a> territories held by the Islamic State, Ben Carson’s refusal to rule out the <a href="http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/legitimate-military-targets/">bombing innocent children</a> and Donald Trump’s suggestion that we should target the families of terrorists <a href="https://twitter.com/amnesty/status/676965874335662080">fall into precisely that category</a>.</p>
<p>Once past that low bar, a competent terrorism policy should demonstrate an understanding of the causes of terrorism and the likely effects of antiterror policies, even if those causes and effects are debatable. By my count, most candidates failed this test most of the time. For instance, Cruz, Carson, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie all articulated the logical fallacy that Professor Jack Snyder calls the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Myths-Empire-Domestic-Politics-International/dp/0801497647/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1450240632&sr=8-1&keywords=myths+of+empire">“paper tiger” myth</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>the main opponent is seen as an implacable foe posing an immense security threat, yet at the same time as too weak, inert, or irresolute to combat aggressive countermeasures.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Similarly, Trump’s proposal to fight ISIS by shutting down parts of the internet called into question his understanding of the internet. On the other hand, Bush laid out a detailed plan to combat ISIS and pointed out that alienating Muslims would dramatically undercut it, while Trump gave a sober assessment of the costs of regime change and Rand Paul connected weak states to the spread of extremism.</p>
<p>Admittedly, debates are difficult settings within which to demonstrate the clear understanding of cause and effect necessary to produce an effective foreign policy. Even so, such demonstrations were few and far between last night.</p>
<h2>The Emperor’s new clothes – bluster in the GOP</h2>
<p><strong>David Alpher, George Mason University</strong>
The candidates in the last GOP debate of 2015 left us with an image of great toughness and resolve. Unfortunately, what they resolve to do except be tough was never addressed. </p>
<p>Instead, the candidates declared that we will win by winning, defeat enemies by defeating them, and secure ourselves by keeping ourselves secure. </p>
<p>The candidates offered no plans to do anything about the origin of the problems they identified, and no understanding of the problems themselves.</p>
<p>Carly Fiorina suggested technical methods like better algorithms and the quicker embrace of new technology to catch disaffected populations through better surveillance. But she never addressed the complex social problems behind disaffected populations. </p>
<p>Donald Trump, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz spoke to containing illegal immigration with walls. But any policy suggestions for immigration reform were lost in a crossfire of recriminations about being soft on the undocumented. </p>
<p>Cruz suggested that all terrorists are Muslims even if not all Muslims are terrorists, but neither the other candidates nor the moderators called that statement out for its obvious inaccuracy by pointing out recent examples of domestic, Christian terrorism like the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-charleston-43821">attack on a Charleston church by the white supremacist Dylann Roof</a>. </p>
<p>In the process, the candidates are describing tactics – not solutions – which contain but don’t solve social problems. Historically, that has been an effective way of actually making social problems worse, as the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ferguson-mizzou-missouri-racial-tension_564736e2e4b08cda3488f34d">flare of violence around race relations in the US should demonstrate</a>. </p>
<p>Of all of the candidates on stage, the only one who expressed the idea “we need to be smart and think things through” was Jeb Bush. </p>
<p>Ben Carson emphasized the need to be on a war footing, and both he and Ted Cruz refused repeatedly to rule out carpet bombing even if civilian casualties couldn’t be avoided. John Kasich (along with Lindsey Graham in the early debate) stated the need for troops on the ground to destroy ISIS. However, neither offered a new strategy to bring peace to Syria. </p>
<p>The most common statement in this debate was that we can’t keep ourselves safe with the same plans we’ve been using. President Obama was repeatedly criticized for having nothing but policies we’ve already tried and watched fail, but the candidates then suggested the very same policies – kill them, deny them territory, shut down financial and technical capabilities and end the war in Syria. In fact, Obama’s plan is more comprehensive – although relying on force, he does in fact acknowledge the causes behind terrorism and loss of trust in the US and the need to deal with those. A critical difference. </p>
<p>Although Bush stands out for his call to thought, he also failed to provide anything but toughness and force. He made telling statements like “we can’t disassociate ourselves from Muslims” or they won’t stand with us. At first blush that sounds inclusive, but it doesn’t include Muslims as part of “us.” Nevertheless, the need to think was a promising statement, and a very real distinction of his performance during this debate. </p>
<p>The candidates repeatedly expressed that the most important quality of leaders is the ability to act. Bush’s counterpoint of saying “think first, be smart about this,” is important to keep in mind with regard to the state of our democracy overall, and deserved attention it didn’t get. It should be the Republican statement in the primary election – but as things stand, that looks unlikely.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/52374/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Who is most fit to serve as America’s commander-in-chief? Our scholars watched the latest GOP debate to decide.David Alpher, Adjunct Professor at the School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason UniversityBear F. Braumoeller, Associate Professor of Political Science, The Ohio State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/498692015-10-29T04:01:02Z2015-10-29T04:01:02ZHow CNBC created a GOP debate for the Twitter age<p>The new American politics was showcased in tonight’s Republican debate. </p>
<p>It’s a political landscape where Twitter <a href="http://journalistsresource.org/studies/politics/digital-democracy/social-media-influence-politics-participation-engagement-meta-analysis">may have</a> as much impact than endorsements, and experience is no way to win support. </p>
<p>US politics has long been the triumph of image over content, the domain of celebrity. Today, celebrity is created by reality TV and social media followers, not television news. </p>
<p>The old school media form was a well-edited attack ad, featuring grainy photos, bold text captions and a gravel-voiced announcer. </p>
<p>Today it’s talking heads, Facebook statuses and retweets. </p>
<p>This was supposed to be the era of the Super PAC, but it’s become the moment of basic cable and user-generated content.</p>
<p>Debate audiences for the first two GOP debates and the first Democratic debate were in the tens of millions. The audience numbers for the CNBC debate were likely slightly less thanks to the World Series going on at the same time, but they were still substantial.</p>
<p>What are all these people looking at? </p>
<h2>Talk radio with pictures</h2>
<p>CNBC offered anti-television as if it were hosting a talk radio program. </p>
<p>The backdrop featured only its logo. Every shot was a head-and-torso picture of the person speaking, with only an occasional midrange shot for variety. No compelling visuals were offered, unlike in the second GOP debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library that featured an Air Force One plane as a compelling backdrop.</p>
<p>What was happening on TV may have been eclipsed by what was happening simultaneously on smartphones and tablets. Many viewers now follow live TV events on Twitter. Donald Trump has 4.7 million Twitter followers – up from just 3.2 million a few weeks ago. Rubio and Carson are at around 900,000, while establishment hero Jeb Bush dawdles at 350,000 followers. </p>
<p>Compare Trump’s huge reach online with the 131,000 daily <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/28/business/media/a-debate-cnbc-plans-to-win.html?ref=business">viewership</a> of CNBC, the business channel hosting the debate, and it seems a new media model has emerged for political campaigns. </p>
<p>Trump’s confrontational rudeness works in 140 characters: education policy is harder to condense.</p>
<p>But old media is not yet done. Club for Growth <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/257876-club-for-growth-claims-credit-as-trump-drops-in-iowa">attack ads</a> in Iowa have been effective in knocking down some of Trump’s poll leads.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_OEijvTi0NE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The bad news for the party establishment: all the lost support went to Ben Carson, another so-called “outsider” with a <a href="http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/business-executives/dr-ben-carson-net-worth/">net worth</a> of US$30 million. </p>
<p>This inside-out pattern dominated all night. </p>
<p>Millionaires emoted about poverty, working people, student debt and Medicare. Being the son of a bartender, like Marco Rubio, beats being the child of a president, like Bush.</p>
<p>This third GOP debate was reality TV with exaggerated characters speaking prepared lines as if speaking ad lib. No one thinks they are saying anything other than what they hope will create an advantage for them. Republicans have set up their nomination process as a low-budget hybrid of The Bachelor/ette and Big Brother with the ethics of Survivor. </p>
<p>The only unaccustomed sight was that of Ben Carson, an African American, at the center of the stage. For a party that has flirted with racism in its hostility to President Obama, Carson is the acceptable “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/26/us/politics/calm-manner-has-ben-carson-rising-in-polls.html">mild-mannered</a>” face of black culture. His was one of few African-American faces visible all evening.</p>
<p>Whoever the horse-race commentators and polls deem to have won, the upside-down, inside-out dynamic of this election came out on top. That much was plain to see Wednesday night.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/49869/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicholas D. Mirzoeff does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Was the latest GOP debate designed just to give candidates – and viewers – something to tweet about?Nicholas D. Mirzoeff, Professor of Media, Culture, and Communication, New York UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/458042015-08-06T19:45:46Z2015-08-06T19:45:46ZStatistics professors give Fox News a B- on their big polling test<p>The results are in.</p>
<p>Fox News has settled on the 10 Republican candidates who will do battle on the “main stage” during the first televised GOP debate. </p>
<p>As expected, Donald Trump will take center stage as the undisputed leader of the polls, with an average reported by Fox News of 23%. </p>
<p>But while Fox is using polling and statistical analysis to justify their selections, their methods of calculation strike us – two statistics professors from Oklahoma State University – as too fast and loose.</p>
<h2>The answers Fox got</h2>
<p>According to <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/04/how-fox-news-determined-who-qualified-for-prime-time-gop-debate/">Fox News</a>, these candidates will be joining Trump based on their polling averages: former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (13%), Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin (11%), retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson (7%), former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (7%), Senators Ted Cruz of Texas (6%), Rand Paul of Kentucky (5%) and Marco Rubio of Florida (5%), and Governors Chris Christie of New Jersey (3%) and John Kasich of Ohio (3%).</p>
<p>The remaining seven candidates (Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, George Pataki and John Gilmore) will duke it out at the debate undercard to be held earlier that day. </p>
<h2>The Perry question</h2>
<p>The notable candidate missing from the main event is Perry, whose recent tete-a-tete with Trump has received a lot of attention from the media. Perry referred to Trump as “<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/07/23/perry-to-trump-basically-dont-mess-with-texans-who-are-running-for-president/">a cancer on conservatism</a>,” while Trump suggested that Perry should be required to take an IQ test prior to being allowed on the debate stage. </p>
<p>Fox News did not go out of its way to ensure Perry a spot, even though the fireworks that may have resulted could have scored big for the news network.</p>
<p>Had Fox News decided to include Perry, it could have picked a combination of polls that put Perry ahead of Kasich. For instance, the following five give Perry the lead: <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/273490309/CBS-News-GOP-presidential-candidates-poll">CBS News</a> (completed on Aug. 2), <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/08/03/poll-new-high-for-trump-new-low-for-clinton/">Fox News</a> (August 2), <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/trump-surges-new-nbc-news-wsj-poll-n402036">NBC/Wall Street Journal</a> (July 30), <a href="http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/reuters-polls/">Reuters/IPSOS </a>(July 28) and <a href="http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/reuters-polls/">Reuters/IPSOS</a> (July 22).</p>
<p>The drawback to using those five polls is that they are not the five most recent, they use different data collection methods and they use different sampled populations. The five Fox actually picked have the advantage of consistency.</p>
<h2>Points for consistency</h2>
<p>According to <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/04/how-fox-news-determined-who-qualified-for-prime-time-gop-debate/">Fox</a>, the five polls utilized were CBS News, Bloomberg, Monmouth University, Quinnipiac University and their own Fox News poll. </p>
<p>An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, which did fall within the five most recent, did not meet Fox’s criteria for inclusion because it did not include Kasich, the network <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/04/how-fox-news-determined-who-qualified-for-prime-time-gop-debate/">reported</a>. </p>
<p>A second important aspect of the inclusion criteria was the restriction against automated phone interviews. All the polls utilized consisted of live interviews, and both landlines and cellphones were included. This aspect reduced <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2330443X.2015.1034389">the bias inherent</a> in using automated polling and relying solely on landline phone numbers. </p>
<p>A third consistency in the five polls selected was their sampled population. All five polls sampled “registered voters.” Keeping to a single population ensures that the polls can be compared to one another, and that the calculated average is meaningful.</p>
<h2>Points off for averaging errors</h2>
<p>The real concern is the method Fox News used to obtain their averages. </p>
<p>They employed the most basic method imaginable. The rank order was determined by a simple arithmetic average of publicly available results. Averages were rounded to the nearest tenth of a percentage point. The sample sizes and margins of error of the five polls were ignored in the calculations. </p>
<p>To see why this is an issue, let us look at an extreme case. In Poll A, 200 registered Republicans are asked their preference. In that sample, 5% prefer Perry and 2% prefer Kasich. In Poll B, 2,500 registered Republicans are asked their preferences. In this poll, 2% prefer Perry and 4% prefer Kasich. Simply averaging the percentages puts Perry on the stage with an average of 3.5% to Kasich’s 3%. </p>
<p>However, between the two polls, only 60 people preferred Perry – 10 from Poll A and 50 from Poll B. A total of 104 preferred Kasich – 4 from Poll A and 100 from Poll B. In this extreme example, Fox’s simple averaging would have put the candidate preferred by 2.2% in the debate and sidelined the candidate preferred by 3.9%.</p>
<p>Weighted averages matter.</p>
<p>Fox didn’t use weighted averages, but they used the concept to justify their result.</p>
<p>The network <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/04/how-fox-news-determined-who-qualified-for-prime-time-gop-debate/">claimed</a> that “given the over 2,400 interviews contained within the five polls, from a purely statistical perspective it is at least 90% likely that the tenth place Kasich is ahead of the eleventh place Perry.” </p>
<h2>No real harm done</h2>
<p>Had Fox use the more correct weighted averaging method, the only change would have been a change in position for Christie and Kasich.</p>
<p>That change is no big deal. And perhaps Fox wanted to use math that is easier to explain to viewers. </p>
<p>But what would have happened if the decision to use unweighted averages resulted in a different lineup? It could have meant that a candidate regulated to the “kiddie table” actually deserved to eat with the adults.</p>
<p>One thing Fox got right: It showed its work, giving voters the ability to see how the selections were made.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45804/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Fox News is using polling to justify their picks for the GOP debate, but the way they averaged those polls was a little fast and loose.Mark Payton, Head of the Department of Statistics, Oklahoma State UniversityOle J. Forsberg, Visiting Assistant Professor of Statistics, Oklahoma State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.