tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/candidates-27323/articlescandidates – The Conversation2022-10-26T12:29:03Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1904032022-10-26T12:29:03Z2022-10-26T12:29:03ZWhy campaigns have a love-hate relationship with their signs<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/490942/original/file-20221020-19-h9c3xy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=71%2C431%2C5344%2C3556&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Arizona's cities and towns have been flooded with signage during the heavily contested 2022 elections.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/pedestrians-walk-by-political-campaign-signs-that-are-news-photo/1411737858?phrase=arizona political signs&adppopup=true">Justin Sullivan/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Every election cycle, I’m accustomed to seeing campaign signs. But this past summer, I was struck by the sheer number of them in Scottsdale, Arizona, near where I live. I counted 18 on just one corner of a major intersection. </p>
<p>As a linguist who studies political advertising, I’ve <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/the-popularity-and-irrelevance-of-our-lawn-sign-wars/264488/">read the research</a> arguing that signs don’t make much of a difference. </p>
<p>Clearly, Arizonans think otherwise.</p>
<p>The deluge of signs during primary season reflected the state’s <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_elections,_2022">heavily contested races</a> for a U.S. Senate seat, U.S. House seats and statewide offices for governor, secretary of state and attorney general.</p>
<p>Why are there so many signs when <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2015.12.002">studies point</a> to their minimal influence on election outcomes? Where might their value lie?</p>
<h2>The history of the political sign</h2>
<p>Claiming street corners and front yards for political advertising is not new. </p>
<p>Some type of street signage in U.S. elections <a href="https://millercenter.org/president/jqadams/campaigns-and-elections">has been around for at least 200 years</a>.</p>
<p>The 1828 presidential race between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson was the first to employ political paraphernalia like buttons, medallions, mugs and posters that bore the candidates’ images and slogans. The candidates relied on their supporters to flaunt this swag to help get out the vote. </p>
<p>In his 2020 book “Political Sign,” <a href="https://tobiascarroll.com/books/political-sign/">Tobias Carroll</a> outlines the gradual development of the political sign to the styles that are familiar today.</p>
<p>Political posters and signs in the mid-1800s were more verbose and could even contain <a href="https://www.loc.gov/item/scsm000501/">song lyrics</a>. Then, beginning in the 1920s, ad agencies professionalized the style of these signs, leading to formats that are now commonplace: 18-by-24-inch placards in yards prominently featuring the candidate’s name and office, along with larger ones on public thoroughfares. </p>
<p>Such signage is not a distinctly American phenomenon. <a href="https://toronto.citynews.ca/2022/05/11/ontario-election-2022-signs-ads-billboards-brochures-campaign/">Canada</a> and the U.S. share a reliance on corrugated plastic signs in yards and thoroughfares. Signs on poles and posters on walls <a href="https://yello.substack.com/p/what-political-design-looks-like">are popular in the U.K.</a>, where political ads on TV are banned. Candidates will advertise in most any country with open elections, and their government will likely make <a href="https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1556492/comelec-warns-private-property-owners-vs-displaying-big-campaign-posters">rules on the size of signs</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A husband and wife pose next to signs on poles representing competing candidates." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/490950/original/file-20221020-26-4y58dp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/490950/original/file-20221020-26-4y58dp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490950/original/file-20221020-26-4y58dp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490950/original/file-20221020-26-4y58dp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490950/original/file-20221020-26-4y58dp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=536&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490950/original/file-20221020-26-4y58dp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=536&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490950/original/file-20221020-26-4y58dp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=536&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Political signs affixed to poles are popular in the U.K.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/togetherness-ends-at-the-ballot-box-for-ann-and-derek-news-photo/90769697?phrase=political%20lawn%20signs&adppopup=true">Manchester Daily Express/SSPL via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Signs don’t vote</h2>
<p>As popular as signs seem to be, political operatives often dismiss them as a <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/the-popularity-and-irrelevance-of-our-lawn-sign-wars/264488/">superfluous hassle</a>. </p>
<p>Campaign managers I’ve spoken to tell me that yard signs matter mostly in hyperlocal elections; while they’re relatively cheap, they still eat into tight budgets. Others complain of signs getting <a href="https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/kari-lakes-signs-in-phoenix-keep-getting-vandalized-13831568">damaged</a> and <a href="https://www.kwch.com/2022/07/28/thefts-drive-e-wichita-homeowners-put-electric-fence-around-vote-yes-sign/">stolen</a>. They’re awkward to transport, and fines loom if they’re wrongly placed or missing required information. <a href="https://nevalleynews.org/16571/news/campaign-signs-election-cyle-scottsdale-public-safety/">All governmental jurisdictions have regulations</a> about when and where they can be placed on public right of ways. </p>
<p>And, as many politicos point out, if you’re going up against a popular candidate, no matter how many signs you put up, it won’t win you the election – <a href="https://www.npr.org/2012/03/10/148351027/how-powerful-is-a-political-yard-sign">signs, after all, don’t vote</a>. One campaign manager did assure me, however, that all candidates need professionally produced signs in order to be considered serious and viable. </p>
<h2>Pinpointing their effect</h2>
<p>Political scientists have long worked to learn what makes advertising strategies effective. Candidates and their campaign managers are eager to learn more about this impact, too.</p>
<p>But studies about campaign signage are complicated by the fact that no two campaigns or election cycles are alike. As a social science researcher, I know that controlling for the effect of signs is tricky when numerous factors influence an election’s outcome, sometimes even after the polls close. </p>
<p>A yard sign is certainly an indicator of an individual voter’s enthusiasm, but determining if it will get their <a href="https://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/ct-life-election-campaign-signs-20181018-story.html">neighbors to vote – and vote for the same candidate</a> – is another issue.</p>
<p>Some studies only look at <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/yard-sign-displays-and-the-enthusiasm-gap-in-the-2008-and-2010-elections/7B08A9A572E5A503B7FF4E915DB6012C">typical yard signs</a>, and while less standardized signs on public property share some similarities, the two are distinct.</p>
<p>Campaign signs at corners of major thoroughfares and mass transit stops, I believe, can also be an indication of enthusiasm. Candidates’ campaigns may pay the sign company to place them, but others rely heavily on volunteers to help. Few people, however, see those volunteers, and most likely don’t know how those signs came to be there.</p>
<p>In 2013, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12034">political scientists Cindy Kam and Elizabeth Zechmeister</a> found that name recognition alone can affect perceptions of a candidate’s viability. Extensive signage may help with that and boost potential viability. But factors such as being an incumbent can change that – and, perhaps, obviate the need for signs as a way to boost name recognition.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A lawn lined with signs of U.S. Senate candidate Raphael Warnock." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/491417/original/file-20221024-25-xrhr97.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/491417/original/file-20221024-25-xrhr97.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/491417/original/file-20221024-25-xrhr97.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/491417/original/file-20221024-25-xrhr97.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/491417/original/file-20221024-25-xrhr97.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/491417/original/file-20221024-25-xrhr97.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/491417/original/file-20221024-25-xrhr97.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">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In a tight race, signs certainly don’t hurt.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/campaign-signs-are-seen-outside-early-voting-locations-in-news-photo/1244180085?phrase=campaign%20signs&adppopup=true">Nathan Posner/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2015.12.002">A 2016 study led by political scientist Donald Green</a> notes that lawn signs can have a small effect of “just over one percentage point” and, like other low-tech strategies such as mailers, can play a role when only a few points separate candidates. Even <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/167939/do-political-ads-even-work">high-budget TV ads</a> are largely found to make little difference outside of very close races. In purple Arizona, where the count tally often is tight, it’s possible to argue that signs – and whatever else the budget will allow – could make a difference. </p>
<h2>A simple and easy way to engage</h2>
<p>Campaign signs, like TV ads, are forms of advertising that reach people who may not be plugged into politics. </p>
<p>Yard signs are seen by the neighborhood and may make a difference with residents. Larger numbers of potential voters see signs at major intersections in a metropolitan area like Phoenix and surrounding towns. For example, on a single midweek day, <a href="https://www.tempe.gov/government/engineering-and-transportation/transportation/streets-signals-traffic/traffic-counts">March 3, 2022</a>, a one-mile stretch of road running north and south and sporting several signs on corners saw 32,280 vehicles, according to the city of Tempe, Arizona, where I live.</p>
<p>In hotly contested primary races, numerous candidates are likely new to voters. Public thoroughfare signs mean <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2015.12.002">voters needing more information</a> have a real chance of getting it during a routine car ride. </p>
<p>And a candidate needing more name recognition has a real chance of getting that from regular commuters through some savvy sign placement. Signs including <a href="https://www.flickr.com/gp/asuenglish/28iRTeH423">endorsements</a> or <a href="https://www.flickr.com/gp/asuenglish/z5aPr47098">campaign pledges</a> can transmit additional information over the course of a few seconds at a stoplight. </p>
<p>Signs convey a real diversity of candidates and their beliefs. Even poorly funded candidates can express themselves through signs. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/21/us/politics/us-democracy.html">Despite reports of democratic backsliding</a> in the U.S., the intersection in Scottsdale with 18 signs tells me that the democratic process is, in some ways, still thriving.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/190403/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Karen Adams is affiliated with the Democratic Party through donations. I do not volunteer for the party or a particular candidate. </span></em></p>Supporters and volunteers love them. But it’s difficult for political scientists to determine whether they even influence the outcome of elections, since no two campaigns or election cycles are alike.Karen Adams, Professor of English, Arizona State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1333232020-03-12T17:24:15Z2020-03-12T17:24:15ZLessons on wrangling candidates from the masterful moderator of presidential debates, Jim Lehrer<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/319708/original/file-20200310-61099-14qlqfr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Republican candidate Mitt Romney (L) and Democratic candidate, U.S. President Barack Obama (R) during the 2012 presidential debate in Denver on Oct. 3, moderated by Jim Lehrer. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/republican-presidential-candidate-former-massachusetts-gov-news-photo/153335537?adppopup=true">Getty/Chip Somodevilla</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Boy, do I miss Jim Lehrer.</p>
<p>I thought of the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/business/media/jim-lehrer-dead.html">late PBS anchor and legendary presidential debate moderator</a> fondly while watching the last two <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/02/25/watch_live_cbs_news_democratic_debate_in_charleston_sc.html">Democratic debates in Charleston</a> and <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/video/watch-the-full-nbc-news-msnbc-democratic-debate-in-las-vegas-79092293857">Las Vegas</a>. The constant interruptions, the lack of decorum and the complete disregard for time limits on candidates’ answers all worked to cause viewers like me to hope Lehrer had faked his own death and would come walking back on stage. </p>
<p>Why couldn’t a combined total of 10 moderators at two debates keep control of seven candidates?</p>
<p>With the next Democratic debate coming this weekend, the moderators from CNN and Univision could learn a few lessons from a pro like Lehrer.</p>
<h2>‘Clarify that statement’</h2>
<p>Dubbed by Politico as the “<a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2012/09/the-master-of-moderation-081806">Master of Moderation</a>,” Lehrer moderated 12 presidential debates between 1988 and 2012, the <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/remembering-jim-lehrer">most of anyone in American history</a>. </p>
<p>Two years ago, the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, a nonpartisan think tank which specializes in presidential scholarship, held a workshop for Senior Fellows – <a href="https://millercenter.org/experts/mary-kate-cary">including me</a> – to learn how to moderate debates and panel discussions. Lehrer, a long-time Miller Center board member, offered to give us his best advice. </p>
<p>Three hours later, I had taken pages of notes.</p>
<p>“To me, moderating a presidential debate has become like riding a bike,” Lehrer said, acknowledging his decades of being at center stage every four years. “But I realize not everyone knows how to ride that bike, so I’m going to spend the next few hours teaching you what I know.” </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/319714/original/file-20200310-61084-p7nvt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/319714/original/file-20200310-61084-p7nvt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/319714/original/file-20200310-61084-p7nvt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319714/original/file-20200310-61084-p7nvt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319714/original/file-20200310-61084-p7nvt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319714/original/file-20200310-61084-p7nvt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319714/original/file-20200310-61084-p7nvt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319714/original/file-20200310-61084-p7nvt.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">Democratic presidential candidates former Vice President Joe Biden (L) and Tom Steyer (R) debate as Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) reacts during the Democratic presidential primary debate, Feb. 25, 2020 in Charleston, South Carolina.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/democratic-presidential-candidates-former-vice-president-news-photo/1208700122?adppopup=true">Getty/Win McNamee</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Got a candidate who is taking more time than others? Ask more questions of the others to maintain the perception of fairness. If you ask long involved questions, he advised, you’ll get long involved answers – and the problem of imbalance arises from the start. </p>
<p>“If a candidate says, ‘My answer has seven parts,’ you say: ‘Great, give me the first three.’”</p>
<p>Is a candidate attacking the moderator? Turn the other cheek, smile and don’t take the bait. “If the moderator gets drawn into a fight, the moderator always loses,” Lehrer warned us.</p>
<p>Think a candidate isn’t telling the truth? Don’t yell “Liar!” Keep from reacting at all. Then try: “Based on my knowledge, I want to ask you to clarify that statement.”</p>
<h2>Battle plans ‘out the window’</h2>
<p>Before every debate, Lehrer said, he would look into a mirror offstage: “It’s not about me,” he’d tell himself. He told us to use our knowledge to shine a light on other people’s knowledge, not our own. </p>
<p>He was such a humble man, in fact, that he told us that if you heard anyone quoting the moderator at the end of a debate, you’d know the moderator had failed. </p>
<p>No need to preface your questions with a lead-in or even worse, your own opinion. Just get right to the point: “Do you agree?” “Do you think that’s right?” “What would a good deal look like to you?”</p>
<p>Do your homework, and have more questions than you think you’ll ever need. Know everything there is to know about the people on stage and what their positions are. Map out in advance where you want the discussion to go. </p>
<p>“Have a battle plan,” he said with a wry smile, “but know it’ll go out the window once the first bullet is fired.” </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fNBlipu6ZVU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Tricks for enforcing the rules</h2>
<p>But Lehrer’s best advice was how to create an engaging, civil conversation on stage in which everyone feels they have been heard. </p>
<p>The first step of the plan is to <a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4860576/user-clip-jim-lehrer-debate-intro">take a few minutes at the start of a debate</a> to make sure the rules are clear – how the questions will be given, how much time each candidate has to answer, how rebuttals will be handled and the like. </p>
<p>He’d tell candidates that in order to help them abide by the rules, a bell or warning lights would signal when their time was expiring. If they don’t heed the warning, the moderator will have to intervene and move on to the next candidate.</p>
<p>The second step: Even though it may seem mundane to the audience, it’s crucial to explain those rules in front of the crowd. You want the audience to know the rules of the game. </p>
<p>That way, when the candidates start breaking the rules, the audience immediately knows it. And the audience will subconsciously give the moderator permission to act. </p>
<p>“Bring the audience in on the rules,” Lehrer said, “because then enforcement will be easier.” </p>
<p>Finally, Lehrer shared what he’d say to candidates beforehand:</p>
<p>“Don’t talk at the same time, because no one gets heard.” </p>
<p>“We are not here to have a fight, we are not here to filibuster.”</p>
<p>“My job is to help people understand your position.”</p>
<p>And my personal favorite: “I will be fair.”</p>
<p>That’s why I miss Jim Lehrer.</p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/133323/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mary Kate Cary 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>Jim Lehrer moderated 12 presidential debates between 1988 and 2012. His lessons on how to run a debate should be studied by today’s moderators, writes a former presidential speechwriter.Mary Kate Cary, Adjunct Professor, Department of Politics and Senior Fellow, UVA's Miller Center, University of VirginiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1165712019-05-16T10:42:56Z2019-05-16T10:42:56ZWhy are there so many candidates for president?<p>Seven Democratic presidential candidates gathered on national television early in the 1988 campaign to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/02/us/debates-to-play-bigger-role-in-88.html?searchResultPosition=3">debate each other</a>. </p>
<p>The field of candidates, derided by Republicans as the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/06/opinion/the-seven-dwarfs.html">“Seven Dwarfs</a>,” pales in comparison to the 24 Democratic candidates who have – at last count – declared their candidacy for president. </p>
<p>The seven Democrats on the stage in 1988 represented an unprecedented number of candidates vying in a presidential primary. Now, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/us/politics/democratic-debates-candidates.html">17 of the 24 declared Democratic presidential candidates have currently met the standards</a> set by the Democratic National Committee to qualify for participation in this election cycle’s debates. </p>
<p>And in 2016 the GOP used <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/another-kids-table-debate-only-much-smaller/405664/">two debate stages</a> to accommodate the 17 declared candidates. </p>
<p>I study <a href="http://myweb.fsu.edu/hanhassell4/">political parties and their role in electoral politics</a>. And I believe the rise in the number of presidential candidates in recent years results from divisions within the party coalitions and from easier access to vital campaign resources – money and media – that were not present in previous election cycles. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/274507/original/file-20190515-60570-e6z5aj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/274507/original/file-20190515-60570-e6z5aj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/274507/original/file-20190515-60570-e6z5aj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274507/original/file-20190515-60570-e6z5aj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274507/original/file-20190515-60570-e6z5aj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274507/original/file-20190515-60570-e6z5aj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=509&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274507/original/file-20190515-60570-e6z5aj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=509&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274507/original/file-20190515-60570-e6z5aj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=509&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Nine of the 17 Republican presidential candidates on stage with debate moderator Wolf Blitzer during the fifth Republican presidential debate on CNN, Dec. 15, 2015, in Las Vegas.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/GOP-2016-Debate/5c37e54225bf4c4caabf9ae53a9c3593/100/0">AP/John Locher</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The old way</h2>
<p>Political parties are not monolithic organizations. Parties consist of a <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/theory-of-political-parties-groups-policy-demands-and-nominations-in-american-politics/2F7996D5365C105C3B91CD56E6A1FAA3">network of groups with different policy interests who work together</a>. </p>
<p>For example, within the Democratic Party there are labor organizations, environmentalists and civil rights groups, each with different priorities. Each group would ideally prefer a candidate who will champion their ideas and strongly support their policy preferences. </p>
<p>But a primary filled with many candidates who attack one another risks harming the eventual nominee’s standing with voters. </p>
<p>Likewise, these divisive primaries may cause supporters of a candidate who fails to win the nomination to withhold their support of the nominee. </p>
<p>So to avoid <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-016-9332-1">the problems created by a divisive primary</a>, these groups must coordinate behind a single candidate who may not be everyone’s – or anyone’s – first choice.</p>
<p>This requires the groups within the party to compromise, subordinating their group’s interests in favor of a win for the party. </p>
<p>In previous election cycles, where the average number of candidates who declared their candidacy and campaigned actively through the first primaries and caucuses was much smaller, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Party-Decides-Presidential-Nominations-American/dp/0226112373">these groups have worked together effectively to stand behind one candidate</a>. </p>
<h2>Money, media and staff</h2>
<p>As <a href="https://newbooksnetwork.com/hans-hassell-the-partys-primary-control-of-congressional-nominations-cambridge-up-2018/">my research shows</a>, unified parties are able to discourage candidates from running or encourage them to drop out. </p>
<p>They do this by making it difficult for the candidates they don’t prefer to acquire the vital electoral resources that are necessary to win the nomination: media coverage, campaign funds and quality campaign staff. </p>
<p>Donors, staff and the media take cues from party elites about which candidates are the party’s choice. They are less likely to support, work for or cover those lacking the party’s support.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/05/12/everything-you-need-to-know-about-how-the-presidential-primary-works/">Reforms to the presidential nomination</a> process in the early 1970s took choosing a nominee out of smoke-filled back rooms. But <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-03/political-parties-must-respond-to-disruption">parties have continued</a> to influence the outcome through their control of the money and other campaign resources necessary to win the nomination. </p>
<p>While these resources are available in abundance within the party network, they were previously harder to find outside of that network. In previous years, candidates who realized it would be hard to amass the necessary resources through party support ultimately declined to run or dropped out quickly, resulting in much smaller presidential fields. </p>
<h2>Declining party influence</h2>
<p>In recent years, things have changed. </p>
<p>Parties may still have the ability to push a candidate through the nomination <a href="https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2016/1/26/10834512/party-decides-establishment">when they are united</a>. But I believe party unification and power over electoral resources has also declined in these four areas:</p>
<h2>1. Media control</h2>
<p>In the past, candidates were <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/not-your-father-s-campaign-trail-what-might-have-happened-n989201">reliant on the media to publicize their candidacy</a> and get their message to voters. Party leaders and elites consistently have better connections with the media establishment and use those connections to promote preferred candidates. </p>
<p>But today’s media environment allows candidates to bring their message directly to voters. Social media <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/changing-media-changing-politics/6DDE422850CA74994BF4C512284C0C45">bypasses reporters and editors</a> and those who have connections to them so more candidates have easier access to this key campaign resource. </p>
<h2>2. Candidate ambitions</h2>
<p>Before, running for president was almost entirely about advancing one’s political career. As <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=NuZXHrSmy3UC&q=just+as+good+as+they+are#v=snippet&q=just%20as%20good%20as%20they%20are&f=false">Paul Tsongas, the former senator and presidential candidate, once said</a>, “When you get to the Senate, half the people around you are running for president. You see them and you think you are just as good as they are…So you start to think about running yourself.” </p>
<p>Now, a run for higher office can be a <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/mike-pence-donald-jr-and-melania-never-thought-trump-would-become-president-769701">means to other opportunities outside of politics</a>. Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, a presidential candidate in 2016 and 2012, <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/17/rick-santorum-joins-cnn-as-senior-political-commen/">became a pundit on CNN</a>. Another candidate, the GOP’s 2008 vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, ended up with a <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/a-tv-leap-wannabe-veep160160-121714">show on cable news</a>. </p>
<p>While parties still pressure candidates to withdraw, candidates may be less responsive than in the past. That’s because they care less about the desires of party elites since they may not be as interested in a career in party politics.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/274514/original/file-20190515-60554-1f4b71t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/274514/original/file-20190515-60554-1f4b71t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/274514/original/file-20190515-60554-1f4b71t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274514/original/file-20190515-60554-1f4b71t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274514/original/file-20190515-60554-1f4b71t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274514/original/file-20190515-60554-1f4b71t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=618&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274514/original/file-20190515-60554-1f4b71t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=618&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274514/original/file-20190515-60554-1f4b71t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=618&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Until recently, parties played a large role in choosing presidential nominees. Here, delegates to the Republican National Convention in Chicago, July 8, 1952.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/GOP-Convention-1952/9e40aca83c4d43ef889c1d81ead8dd95/61/0">AP//William Smith</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>3. Fundraising</h2>
<p>Changes in campaign finance have also helped candidates find sufficient money outside of the party network to launch their campaign. </p>
<p>The rise of super PACs and other independent political entities has allowed candidates to gain access to large sums of money <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/us/politics/as-carly-fiorina-surges-so-does-the-work-of-her-super-pac.html">from a small number of donors</a>. Campaign finance rules previously encouraged candidates to rely on a larger base of wealthy donors – many of whom took cues from party elites. </p>
<p>At the same time, the internet and social media have also expanded the role of <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/politics/2020-democrats-small-donations/index.html">small donors who are not traditionally involved in party politics</a>. Small dollar donations have taken a <a href="https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/small-dollar-donors-2020-democrats-president-money">more important role in campaign funding</a>. </p>
<h2>4. Party disunity</h2>
<p>Lastly, party coalitions have also become more divided. </p>
<p>Divisions within the Republican Party coalition <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2014/05/07/politics/gop-establishment-tea-party-fights-ahead/index.html">became more evident</a> during the Tea Party movement. <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/04/the-insurgents-behind-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-224542">Similar ideological divisions</a> have emerged in the last two election cycles <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/27/dccc-cheri-bustos-progressives-1241010">between Democratic Party leaders and the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party</a>. The rise of differences and divisions within the parties makes it harder for the groups within the party network to coordinate on a single candidate.</p>
<h2>Here to stay</h2>
<p>While the number of candidates running for president in 2020 may be unprecedented, a crowded debate stage is unlikely to be a strange sight in the future. </p>
<p>The divisions within parties and the availability of money and media coverage outside of the traditional party network mean that potential candidates will continue to see – and take – opportunities where previously they did not.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/116571/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hans J.G. Hassell 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 number of candidates in presidential primaries has skyrocketed since the 2016 election. Divisions inside political parties and easy ways for candidates to raise money are among the reasons why.Hans J.G. Hassell, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Florida State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1044522018-10-29T10:39:29Z2018-10-29T10:39:29ZMoney in elections doesn’t mean what you think it does<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242489/original/file-20181026-7059-1vsmlw0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Money in politics? Somebody's got to pay for those signs.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/2016-Election-Florida-Voting/30ff377c698843de8319ffa28b590c51/144/0">AP/John Raoux</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Money is indispensable in American electoral campaigns. Without it, candidates cannot amplify their message to reach voters and it’s harder to motivate people to take interest and vote. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, a <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/08/most-americans-want-to-limit-campaign-spending-say-big-donors-have-greater-political-influence/">May 2018 Pew survey</a> revealed a bipartisan 70 percent of respondents said individual and group spending in elections should be limited. </p>
<p>But does the American public understand the actual role played by campaign spending?</p>
<p>I’m a <a href="https://polisci.ufl.edu/suzanne-robbins/">political scientist who studies American politics</a>. Here are the answers to fundamental questions that voters should ask about the role of money in elections.</p>
<h2>How much do elections cost?</h2>
<p>Running for federal office is expensive. According the <a href="http://www.cfinst.org/pdf/federal/2016Report/CFIGuide_MoneyinFederalElections.pdf">Campaign Finance Institute</a>, the cost of winning a U.S. House seat in 2016 was over US$1.5 million. All told, approximately $816 million was spent by 723 major party candidates for the U.S. House. </p>
<p>The average amount a House candidate spent in 2016 was $1.2 million. However, there’s a lot of variation depending on what type of candidate you are. </p>
<p><iframe id="inHfG" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/inHfG/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Republicans and incumbents, for example, spent more on average than challengers and those running in open-seat contests in 2016. In fact, the average challenger spent less than half a million dollars, or about one-fourth the amount an incumbent spent. </p>
<p>Those figures don’t include money spent by parties and outside entities to influence the election. Federal law dictates that groups, parties and individuals – including the groups known as <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php">super PACs</a> – can make what are called <a href="https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements-pac/independent-expenditures-nonconnected-pac/">“independent expenditures”</a> for or against a candidate, so long as they do not coordinate with the candidate. </p>
<p>Spending from the major parties and super PACs in House and Senate races more than tripled between 1998 to 2016, growing from $267 million to $978.6 million. </p>
<h2>Can money buy an election?</h2>
<p>Money is necessary for a candidate to be competitive, but it doesn’t ensure success. </p>
<p>A lack of money can eliminate less capable candidates, but having money does not guarantee that a particular candidate’s message will resonate with the voters. As Campaign Finance Institute researchers <a href="http://www.cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/18-03-08/CFI%E2%80%99s_GUIDE_TO_MONEY_IN_FEDERAL_ELECTIONS_%E2%80%93_2016_IN_HISTORICAL_CONTEXT.aspx">Michael Malbin and Brendan Glavin write</a>, “If voters do not like what they are hearing, telling them more of the same will not change their opinion.” </p>
<p>So how does money matter?</p>
<p>Money can affect which candidates run. Specifically, early money – or money raised before the primary – matters especially in this regard. </p>
<p>Candidates can prove their viability by raising significant sums before the first advertisements air. Landing some big donors before the first advertisements or primary allows candidates time to build campaign infrastructure. Insiders refer to this as the “invisible primary.” Media stories on the invisible primary for the 2020 presidential election are <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/386823-invisible-primary-has-already-begun-for-dems">well underway</a>. </p>
<p>Money matters more for challengers than it does for incumbents. Decades of political science research demonstrates that the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/08/upshot/a-campaign-dollars-power-is-more-valuable-to-a-challenger.html">more a challenger spends, the more likely he or she is to win</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242482/original/file-20181026-7050-1cw4xk0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Money helps get citizens engaged in elections.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/hand-holding-white-loudspeaker-dollars-flying-382771240?src=8rDe_E4BPJZsKG_57JP1FA-1-7">Shutterstock/ImageFlow</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>That’s because incumbents have many advantages, not the least of which is name recognition and free media. So, challengers must spend more to overcome the obstacles they face, from name recognition to formidable incumbent war chests meant to scare off a challenger. Unfortunately for challengers, those barriers are high enough that they rarely raise enough money to compete.</p>
<p>Yet money does not guarantee a victory. Simply looking at the average <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/bigspenders.php?cycle=2016&display=A&sort=D&Memb=S">amount spent by winners and losers</a> obscures the fact that many races have no real competition. </p>
<p>In 2016, winning incumbents far outspent their challengers, but the winners in open seat contests spent nearly the same amount as their opponents, while those incumbents who lost outspent their winning opponents half of the time. </p>
<p><iframe id="He1Eq" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/He1Eq/5/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>In short, incumbents who spend more than their opponent in contested races are more likely to be the candidates who are vulnerable and lose. </p>
<h2>Does money buy influence?</h2>
<p>Money matters in the most competitive races, open seat races that have no incumbent and those with high profile candidates. More money will be spent by the candidates in these races, but also by those who would like to influence the outcome. </p>
<p>One concern that is often expressed is that winners answer to their donors and those organizations who support them. </p>
<p>Since 2010, the role of outside money, or money from super PACs and political nonprofits, has raised alarms <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/12/secret-money-funds-more-than-40-percent-outside-congressional-tv-ads-midterm-elections/777536002/">in the media</a> and from <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/10/in-tight-senate-races-dark-money-backs-dems-hammers-gop/">reform groups</a>. </p>
<p>Some assert that self-financed candidates or those candidates who can demonstrate widespread support from small donors can allay concerns about the potential influence of donors on candidates and elected officials.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/outvscand.php?cycle=2016">Center for Responsive Politics</a> notes that outside organizations alone have outspent more than two dozen candidates in the last three electoral cycles and are poised to outspend 27 so far in 2018. </p>
<p><iframe id="SfYcu" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/SfYcu/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>However, it’s not always clear how useful that spending is: The <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/bensmith/the-incredibly-dumb-political-spending-of-2012">2012</a> election provides many examples. </p>
<p>Billionaire Republican donor <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/sheldon-adelson-donor-republicans-219598">Sheldon Adelson backed a super PAC</a> supporting former House Speaker Newt Gingrich after Gingrich was no longer a viable presidential contender. It extended the Republican presidential primary at a time when Mitt Romney could have been raising money and consolidating support for the general election. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/koch-backed-political-network-built-to-shield-donors-raised-400-million-in-2012-elections/2014/01/05/9e7cfd9a-719b-11e3-9389-09ef9944065e_story.html?utm_term=.f1618de12dd4">libertarian, conservative PAC Americans for Prosperity</a>, founded by the Koch brothers, often ran ads at odds with the Republican message. Other outside groups poured money into races that simply were not winnable. </p>
<p>By 2016, it appears that super PACs were spending for more calculated effect, focusing on competitive races. In addition, much of that “outside money” comes from the super PACs associated with the two main parties. </p>
<p>For example, in <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/races/outside-spending?cycle=2016&id=CA07&spec=N">California’s 7th congressional district</a>, outside groups spent approximately $9.1 million, in roughly equal amounts between the incumbent, Democrat Ami Bera, and challenger, Republican Scott Jones. The vast majority (85.7 percent) of the outside spending came from party organizations – the National Republican Congressional Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Congressional Leadership Fund and House Majority PAC – not from interest groups. Bera won re-election with 51.2 percent of the vote. </p>
<p>Some candidates use their own money for their campaigns to avoid appearing indebted to donors. </p>
<p>For example, wealthy Florida Republican Gov. Rick Scott has given his current U.S. Senate campaign <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/races/candidates?cycle=2018&id=FLS1&spec=N">$38.9 million dollars – 71.3 percent of all funds raised</a>. </p>
<p>But self-funding does not resolve the democratic dilemma of responsiveness. </p>
<p>First, <a href="https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2014/11/6/1332017/-Self-Funded-Candidates-The-Track-Record">Daily Kos</a> found that most self-financed candidates lose – and the more they spend, the more likely they are to lose the election. Generally, the only exceptions are candidates like Rick Scott, who already hold elective office. </p>
<p>Second, this way of improving responsiveness is limited because it effectively precludes anyone but the wealthy from holding office.</p>
<p>Small donors seem like a democratic solution to wealthy donors dominating election giving. Several recent campaigns – Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul, Barack Obama and now Donald Trump – have created effective small-donor fundraising machines. </p>
<p>More small donors means <a href="http://prospect.org/article/small-donors-may-soon-be-only-way-fight-big-money">more widespread support, at least in theory</a>, but that theory has limitations. </p>
<p>Small donors are not yet giving enough to counter big money. <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/campaign-finance-fundraising-citizens-united/504425/">In fact, the share small donors contribute relative to big money is declining</a>. </p>
<p>Moreover, political science doesn’t yet know enough about who small donors are – whether they are economically representative of the U.S. as a whole or even if they are <a href="https://psmag.com/news/the-people-who-finance-political-campaigns">more ideologically motivated to give, contributing to polarization in politics</a>.</p>
<h2>What’s so good about money?</h2>
<p>Yes, incumbents can amass huge war chests to scare off opponents, and money can be most effective in competitive races. All that extra spending translates into additional advertising and get-out-the-vote efforts. </p>
<p>In the end, what does that mean? </p>
<p>It means more information about the candidates and issues for voters, increased interest in the campaign and increased voter turnout. </p>
<p>That’s good for democracy.</p>
<p>Focusing on the putative evils of money diminishes the importance of other things that may help or hinder a candidate. Other major elements that can influence the outcome of a campaign: candidates who face national political and economic tides and local political concerns; candidates who choose to challenge formidable incumbents; and many candidates who simply aren’t viable. </p>
<p>It’s easy to see a correlation between winning and fundraising because money flows to likely winners and competitive races. </p>
<p>But, as scholars like to say, correlation is not causation. In the world of politics and campaigns, money is meaningful. It just may not mean what, and as much as, most people think it means.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/104452/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Suzanne Robbins 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>Is money the root of all evil in politics? It’s easy to see a correlation between winning and fundraising – money flows to likely winners and competitive races. But correlation is not causation.Suzanne Robbins, Assistant Professor of political science, University of FloridaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/580542016-05-09T20:05:16Z2016-05-09T20:05:16ZFrom donkey votes to dog whistles, our election language has a long and political history<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/121657/original/image-20160509-23386-ypn7v3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">'Candidate' has its roots in the word 'candid', to be frank. It's hard not to believe that we've strayed a little from those noble aspirations.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Cesare Maccari/Wikimedia Commons</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>We now know that July 2 will be the day when our politicians, in the words of Alfred Deakin, get dragged from the tart-shop screaming. </p>
<p>We’ll do our part to fill in the lengthy election coverage by looking at language and polly-talk. We’ll cast a close eye on how politicians use language to connect with voters, how language impacts our view of candidates, and, perhaps the most fun of all, the polly-waffles and linguistic stuff-ups along the way. More so, we’ll put political language in its historical and often slippery and weasely contexts. </p>
<p>The best place to start this coverage is the words that form the backdrop to the election. The origins of these stretch from Ancient Rome to the modern United States. But not to be outdone, Australia’s got its own series of words, and has made a few contributions to global political processes, too. </p>
<h2>The dazzling togas and open fields of Ancient Rome</h2>
<p>The 16th and 17th centuries saw hundreds of classical coinages flood into English. Many related to political aspects of life and were linked historically in different ways to gravitas. </p>
<p>Yet one recurring theme you’ll see in political words is a deterioration in their meanings. Links between foul play and politics have cast many of these words into the vast semantic abyss – if they didn’t already start their linguistic life there.</p>
<p><em>Candidate</em> is a relative of <em>candid</em> “frank”. Both go back to Latin <em>candidus</em>, “pure white, glistening”. In Ancient Rome those standing for election wore dazzling white togas. White (especially sheeny white) was the symbol of purity and light, freedom from evil intent and later freedom from bias. </p>
<p><em>Candid</em> is something we’d love our pollies to be, but bear in mind too that the Latin source also gave us <em>candida</em> the yeast-like parasitic fungus.</p>
<p><em>Campaign</em> goes back to Latin <em>campania</em>, “open field”, but the form that came into English (via French) comes from Italian <em>campagna</em>. The word took on a military specialisation – armies fought better in fine weather, and so when summer approached they emerged into the open countryside (or <em>campagna</em>) to do battle. This meaning of “military operation” gave rise to the political sense in the 1800s. </p>
<p>Interestingly, the word campaign is historically the same word as <em>champagne</em> (as a great filcher of vocabulary, English often swiped the same item more than once). So as you progress through this excruciatingly long <em>campaign</em>, know that you are linguistically justified in seeking solace in occasional glasses of bubbles.</p>
<p>Our final word of Latin pedigree is the little word <em>vote</em>. It derives from <em>vōtum</em>, a form of a Latin verb meaning “to solemnly promise”, and appeared in the English during 16th century with the meaning “grave undertaking” (a sense preserved in <em>vow</em>). </p>
<p>Out of this meaning developed a “wish, desire” sense, which then gave rise to the current election sense – the idea being that someone can signify their wishes by casting a ballot. Like so many words to do with politics, <em>vote</em> eventually took a cynical turn for the worse. In The Devil’s Dictionary (1911), Ambrose Bierce defines it as:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The instrument and symbol of a freeman’s power to make a fool of himself and a wreck of his country. </p>
</blockquote>
<h2>The salamanders and swashbucklers of US politics</h2>
<p>American English has given us plenty of political curiosities. <em>Gerrymander</em>, used to describe the “dishonest manipulation of constituency boundaries”, shows the name of the 19th-century (corrupt) American politician, Elbridge Gerry (governor of Massachusetts) blended with <em>salamander</em>. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63232/original/wx28372d-1414623275.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63232/original/wx28372d-1414623275.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63232/original/wx28372d-1414623275.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=628&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63232/original/wx28372d-1414623275.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=628&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63232/original/wx28372d-1414623275.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=628&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63232/original/wx28372d-1414623275.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=789&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63232/original/wx28372d-1414623275.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=789&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63232/original/wx28372d-1414623275.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=789&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gerrymandering has been present in US politics since the 19th century.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Elkanah Tisdale</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The inspiration for the blend was the map showing the boundary changes introduced by Gerry – it resembled a salamander in shape.</p>
<p>Another rather lovely word that’s been making recent appearances on the Australian political scene is <em>filibuster</em>, “a parliamentary procedure where prolonged speaking delays or even thwarts a vote on a proposed piece of legislation”. </p>
<p>The word is a linguistic bitser. Historically it’s the same word as <em>freebooter</em> (someone who scores free booty) – both words go back to Dutch <em>vrijbuiter</em>. French adopted the word as <em>flibustier</em> and then passed it onto Spanish as <em>filibustero</em>. </p>
<p>English (“<a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=4djICT7zgGoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn:1847654592&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjm5e-EjqHMAhXG5qYKHQS7ApoQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q&f=false">the vacuum cleaner of language</a>”) appears to have sucked up the word in all its different forms but the same meaning – both <em>freebooter</em> and <em>flibooter</em> appeared in the 16th century (“l’s” and “r’s” are notoriously unstable and swap places all the time – <em>grammar</em> and <em>glamour</em> is another doublet with the same origin); the French form <em>flibustier</em> arrived in 18th century and the Spanish form <em>filibuster</em> in the 19th century. </p>
<p>The current political sense first appeared in the US by the 1880s, in part aided by 19th-century military campaigns in Latin America, which were led by “unauthorised” US soldiers known as <em>filibusters</em>. This political sense has well and truly pushed out the earlier sense of “piratical adventurer”.</p>
<p><em>Pork barrelling</em> also acquired its political meanings in the US, but is now commonly used in Australia for those occasions where marginal seats are said to receive more funding than safe seats. Barrels of salted pork were once treasured larder items and good indicators of a household’s wellbeing, so it’s no surprise that <em>pork barrel</em> came to mean a supply of money. </p>
<p>In the 1800s it then extended to refer to any form of public spending to the community – it’s then that <em>pork barrel politics</em>, at least under this label, fell from grace.</p>
<h2>The donkeys and dixers of Australian politics</h2>
<p>Finally we leave you with three political D-words that Australia has gifted to the rest world. </p>
<p>There is the <em>donkey vote</em>, where voters allocate preferences in the order in which candidates’ names appear on the ballot paper, giving the top-listed candidate an advantage. In the past, when ballots listed candidates in alphabetical order, the first letter of a person’s surname <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books/about/The_Collins_Australian_Dictionary_of_Pol.html?id=65umAQAACAAJ&redir_esc=y">could impact</a> whether they were selected as a party’s candidate. </p>
<p><em>Dog-whistle politics</em> is a targeted political campaign message containing some kind of coded significance that will reach only sympathetic voters (just like the special high-pitched whistle used to train dogs is inaudible to humans). </p>
<p>The modern practice itself is rooted in American conservative politics. For instance, Richard Nixon <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Dog-Whistle-Politics-Appeals-Reinvented/dp/0199964270">used</a> the phrase “law and order” as a code for a tougher stance on race and anti-war protesters. Yet, the term <em>dog-whistling</em> is often linked to the Australian “<a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/who-is-lynton-crosby-the-evil-genius-behind-harpers-campaign/article26331033/">master of the dark political arts</a>”, Lynton Crosby, who has led conservative campaigns in Australia, Britain and, most recently, Canada. </p>
<p>Finally, the <em>Dorothy Dix(er)</em> has been used in Australian politics since the 1940s to refer to a rehearsed question asked of a government minister by a backbencher to score political points. Curiously, the expression isn’t known in the US, even though Dorothy Dix was the pseudonym for the American writer, E.M. Gilmer, who apparently made up questions for her agony column. </p>
<p>We can compare this with <em>kangaroo ticket</em>, a political expression not known in Australia but used by Americans to describe a situation where the vice-presidential candidate has more appeal than the presidential candidate. Kangaroos have more weight in their bottom halves, and they also propel themselves using their back legs. </p>
<h2>Sorting the roosters from the feather dusters</h2>
<p>As our pollies hit the hustings, you might be interested to know that <em>husting</em> is the oldest political term in English. Originally, <em>hus-thing</em> (from 11th-century Norse) referred to a council comprising members of the king’s immediate household. </p>
<p>It was literally was a “house-thing”. The development to the current-day meaning of “election proceedings” involves a series of shifts too spectacular to go into here. </p>
<p>Perhaps another day – it’s going to be a long few months and we have to maintain the rage.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58054/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 organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Many of the most commonly used election terms have a long linguistic history, stretching from ancient Rome to modern-day America and Australia.Kate Burridge, Professor of Linguistics, Monash UniversityHoward Manns, Lecturer in Linguistics, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.