Democracy 101

An emolument is any kind of gain due to one’s political office or other employment. The Constitution contains two clauses dealing with emoluments: one regarding domestic emoluments, and the other, foreign.  These were intended to protect US government officials, elected and appointed, from influence applied by domestic and foreign actors, respectively, whether the actors are individuals, businesses, or governments, be they foreign, US federal or an American state.  The clauses were included in the Constitution, because the Framers were deeply worried about corruption.  The Framers understood how government officials could be tempted by gifts (bribes) that cause an official to act in her or her personal best interest rather than the people’s, thereby undermining the people’s faith in democratic government. 

Click for more details.

The first ten amendments to the US Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights.  They were added to the Constitution as a concession to the Anti-Federalists, a group that opposed the Constitution’s ratification, demanding that a list of freedoms, among other things, be included in the Constitution.  The Bill of Rights protected people against federal government actions that restricted or eliminated freedoms.1  With the adoption of the 14^th Amendment in 1869, however, a legal opening became available for the Supreme Court to incorporate (ie. apply) the Bill of Rights’ protections to state governments. 

1. The word “people” is used throughout this discussion, because the protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are available to everyone in the United States, citizens and non-citizens alike.   ⇧

Click for more details.

Although there is no actual definition for a constitutional crisis, the consensus is that it is a cumulative erosion of governance that follows the Constitution.  It may include government official(s) or state(s) taking systematic, unconstitutional, illegal actions or failing to uphold constitutional responsibilities — in other words, a breakdown of the rule of law defined by the Constitution.  A constitutional crisis may arise from situations in which the Constitution is legally ambiguous. 

Click for more details.

The Constitution grants the power to declare war exclusively to Congress (Article⁠ ⁠I, section 8, clause 11).  Once Congress has declared war, the President, as Commander-in-Chief, leads the country’s military forces (Article II, section 2).  As Commander-in-Chief, however, the President can send troops abroad without a formal declaration of war, although generally presidents have requested congressional authority beforehand. 

During the Vietnam war, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which requires that the President consult Congress when deploying troops, and limits the length of their use unless Congress declares war.  The President may also request an Authorization for the Use of Military Force resolution (AUMF) from Congress.  Although these are intended as single-purpose resolution, the 2001 AUMF, passed after the September 11 attacks, has been invoked repeatedly by presidents from both parties. 

Click for more details.

No.  The 22^nd Amendment1 explicitly and unambiguously states “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”  Therefore, as the Constitution is currently written and interpreted, there is no path for an incumbent President who has spent eight years in office to become President again, unless the 22^nd Amendment is amended or repealed.2

It has been suggested that a two-term incumbent President could run as Vice-President.  Following a successful election, the new President could resign, thereby allowing the new Vice-President to assume the presidency.  This is unconstitutional.  The 12^th Amendment states “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of the President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”  As a two-term president is ineligible to be President again, it would be unconstitutional for that person to serve as Vice-President.3

1. The 22^nd Amendment was passed by Congress in 1947 and ratified in 1933.  It was proposed in reaction to the fourth election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt as President.  Prior to FDR, all presidents followed the precedent established by Washington of serving only two terms.  nb. Washington’s decision, which has been widely praised as an act of great statesmanship, was his own, not required by the Constitution or any law.  In violating Washington’s precedent, Roosevelt argued that the country needed stable leadership during WWII, so he ran for a third and a fourth term, and the people reelected him both times.  When Republicans gained control of Congress in the 1946 elections, they quickly moved to ban future presidents from serving more than two terms. ⇧
2. To amend the Constitution, two-thirds of both houses of Congress must vote to approve the amendment and three-fourths of all the states must ratify the amendment.  Only one amendment — the 18^th,  Prohibition (1919) — has ever been repealed (by the 21^st Amendment, 1933). ⇧
3. It is, of course, possible to amend the language in the 12^th Amendment.  The main reason for the 12^th Amendment was to correct a constitutional defect in the method of voting used by Electors to choose the President and Vice-President.   ⇧

The Unitary Executive Theory (UET) is a view of the President’s powers.  It maintains that the President holds absolute power over all parts of the executive branch, without limits imposed by any other branch.  This idea is founded on the Constitution’s identification of the President alone as the Chief Executive. 

With the exception of Andrew Jackson, early presidents took a very limited view of the president’s role, deferring to Congress.  During the Civil War, Lincoln greatly expanded the powers of the presidency, in order to preserve the Union.  Since then, there have been presidents with both expansive and restrained views of their powers.  President Nixon, for example, sought to govern through executive orders on many issues, although he worked with Congress on others.  President Reagan first articulated the UET.  Since then, presidents have followed his example, using executive orders when Congress would not follow their wishes.  None of them invoked the UET, however, except for George W. Bush, and he only did sparingly.  President Trump, in contrast, has invoked it regularly in both his terms.  As many of his executive orders have violated statutes and even the Constitution, it remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will interpret the Constitution consistent with the UET or with a more traditional understanding of presidential power. 

Click for more details.

An executive order is one of several means through which a president can manage the executive branch of government.  Although executive orders have the force of law, they only apply to the executive branch, not to Congress or the federal courts.  Moreover, they do not apply to federal agencies that are intentionally independent of both Congress and the Executive branches (eg, the Federal Reserve Board and the Securities and Exchange Commission).  Congressional approval is not needed for an executive action, but Congress can check the President’s action in several ways, for example, by not approving any funding needed for the executive order.  Similarly, the Supreme Court can declare an executive action unconstitutional.

Depending on the wording of an executive order, it can remain in effect for a specified duration or indefinitely.  On the other hand, executive orders can be easily overturned by another president, making them more transient than laws passed by Congress.

Click for more details.

Impoundment refers to an executive action that seeks to either delay or permanently halt the spending of funds that Congress has appropriated.  To comply with the law, impoundment must be done with Congress’s blessing; the president cannot unilaterally prevent appropriated funds from being spent, nor repurpose them.  The Government Accountability Office (GAO) tracks impoundment actions, and evaluates them before reporting them to Congress.  It has the authority to sue the executive branch to release improperly withheld funds.

There are two kinds of impoundment.  If the president wishes to delay the expenditure, he must notify Congress and, if neither the House nor the Senate rejects the request, it stands.  On the other hand, should the president wish to permanently halt the expense, he must similarly notify Congress, which then has 45 days to cancel the expense.  If Congress does cancel the expense, these funds must be returned to the US Treasury; they cannot be reassigned without Congress’s authorization.  If, however, Congress does not cancel the expense, the funding must be spent as allocated. 

Click for more details.

The Federal Civil Service is a force of over 7000 government employees in agencies such as the FBI, the IRS, NASA, the EPA and HHS.  Civil servants are customarily hired based on their skills and qualifications, not their political leanings. 

The Civil Service dates back to 1798, when the Departments of State, War and Treasury, and the Office of the Attorney General were created.  Over time, agencies were added, reorganized, and eliminated as the country’s needs evolved. 

The first civil servants, hired by President Washington with the Senate’s approval, were selected for their good character and experience, and less because they shared his political views.  It was initially envisioned that each president would bring in his own team.  This constant turnover, which became known as the “Spoils System,” however, proved wasteful and led to widespread corruption, as each new president appointed political supporters, who often had no qualifications for the job, and who were obliged to continually demonstrate loyalty to their party. 

The 1883 Civil Service Act addressed these problems.  It made the hiring process fairer and mandated that job qualifications be specified.  Moreover, it prevented elected officials and political appointees from firing civil servants for political reasons. 

In 1978, the Carter Administration’s Civil Service Reform Act created a small core of high-level “senior executive positions” into which currently employed civil servants could rise.  These positions, however, lacked the job security of the normal civil service. 

Click for more details.

Independent Regulatory Commissions (IRCs) are non-partisan bodies created by Congress to be independent of both Congress itself and the President.  IRCs are also known as independent regulatory agencies, administrations, or boards. An IRC is empowered to make and enforce objective, non-political, evidence-based rules, normally on a specific subject that requires technical knowledge — for example, the stock market, the nuclear industry, or the airline industry.  Examples of IRCs include the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Security and Exchange Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, the Consumer Finance Protection Board, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  The goal of an IRC is generally to protect people and small companies from exploitation by large corporations.  Because IRCs are intended to operate independently and non-politically, the commission members can only be removed for cause (incompetence, malfeasance, or neglect of duty). 

Click for more details.

An inspector general (IG) serves as an internal watchdog, to provide independent, non-political auditing of a government agency, such as the Department of Defense, CIA, USDA, FTC, or NRLB.  The IG monitors the agency to improve its efficiency, ensure its compliance with policies, and uncover fraud, theft or misconduct within it.  Although an IG reports to the head of an agency, the head does not control the work of the IG to ensure impartiality.

Currently, IGs are appointed to 10-year terms by the President, and must be approved by the Senate.  The length of the term seeks to insulate the IG from politics.  A president may remove the IG from his/her position, but must give Congress 30 days’ notice and provide justification for the removal.  With the exceptions of Presidents Reagan and Trump, no President has removed more than a few IGs before the end of the IG’s 10-year term.

Click for more details.

As the Constitutional Convention drew up plans for our new government in the 1780s, one of the most significant disagreements was how to allot representation in the legislature.  States with large populations supported Madison’s “Virginia Plan,” under which a state’s population would determine how many representatives it had.  In contrast, smaller states favored William Patterson’s “New Jersey Plan,” in which all states would have the same number of representatives.  After much debate, a compromise was reached: two houses were proposed, with representation in the House of Representatives based on a state’s population, and equal representation in the Senate. 

There are several significant differences between the House and the Senate: the House is much larger, with 435 members compared to the Senate’s 100.  Secondly, House members are elected by district, whereas each state’s two senators serve the entire state.  Moreover, members of the House serve 2-year terms, whereas senators serve for six years. 

Some of their functions differ, too.  Although all laws must be passed by both the House and the Senate, laws pertaining to raising revenue (ie, taxes) must originate in the House.  The Senate, on the other hand, must approve the President’s nominees for cabinet members, federal judges, ambassadors and consuls, and similar offices.  Lastly, the houses have different functions during impeachment proceedings.  In order to impeach a president, federal judge, or other federal official, the House must pass a bill of impeachment that lays out the charges against the official.  The Senate, then, tries the official on these charges, acting as a large jury. 

Click for more details.

Article I, section 2, clause 3 of the Constitution requires that seats in the House of Representatives be apportioned (ie, distributed or assigned) every ten years following a census.  Each state must receive at least one representative regardless of the state’s population.  The US Census Bureau conducts the census, while the House manages the apportionment of seats.

The Constitution assigns the authority to determine the method of electing representatives to the states.  If a state chooses to elect its representatives by districts, then the state is also empowered to create the districts, a process referred to as redistricting, that normally occurs every ten years following the census.  When a state draws its districts to favor the election of one party over all other parties, the strategy is called gerrymandering.

Click for more details.

The most common way for a case to reach the Supreme Court is through a writ of certiorari, a request for re-consideration of a case that has national implications, made by the losing party in a lower court case.  In addition, under its “original jurisdiction,” the Supreme Court can hear cases between two states, between a state and the federal government, or involving foreign officials.  Lastly, the Supreme Court can resolve instances in which two or more appellate courts have reached contradictory decisions. 

In a typical year, the Supreme Court is in session two weeks of every month from October through April, and hears 60 – 80 cases.  Before each case, the justices individually read the briefs written by the two sides, prepare questions, and consider the ramifications a ruling will have.  During the oral arguments of the hearing, each side briefly presents its argument, and the justices question them.  Afterwards, the justices discuss the case in private and vote on it.  One of the justices then writes a majority opinion that explains the rationale used in reaching the decision.  A minority opinion is similarly written by a dissenting justice.  These circulate among all the justices, who may switch sides should they find the other opinion compelling.  Once the opinions are signed, they are made public, and the decision is announced. 

Click for more details.

The Chief Justice either writes the majority opinion or appoints another justice to write it.  The author of the majority opinion sometimes writes it using legal reasoning that the other justices do not agree with, even if they agree with the outcome.  These justices may write concurring opinions, which reach the same conclusion through different legal reasoning.  Should a case be decided by a divided (non-unanimous) court and concurring opinion(s) be written, the issue at hand is not considered definitively settled, leaving the door open for future litigation in the subject area.  Secondly, as the opinions circulate, justices occasionally change their votes, which may reverse the original outcome, with the minority becoming the new majority. 

Click for more details.

A court docket is a formal record of the proceedings and filings in a court trial, and, by extension, the list of cases for a court to hear.  Most Supreme Court cases are on its merit docket.  The shadow docket  (or emergency docket) is used for cases needing fast turnaround — for example, injunctions and stays of lower court rulings.  In order to expedite these cases, the court holds no oral arguments, deliberates less, and authors a much less detailed written opinion.  Traditionally, the shadow docket was used only for routine, procedural matters, but its use for more significant cases has grown steadily, leading scholars to worry about the Court’s transparency and its hasty consideration of the cases.

Click for more details.

Judicial review is the authority that allows federal courts to determine the constitutionality of any federal or state law, executive action by any federal, state or local official, or state court ruling.  This authority was confirmed by the Supreme Court’s 1803 ruling in Marbury vs. Madison. 

   (Also see the “How is the Federal Court System Organized” entry below.)

Click for more details.

There are three levels in the federal court system: District Courts, Appellate Courts, and the Supreme Court. 
  District (or Trial) Courts have original jurisdiction.  These courts hold trials during which the facts and evidence are presented by all parties in a dispute.  A judge or jury then considers everything presented and delivers a verdict.  In other words, all cases must originate from trial courts, hence “original jurisdiction.”
  Appellate (or Circuit) Courts, in contrast, only hear appeals.  An appeal occurs when the losing party of a case alleges that an error that affected the verdict occurred during the trial — for example, alleged use of inadmissible evidence or a judge allegedly misinterpreting the relevant law when instructing the jury.  Note that Appellate Courts only review the matter surrounding the alleged error; they do NOT retry the case.  If an error is found, the Appellate Court returns the case to a lower court for retrial, where the court must follow the appellate court’s decision.
  Thirdly, the Supreme Court has both appellate and (limited) original jurisdiction.  The Supreme Court is the final arbiter on all constitutional questions. 

Click for more details.

In order for a court to accept a case, one party in the dispute, the plaintiff or petitioner, must show that it has been directly harmed by another party.  Only the party directly affected or a party very closely related by law or by blood to the directly affected party can bring about a lawsuit; those having this direct connection are said to “have standing.” 

A political party is a group that, among other criteria, promotes a coherent set of beliefs about public policy, and which recruits and supports candidates who espouse these beliefs and who will enact them if elected. 

The presence of at least two vibrant parties is essential for democracy to thrive.  During an election, having more than one active, viable party gives voters a choice of policies and political viewpoints.  After the election, the winning party governs while the losing (opposition) party holds it accountable: if voters are displeased with the party in power, they can vote for the opposition in the next election.  When a government suppresses opposition parties, its elections become suspect and the democracy appears weak. 

Click for more details.

There are two main reasons that the United States has a two-party system, rather than the multiparty system found in many other countries.  First, our elections utilize a winner-take-all, first-past-the-post election system that awards federal elected offices1 to the candidate who receives the most votes.2

Second, members of Congress, all state legislatures, and nearly all local legislative-like bodies are elected from districts with a single representative.  Only one candidate is elected to each seat, which leaves the losing party’s candidate with nothing.3  In the US, when a minor or third party appears, it is unsuccessful, and then quickly disappears or is absorbed into one of the two major parties.4

Other factors contributing to the maintenance of the two-party system are strategic voting by American citizens,5 the tradition of having only two major parties throughout our history,6 access to money and other resources,7 media coverage,8 and legal obstacles to ballot access.9

1. This does not include the presidency.  The Constitution requires that the winning candidate receive a majority of the Electoral College votes.   ⇧
2. For example, if three candidates seek an office, and candidate A receives 40% of the votes cast while candidate B gets 35% and candidate C acquires 25%, then A is declared the winner with a plurality of the total votes, not a majority.  Political scientists call this “first-past-the-post.”   ⇧
3. This “winner-take-all” system is dramatically different from the multi-seat, proportional election system employed in other democracies.  For example, in the Netherlands, citizens cast their votes for parties, not individual candidates, running for its bicameral legislature, the States General.  The lower house, called the House of Representatives, has 150 seats.  Suppose 15 parties run candidates, and party A receives 25% of the total votes cast, then it will get 25% of the seats or 38 seats.  If party B attains 15% of the vote, it is awarded 23 seats.  The only parties that “lose” in this system are those that receive too few votes to qualify for a seat, less than 1% of the total vote.  Thus, there are incentives for people to form small parties because they have a real chance of winning a seat.  There are no such incentives in the US system.   ⇧
4. The only truly successful third or minor party to succeed in becoming permanent is the Republican Party which formed in 1856.  It supplanted the fading Whig Party.   ⇧
5. Strategic voting refers to voters’ decisions to cast their ballots for candidates with the greatest probability of winning.  There is a large volume of political science research on Americans’ voting behavior that supports this statement.   ⇧
6. The Constitution makes no mention of political parties for a reason.  The Framers regarded parties, which they called factions, as evil, because factions were seen as destructive in democracies.  Scholars often refer to the Constitution as an anti-party document.  What the Framers didn’t fully realize was that democratic elections require candidates who have organizations behind them to organize their campaigns and attract supporters, viz. parties.  Two proto-parties emerged within the first few Congresses: the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, later to be known as the Democratic-Republican Party, the same two groups that battled over the Constitution’s ratification.  They became the first two parties in the 1800 election.  Thereafter, voters came to expect only two parties, hence the tradition of a two-party system.   ⇧
7. Donors, even more so than voters, prefer to make their contributions to candidates who are likely to win.  Therefore, minor party candidates struggle to raise money to fund their campaigns.  They often lack name recognition which makes it even more difficult to them to approach people to ask for financial support.  Wealthy candidates, who can self-finance their campaigns, don’t face this problem.  See Jacobson, Gary and Samuel Kernell, Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections, 1983.   ⇧
8. Minor party candidates struggle to attract media/news coverage, mostly because they usually lack name recognition, that is, they are unlikely to be celebrities.  Voters are highly unlikely to cast a ballot for a candidate they have never heard of or know nothing about.  It is not surprising, therefore, that when parties recruit candidates, they often seek people who are known — positively — for some accomplishment.  If the candidate also happens to be wealthy, all the better.   ⇧
9. Because the two major parties hold nearly every seat in all 50 state legislatures, and because the state legislatures write election laws, the two parties collaborate to write the rules for ballot access that favor the two major parties and extremely difficult for minor party candidates to gain access.  For example, in many states, Democratic and Republican candidates for all offices are automatically given places on ballots while other parties’ candidates must acquire thousands of signatures on petitions.   ⇧

In the 1800 election, two entities appeared in all the states that manifested the essential features of modern political parties: the Federalist and the Democratic-Republican (also known as the Jeffersonian Democrat) parties.  They battled to control the presidency and Congress, with the Jeffersonians winning the day.  By 1828, the Federalist Party had all but vanished and was replaced by the Whig Party, while the Democratic-Republican Party, under the leadership of Andrew Jackson, became known as the Democratic Party.  By the 1860 election, the Whig Party had disappeared, replaced by the Republican Party.  Thereafter, the Republican and Democratic parties have dominated American elections at all levels. 

Click for more details.

All federal elections are governed by the US Constitution and its Amendments,¹ federal laws,² and by any rules issued by federal agencies empowered by Congress to do so.³  These laws and rules, however, are not carried out by agencies or departments of the federal government.  The US Constitution requires the states to conduct all federal elections, but in holding federal elections, the states must abide by the US Constitution, federal laws and federal agencies’ rules. 

State constitutions, state laws, and directives from each state’s secretary of state (the state department normally empowered to oversee elections) govern how state and local elections are run and managed.  However, few state governments directly conduct and manage their elections; instead, they empower their county governments ⁴  to handle the election’s mechanics, that is, organizing and printing ballots, setting up polling stations and hiring and paying election workers.  How these latter things are done varies across the 50 states, as do the rules for how elections are held.  For example, there are eight states in which all elections are conducted entirely by mail: California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington state. 

In Pennsylvania, county governments must follow the rules issued by the Secretary of the Commonwealth dealing with election unless, however, the county is government by a home rule charter.  In such instances, if the home rule charter’s provisions do not violate the US and Pennsylvania constitutions, federal laws, or state laws, the county has the power to conduct its elections as it sees fit.  For example, the Luzerne County Board of Elections determines whether to employ drop boxes, the locations of polling places, and whether a contested ballot should count or not.  In third class counties without home rule, the county commissioners act as the Board of Elections to make these kinds of decisions, except when they, the commissioners, stand for election.  The Luzerne County Board of Elections is an independent Board, four of whose members are appointed by County Council, with the Board chairperson chosen by the four members.

1. For example the 12^th, 15^th, 24^th, and 26^th Amendments.
2. For example, the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002.
3. For example the Federal Election Commission, the Election Assistance Commission, and even the Department of Justice.  See “Federal Role in U.S. Campaigns and Elections: An Overview,” Sept. 4, 2018, Congressional Research Service.  https://crsreports.congress.gov R45302.
4. Or parish governments in Louisiana.

Only US citizens, whether by birth or naturalization, are eligible to vote in federal and state elections.¹  The Constitution empowers each state to determine voter qualifications for its citizens, except in instances where the Constitution has been amended to expand the the eligibility to vote, also known as the franchise, (eg, the 15^th Amendment, to former slaves and Black Americans, and the 26^th Amendment, to 18-year-olds) or to eliminate a barrier to voting (eg, the 24^th Amendment forbids the use of poll taxes).  There are also federal laws, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965, that make it illegal for states to use literacy tests, grandfather clauses and other means to prevent otherwise qualified citizens casting a vote. 

All states require residency period before voting, but the length of residency varies.  Also, a citizen must be registered to vote, with methods and deadlines for registration differing across the states.  Some states restrict convicted felons from voting while serving in prison but permit voting upon completion of sentence, while others permanently ban convicted felons from exercising the franchise.  Many states also forbid citizens who are deemed mentally incapacitated from voting.

US citizens of Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and the US Minor Outlying Islands may not vote in presidential elections, but depending on the political party, they may vote for candidates in the primary.  A citizen born or naturalized in the US but living abroad, including in one of the territories listed above, may vote by absentee ballot in all federal and state elections.

In most county and municipal elections, only citizens may vote.  There are, however, municipalities and special service districts, (eg, school districts) that permit non-citizens to cast ballots.  This practice can be traced to the late 19^th Century when a few states, such as Wisconsin, allowed declarant aliens, immigrants who declared their intention to become a US citizen, to vote.  Currently, San Francisco and Oakland, California, and several cities in Maryland and Vermont permit non-citizens to vote in local elections.

1. It is a federal crime for a non-citizen to vote in a federal election under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

The Electoral College is a body that convenes to elect the President, after the popular election.  The number of Electors from each state is determined by that state’s population.  The Framers of the Constitution created the Electoral College as a compromise between having the President chosen directly by the people, who might not know the candidates well enough to choose wisely, and having Congress or Federal Judges choose the President, either of which would both violate the Separation of Powers and be seen as elitist.

Click for more details.

Each state’s Electors meet in mid-December to cast their votes, which must be received by the president of the Senate (ie, the Vice President) in late December.  The electoral votes are then counted in a joint session of Congress in early January.  Should a candidate not receive a majority, it goes to Congress, where the House decides the President and the Senate elects the Vice President.

After the primary elections, each party designates its Electors.  The Electors for a given state are selected from these party nominees, based on how the state voted.  In nearly all states, all electors are chosen from the party of the candidate who won that state’s popular vote.  This “all-or-nothing” procedure, in which all a state’s electoral votes go to a single candidate even if the popular vote was close, can lead to a different winner in the electoral and popular votes.  For two recent examples, the winning candidate lost the popular vote in 2000 and 2016.

Click for more details.

Several solutions have been proposed to avoid situations in which the Electoral College’s choice differs from the popular choice.  Efforts to amend the Constitution so that the President is elected by the popular vote have gained little traction.  Recently, several states have voted to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), essentially pledging that their Electors will all vote for the winner of the national popular vote.  To date, only 17 states have joined the Compact.

Click for more details.

In Pennsylvania, Primary Elections occur every year in late May, except in presidential election years, when the primary moves to late April.  Each party holds its own primary to determine who will represent it in the November General Election.  Thus, primary elections are the first step in deciding who will run the government.  Although many people only think about the primaries in presidential elections, they are also important in off-year elections, when Senate and Congressional seats are up for grabs, as well as state and local seats.  Moreover, ballot measures, which allow voters to decide issues directly, are often decided in primary elections.

In Pennsylvania, we have closed primary elections, meaning that only members of a given party may vote in that party’s primary:  for example, only registered Republicans may vote in the Republican primary, and only registered Libertarians, in the Libertarian primary.  As a result, voters registered as “Independent” cannot vote in a primary unless there is a question or measure on that ballot. 

In contrast, there are states with open primaries, which come in several kinds.  In one type, a registered voter may decide which primary to vote in on Election day (but may only vote in a single party’s primary).  In some states with this type, only voters registered with a party may participate, while in others, voters registered as independent may also participate.  In another type, the ballot shows all of the offices and all of the candidates, and voters can select one candidate for each office regardless of party, but only one candidate per office.  Independent voters do participate in this type. 

Several states employ caucuses in lieu of primary elections.  The most notable example is Iowa, for its presidential primaries.  Rather than going to a polling place to cast a ballot, people in a caucus meet in a public place (eg, a school or church) to discuss candidates and issues, and eventually to select a candidate.  Candidate representatives work to convince voters to support their respective candidates.  Once the discussion and campaigning ends, voters move to different places in the room to indicate publicly which candidate they support.  Caucuses have much more of a “town hall” feel to them than do elections.

Your polling place will typically be a public venue close to where you live — often a school, VFW hall, or library.  You can look up your polling place through the links on the Voter Information page.

The  US House,  State Senate,  State House,  Judicial,  and  School  districts for where you live are all different.  These may change over time, as districts are redrawn every ten years, after the US census.  You can find links to lookup-tools, maps, and descriptions of the districts on the Voter Information page.

Every ten years, after a US Census, the boundaries of political districts are redrawn based on the population changes.  As the new boundaries are drawn, politicians may create them in ways that benefit one party’s candidates over another’s.  The redistricting process may also result in some groups — racial, religious, or ethnic — having a diminished voice in the election’s outcome.  Drawing district boundaries for partisan reasons is known as gerrymandering.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibited racial voting discrimination and attempted to ensure that every citizen’s vote, regardless of race, etc., was counted and equal.  Today, the Fair Districts initiative continues this work by fighting against gerrymandering.  Its main tenants are that election districts should  1. be compact (ie, not sprawling), 2. be contiguous (ie, not broken into several pieces), and 3. contain complete communities (eg, school districts and municipalities should not be broken up).

Click for more details.

Judges in Pennsylvania have been elected since the mid-19^th Century.  These elections typically occur in odd-numbered years, when presidential and congressional races are not on the ballot.  Should an unexpected vacancy occur, however, an election can be held in an even-numbered year.  The judicial elections determine all Pennsylvania judges, from local magistrates to the State’s Supreme Court. 

There are several other means of selecting judges: appointment by the governor with confirmation by the legislature, appointment by the governor without confirmation, and variations of the Missouri system, in which a commission of individuals screens judicial candidates and make recommendations to the governor, who then nominates one candidate for each vacancy.  Usually the legislature has the opportunity to confirm the governor’s choice. 

All district or county judges are elected by voters in their respective counties; all appellate judges and justices are elected state-wide.  All judges and justices serve 10-year terms.  At the conclusion of their terms, they may seek to remain on the bench by standing for election in a retention election. 

At the conclusion of a judge or justice’s 10-year term, he or she may seek to remain on the bench by standing for retention.  Retention elections are a yes/no referendum, rather than a competition.  The political party of the candidate is not disclosed, in order that the candidate be evaluated by his or her rulings, not by party affiliation.

Judicial races tend to not attract much attention, and the media rarely covers them.  The Pennsylvania Bar Association, however, evaluates candidates and provides ratings before every judicial election.  The ratings may be seen on the PA VoteSmart website.