ELECTIONS ELECTIONS

I N B R I E F

BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION PROGRAMS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

http://usinfo.state.gov/

U S A
INTRODUCTION

Free and fair elections are the keystone of any democracy. They are essential for 

the peaceful transfer of power.

When voters elect representatives, 

they elect the leaders who will shape the 

future of their society. This is why elections 

empower ordinary citizens: they allow them 

to inuence the future policies of their 

government, and thus, their own future.

The United States has been a 

representative democracy since the 

ratication of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 

– although the electoral tradition began 

during the Colonial era and had its roots 

in British history. This book discusses the 

nature of the modern American electoral 

process, and how it works at the federal, 

state, and local levels. The process, 

complicated and sometimes confusing, 

has evolved to ensure universal suffrage to 

all men and women who are U.S. citizens 

— 18 years-of-age, or older. 

1

Left, the 2000 Republican convention in Philadelphia.
ELECTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES

Elections occur in every evennumbered year for 

some federal and 

most state and 

local government 

offices in the 

United States. 

Some states and 

local jurisdictions 

hold elections in 

odd-numbered 

years. 

 Thus, every four years, Americans elect a president and vice 

president. Every two years, Americans elect all 435 members of 

the U.S. House of Representatives and approximately one-third 

of the 100 members of the U.S. Senate. Senators serve staggered 

terms of six years each. 

 The United States relies on a complex federal system of 

government, where the national government is central; but 

where state and local governments also exercise authority over 

matters that are not reserved for the federal government. State 

and local governments have varying degrees of independence 

in how they organize elections within their jurisdictions, but 

they a hold frequent, decisive, and well administered elections.

2

Types of U.S. Elections

 There are two basic 

types of elections: 

primary and general. 

Primary elections 

are held prior to a 

general election to 

determine party 

candidates for the 

general election. The 

winning candidates in 

the primary go on to 

represent that party in 

the general election 

(although there may 

be a few more steps 

before their party lets 

them do that).

 Since the early 20th

century, primaries 

have been the chief 

electoral device 

for choosing party 

candidates. With rare 

exception, victory in a primary election results in a candidate 

being nominated by that political party for the general election. 

In a few states, party candidates are chosen in state or local 

3

Voters ll out paperwork before casting their ballots, San 

Diego, 2004.

Top: Republican presidential hopeful for 2008 Rudolph 

Giuliani signs autographs in Bluffton, South Carolina. 

Bottom: Democratic presidential hopeful (2008) Hillary 

Clinton visits with supporters in Narberth, Pennsylvania.
nominating conventions, rather than primaries, either by 

tradition or at the option of the political parties.

 Once the primary elections or conventions conclude, the 

general election is held to determine who will be elected 

to hold office. In the general election, voters make the nal 

determination from among the party candidates listed on the 

ballot. The general election ballot may also include independent 

candidates (those not affiliated with a major political party) 

who gain access to the ballot by submitting a specied number 

of petition signatures, rather than by the traditional primary 

method. Furthermore, in some states, the ballot may include a 

place to “write in” the names of candidates who were neither 

nominated by the parties 

nor qualied by petition. 

Such candidates may 

be described as “selfnominated” and they win 

election to public office 

from time to time.

 In the United States, 

elections may involve 

more than just choosing 

people for public office. 

In some states and 

localities, questions of 

public policy may also 

be placed on the ballot 

for voter approval or disapproval. Measures referred to voters by 

the state legislature or local board or council—referenda—and 

those placed on the ballot by citizen petition—initiatives—

usually concern bond issues (approving the borrowing of 

money for public projects) and other mandates or strictures on 

government. In recent decades, these ballot measures have had 

major impacts, particularly on state budgets and policies, most 

notably with respect to the state of California education system.

 In addition to federal, state, and local elections held in evennumbered years, some states and local jurisdictions hold “offyear” elections in odd-numbered years. Many jurisdictions, also, 

provide for special elections, which can be scheduled at any 

time to serve a specic purpose, such as lling an unexpected 

vacancy in an elected office.

Presidential Elections

 Every four years, the general election for U.S. president 

takes place on the rst Tuesday after the rst Monday of 

November. Prior to this general election, states hold primary 

elections or caucuses to choose delegates to the national 

nominating conventions where the party nominees are selected. 

These individual state primaries and caucuses typically take 

place between January and June, followed by the national 

conventions in July, August, or September.

 Since the 1970s, the presidential candidates who will be the 

eventual nominees of the major parties are known before the 

conventions, because they amass a majority of delegates before 

5

The state of Washington has permitted citizens to 

place initiatives on the voter ballot since 1912, if 

enough voters sign a petition requesting it. Here, 

volunteers favoring an education initiative open and 

sort petitions in Seattle.

4
the primary and caucus season is concluded. As a consequence, 

the conventions have become largely ceremonial events. 

Highlights of the conventions include a keynote speech by a 

party leader or leaders, the announcement of the nominee’s 

vice presidential candidate, the roll call of delegate votes by the 

state delegations, and the ratication of the party “platform” (the 

document that states its positions on the issues). As a televised 

political event and the start of the general election campaign, 

the conventions are an opportunity to promote the party 

nominees and dene differences with the opposition.

 The percentage of eligible voters who cast ballots varies 

from election to election, but voter turnout in general — even 

in presidential elections — is lower than in most other 

democracies. Since 1960, voter turnout has generally declined 

from 64 percent (1960) to just over 50 percent (1996), although 

it increased again over the last two elections to just over 

60 percent. There are several reasons for the comparatively 

low turnout in the United States. In contrast to some other 

democracies, a voter in the United States must self-register to be 

eligible to vote, a process that varies somewhat from one state 

to another. Another explanation is that voting is voluntary, not 

compulsory, as in some nations. Because of the high number 

Two young women try to motivate registered Democrats in Ohio to vote from their perch 

in Central Park, New York City. “Get-out-the-vote” drives by not-for-prot and advocacy 

organizations play important roles in U.S. elections.

In recent decades, the Republican and Democratic national presidential nominating 

conventions have become less important, due to increased primary activity in advance. 

Now, they serve to showcase nominees, as here in the 2004 Republican convention in New 

York.

6 7
8 9

of elections that are required to ll the estimated more than 

one million elective offices throughout the country, it is also 

possible that voter fatigue contributes to lower turnout.

 Statistics indicate that turnout can drop when the public is 

content with the political situation, or when polls point to an 

inevitable victory for a candidate. Conversely, turnout may rise 

when the race between candidates is considered to be very 

close or controversial issues are on the ballot.

Candidate Requirements

 Each federal elected office has different requirements, laid 

out in Articles I and II of the U.S. Constitution. A candidate for 

president, for example, must be a natural-born citizen of the 

United States, at least 35 years old, and a resident of the United 

States for at least 14 years. A vice president must meet the 

same qualications. Under the Twelfth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution, the vice president cannot be from the same state 

as the president.

 Candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives must be at 

least 25 years old, have been U.S. citizens for seven years, and be 

legal residents of the state they seek to represent in Congress. 

U.S. Senate candidates must be at least 30, have been a U.S. 

citizen for nine years, and be legal residents of the state they 

wish to represent. Those seeking state or local office must meet 

requirements established by those jurisdictions.

 The Twenty-Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, 

ratied in 1951, prohibits anyone from being elected president 

of the United States more than twice. However, the Constitution 

does not impose any term limits on representatives and 

senators in Congress, although various political groups over the 

years have lobbied for such limits. The term limits, if any, applied 

to state and local officials are spelled out in state constitutions 

and local ordinances.

THE ROLE OF POLITICAL PARTIES

When the Founders of the American Republic drafted and ratied the U.S. Constitution in 1787, they did not 

envision a role for political parties. Indeed, they sought through 

various constitutional arrangements — such as separation of 

Three men hoping to win the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 (left to right): 

Rudolph Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and John McCain, pose prior to a nationally televised 

debate. Though party primary elections are state-by-state, national debates inuence voters 

in all state primaries.
the Congress, the 

governorships, and 

the state legislatures. 

For instance, every 

president since 1852 

has been either a 

Republican or a 

Democrat, and in the 

post-World War II era, 

the two major parties’ 

share of the popular 

vote for president 

has averaged close to 

95 percent. Rarely do 

any of the 50 states 

elect a governor who 

is not a Democrat 

or a Republican. 

The number of 

independent or thirdparty members of Congress or of state legislatures is extremely 

low.

 In recent decades, increasing numbers of individual voters 

classify themselves as “independent,” and they are permitted to 

register to vote as such in many states. Yet, according to opinion 

polls, even those who say that they are independents normally 

have partisan leanings toward one party or another.

powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches; 

by federalism; and by indirect election of the president by an 

Electoral College (see below) — to insulate the new republic 

from parties and factions.

 In spite of the Founders’ intentions, the United States in 1800 

became the rst nation to develop nascent political parties 

organized on a national basis to accomplish the transfer of 

executive power from one faction to another via an election. 

The development and expansion of political parties that 

followed was closely linked to the broadening of voting rights. 

In the early days of the Republic, only male property owners 

could vote, but that restriction began to erode in the early 19th

century as the result of immigration, the growth of cities, and 

other democratizing forces, such as the westward expansion of 

the country. Over the decades, the right to vote was extended 

to ever larger numbers of the adult population as restrictions 

based on property ownership, race, and sex were eliminated. 

As the electorate expanded, the political parties evolved to 

mobilize the growing mass of voters as the means of political 

control. Political parties became institutionalized to accomplish 

this essential task. Thus, parties in America emerged as a part 

of democratic expansion, and, beginning in the 1830s, they 

became rmly established, and powerful.

 Today, the Republican and Democratic parties — both 

of them heirs to predecessor parties from the 18th and 

19th centuries — dominate the political process. With rare 

exceptions, the two major parties control the presidency, 

Nominating conventions are an old U.S. political tradition. 

Top, delegates to the Republican convention, Chicago, 

1868. Bottom, national Democratic party convention, 

Cincinnati, 1880.

10 11
 An exception to this general rule can be found at the local 

level, particularly in small cities and towns, where candidates 

may not be required to declare any party affiliation, or may 

run as part of a slate of like-minded office-seekers under the 

banner of a particular local initiative — such as downtown 

redevelopment or school construction.

 Although the two major parties organize and dominate the 

government at the national, state, and local levels, they tend to 

be less ideologically cohesive and programmatic than parties in 

many democracies. The ability of the major parties to adapt to 

the nation’s political development has resulted in a pragmatic 

domination of the political process.

Why a Two-Party System?

 As noted, Republicans and Democrats have dominated 

electoral politics since the 1860s. This unrivaled record of 

the same two parties continuously monopolizing a nation’s 

electoral politics reects structural aspects of the American 

political system as well as special features of the parties.

 The standard arrangement for electing national and state 

legislators in the United States is the “single-member” district 

system, wherein the candidate who receives a plurality of the 

vote (that is, the greatest number of votes in any given voting 

district) wins the election. Although a few states require a 

majority of votes for election, most office holders can be elected 

with a simple plurality.

 Unlike proportional systems popular in many democracies, 

the single-member district arrangement permits only one 

party to win in any given district. The single-member system 

thus creates incentives to form broadly based national parties 

with sufficient management skills, nancial resources, and 

popular appeal to win legislative district pluralities all over the 

country. Under this system, minor and third-party candidates 

are disadvantaged. Parties with minimal nancial resources 

and popular backing tend not to win any representation at all. 

Thus, it is hard for new parties to achieve a viable degree of 

proportional representation, and achieve national clout, due 

to the “winner-take-all” structure of the U.S. electoral system. 

Members of the 109th Congress take their oath of office in the House chamber on Capitol 

Hill, 2005.

12 13
14

Why two instead of, say, three well-nanced national parties? In 

part, because two parties are seen to offer the voters sufficient 

choice, in part because Americans historically have disliked 

political extremes, and in part because both parties are open to 

new ideas (see below). 

The Electoral College

 There is a further impetus toward the two-party solution, 

and that is the Electoral College system for choosing presidents. 

Under the Electoral College system, Americans, technically, do 

not vote directly for the president and vice president. Instead, 

they vote within each state for a group of “electors” who are 

pledged to one or another presidential candidate. The number 

of electors corresponds to the number in a state’s congressional 

delegation, i.e., the number of representatives and senators 

from that state. Election to the presidency requires an absolute 

majority of the 50 states’ 538 electoral votes. (That gure 

includes three electoral votes from the national capital city of 

Washington, the District of Columbia, which is not a state and 

which does not have voting representation in Congress.)

 The absolute majority requirement makes it extremely 

difficult for a third-party candidate to win the presidency 

because the individual states’ electoral votes are allocated under 

a winner-take-all arrangement (with two exceptions). That is, 

whichever candidate receives a plurality of the popular vote in 

a state — even if it is just a narrow plurality — wins all of that 

state’s electoral votes. In Maine and Nebraska, the statewide 

popular vote winner is awarded two electoral votes and the 

winner in each congressional district is awarded one electoral 

vote. Like the single-member district system, the Electoral 

College works to the disadvantage of third parties, which have 

little chance of winning any state’s electoral votes, let alone 

carrying enough states to elect a president.

 The founders of the nation devised the Electoral College 

system as part of their plan to share power between the states 

and the national government. Under the Electoral College 

system, the nationwide popular vote for president has no nal 

signicance. As a result, it is possible that the electoral votes 

Nebraska’s Electoral College meets in December 2004, in Lincoln, Nebraska, to cast the 

state’s ve electoral votes for President George W. Bush.

15
16

awarded on 

the basis 

of state 

elections 

could 

produce a 

different 

result 

than the 

nationwide

popular vote. 

In fact, there 

have been 17 

presidential 

elections in which the winner did not receive a majority of the 

popular vote cast. The rst of these was John Quincy Adams in 

the election of 1824, and the most recent was George W. Bush 

in 2000. Some people consider the Electoral College system to 

be an outmoded relic, while other observers prefer it because it 

requires presidential candidates to contest the election in many 

states, rather than just in the most populous ones.

Other Barriers to Third Parties

 Given the tendency of the system to produce two national 

parties over the course of time, and with the Democrats 

and Republicans currently in control of the governmental 

machinery, it is not surprising that they have created other 

electoral rules that work to their advantage. For instance, 

qualifying a new party for the ballot in a state can be an 

arduous and expensive undertaking, often requiring petitions 

with tens of thousands of signatures and the ability to attract 

a sufficient “threshold” proportion of the vote in subsequent 

elections to remain on the ballot.

 America’s distinctive nominating process is an additional 

structural barrier to third parties. Among the world’s 

democracies, the United States is unique in its overwhelming 

reliance on primary elections to nominate partisan candidates 

for presidential, congressional, and state offices. As noted, under 

this type of nominating system, rank-and-le voters in a primary 

election select their party’s nominee for the general election. In 

most nations, partisan nominations are controlled by the party 

organizations and their leaders. But in the United States, it is 

now usually the voters who make the ultimate determination of 

who the Republican and Democratic nominees will be.

 Although this system leads to weaker internal party 

organizations than is the case in most democracies, this 

participatory nominating process has contributed to the 

Republican-Democratic domination of electoral politics. 

By winning party nominations through primary elections, 

insurgents or reform candidates can work within the parties to 

gain access to the general election ballot and thereby enhance 

their chances of general election victories without having to 

organize third parties. Thus, the primary nomination process 

tends to channel dissent into the two major parties and makes 

Here, the Washington state electoral college casts its 11 votes in 2004 

for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.

17
18

classes and demographic groups. With the exception of AfricanAmerican and Jewish voters — the vast majority of whom 

usually vote for the Democratic presidential candidate — both 

parties draw signicant levels of support from virtually every 

major socioeconomic group in society. The parties also exhibit 

exibility with respect to policy positions and do not generally 

enforce a strict adherence to an ideology or a set of policy goals. 

Rather, they have traditionally been concerned rst and foremost 

with winning elections and controlling the elective branches of 

government.

 Given their broad socioeconomic bases of electoral support 

and the need to operate within a society that is largely middle-ofthe-road ideologically, American parties have adopted essentially 

centrist policy 

positions. As 

noted, they also 

demonstrate 

a high level 

of policy 

exibility. This 

non-doctrinaire 

approach 

enables the 

Republicans and 

the Democrats 

to tolerate 

great diversity 

it, generally, unnecessary for dissidents to engage in the difficult 

business of forming a third party. Furthermore, the parties and 

their candidates tend to adapt electoral strategies to co-opt 

the message of third party and independent candidates who 

demonstrate wide appeal. 

Broad-Based Support

 The Republican and Democratic parties both seek broadbased support, and tend to draw voters from across economic 

Voters in New Hampshire listen to Democratic presidential aspirant John Edwards in a 

private house in Salem, early in the 2008 primary season.

Senator Daniel K. Akaka (D) of Hawaii (right), gives traditional 

greetings to a supporter at his campaign headquarters in Honolulu.

19
 This organizational fragmentation reects the consequences 

of the constitutional separation-of-powers system — the 

division of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial 

branches of government, both at the federal and state level. The 

system of divided power may create only limited incentives for 

party unity between legislators and their party’s chief executive. 

This is broadly true whether we are talking about members of 

Congress vis-a-vis a president of their own party, or a similar 

relationship between state legislators and a governor.

 The layered system of federal, state, and local governments in 

the United States provides further impetus for decentralization 

of the parties by creating thousands of constituencies for 

officeholders at the federal, state, and local levels. As previously 

noted, the use of primary elections to nominate candidates also 

weakens the party organizations by denying them the ability to 

within their ranks, and has contributed to their ability to 

absorb third parties and protest movements when they have 

occurred. In general, Republicans are seen as the conservative 

party — with more of an emphasis on property rights and 

private accumulation of wealth, and the Democrats are seen as 

somewhat more to the left, favoring liberal social and economic 

policies. In practice, when they achieve power, both parties tend 

to be pragmatic.

Decentralized Party Structures

 In addition to being ideologically exible, the two main 

American parties are characterized by a decentralized 

structure. Once in office, a president cannot assume that his 

party’s members in Congress will be loyal supporters of his 

favored initiatives, nor can party leaders in Congress expect 

straight party-line voting from members of their party. The 

Democratic and Republican congressional caucuses (composed 

of incumbent legislators) are autonomous, and may pursue 

policies that are in opposition to the president, even if the 

president is from the same party. Party fundraising for elections 

is similarly separated, as the Republican and Democratic 

congressional and senatorial campaign committees operate 

independently from the national party committees that tend to 

be oriented to the presidential election. In addition, except for 

asserting authority over procedures for selecting delegates to 

national nominating conventions, national party organizations 

rarely meddle in state party affairs.

In the layered U.S. 

federal system, 

local elections are 

as important as 

national elections 

to local citizens. 

Here, Houston 

mayoral candidate 

Bill White 

makes a media 

appearance.

20 21
control the selection of party nominees. Individual candidates, 

therefore, are encouraged to build their own personal campaign 

organizations and electoral followings, rst to win the primaries 

and then the general elections.

Public Wariness

 In spite of the long and impressive evidence of organized 

partisanship within the American political system, one ingrained 

component of American civic culture has been increasing 

distrust of political parties. The adoption and growth of the 

primary system for nominating congressional and state 

candidates is testimony to a populist, or even an anti-party, 

sentiment within the public. Modern Americans are skeptical 

about the leaders of their party organizations exercising great 

power over their government. Public opinion polls consistently 

reveal that large proportions of the population believe that the 

parties sometimes do more to confuse the issues than clarify 

them — and that it would be better if there were no party labels 

on the ballot.

 Parties thus must contend with the problem of a substantial 

number of voters attaching diminished importance to party 

identication. One indicator of this is the incidence of ticketsplitting. For instance, a voter may vote for his own party’s 

nominee for president and for the other party’s nominee in his 

district for Congress. Thus, in an age of divided government, 

presidents often nd themselves attempting to govern without 

a majority in one or both houses of Congress. Divided party 

23

Internet bloggers update their convention blogs at the Democratic National 

Convention in Boston, 2004. Modern presidential conventions tend to be joyous 

media spectacles rather than serious politics.

22
control of the executive and legislative branches of government 

has become a commonplace feature of both the national 

government and the governments in the 50 states. Some 

observers believe that voters even prefer the arrangement, 

because it tends to stie major government initiatives that 

might inconvenience voters. 

Third Parties and Independent Candidates

 Third parties and independent candidates, despite the 

obstacles discussed previously, have been a periodic feature of 

American politics. Often they have brought societal problems 

that the major parties had failed to confront to the forefront of 

public discourse — and on to the governmental agenda. But 

most third parties have tended to ourish for a single election 

and then die, fade away, 

or be absorbed into one 

of the major parties. Since 

the 1850s, only one new 

party, the Republican 

Party, emerged to achieve 

major party status. In 

that instance, there was 

a compelling moral issue 

— slavery — dividing the 

nation. It provided the basis 

for candidate recruitment 

and voter mobilization.

25

 There is evidence that third parties can have a major impact 

on election outcomes. For example, Theodore Roosevelt’s thirdparty candidacy in 1912 split the normal Republican vote and 

enabled Democrat Woodrow Wilson to be elected with less 

than a majority of the popular vote. In 1992, H. Ross Perot’s 

independent candidacy attracted voters who, in the main, had 

been voting Republican in the 1980s, and thereby contributed 

to the defeat of the incumbent Republican president, George 

H.W. Bush. In the extremely close 2000 contest between 

Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore, it is possible 

Third-party presidential candidates have arisen 

several times in the 20th century. Though they 

have not won, they have inuenced presidential 

elections. In this photograph, former president 

Teddy Roosevelt makes a speech to his own “Bull 

Moose” party supporters, 1912.

In 1992, Texas billionaire Ross Perot became concerned about federal budget decits and 

ran a third-party presidential campaign, detailing his views on television. Some say his 

legacy was the election of Bill Clinton as president.

24
that had Green Party candidate Ralph Nader not been on the 

ballot in Florida, Gore might have won that state’s electoral 

votes and thereby the presidency.

 Public opinion surveys since the 1990s have consistently 

shown a high level of popular support for the concept of a third 

party. In the run-up to the 2000 election, a Gallup Poll found 

that 67 percent of Americans favored a strong third party that 

would eld candidates for president, Congress, and state offices 

against Republican and Democratic nominees. It is just such 

sentiments, plus lavish campaign spending, that enabled Texas 

billionaire Ross Perot to gain 19 percent of the popular vote for 

president in 1992, the highest percentage for a non-major-party 

candidate since Theodore Roosevelt (Progressive Party) won 27 

percent in 1912.

PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS

Rules within parties for nominating presidential candidates are not spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. As noted, 

there were no political parties in existence at the time the 

Constitution was drafted and ratied in the late 1700s, and 

the founders of the Republic had no interest in proscribing 

procedures for such entities.

 Beginning in 1796, members of the U.S. Congress who 

identied with one of the political parties of the time met 

informally to agree on their party’s presidential and vice 

presidential nominees. Known as “King Caucus,” this system 

for selecting party candidates continued for almost 30 years. It 

broke down in 1824, a victim of the decentralization of power 

in politics that accompanied the westward expansion of the 

United States.

 Eventually, the national nominating conventions replaced 

King Caucus as the means for selecting party nominees. In 1831, 

a minor party, the Anti-Masons, met in a saloon in the city of 

In 2000, Green Party presidential candidate and social activist Ralph Nader received only a 

small fraction of the vote. Al Gore supporters blamed him for siphoning away just enough 

of the liberal vote from Gore to throw the election to George W. Bush.

26 27
 The movement was short-lived, however. Following the 

end of World War I, party leaders, who knew the primaries 

were a threat to their power, persuaded state legislatures to 

abolish them on the grounds that they were expensive and 

that relatively few people participated in them. By 1936, only a 

dozen states continued to hold presidential primaries.

 But democratizing pressures reemerged after World War II. 

For the rst time, television provided a medium through which 

people could now see, as well as hear, the political campaigns in 

Baltimore, Maryland, to 

choose candidates and 

write a platform on which 

they would run. The next 

year, the Democrats met 

in the same saloon to 

select their nominees. 

Since then, the major 

parties and most minor 

parties have held national 

nominating conventions, 

attended by state 

delegates, to choose their 

presidential and vice presidential candidates and to agree on 

policy positions.

Advent of Television

 Throughout the 19th and into the 20th century, the 

presidential nominating conventions, though attended by many 

of the party faithful, were controlled by state party leaders. 

These political “bosses” had used their inuence to hand-pick 

their state’s convention delegates — and to make sure that they 

voted “correctly” at the national party convention. Opponents to 

the party leaders demanded reforms to permit ordinary voters 

to select convention delegates. Primary elections came into 

being to do just this. By 1916, more than half the states held 

presidential primaries.

George Washington takes the oath of office as rst 

president of the United States, 1789. Washington 

distrusted political factions, but popular parties 

began their rise under his presidency.

Television after World War II made national elections popular entertainment. Here, 

party loyalists gather to watch election returns at Republican headquarters in Meridian, 

Mississippi.

28 29
their own living rooms. Plausible candidates for the presidency 

could use television exposure to demonstrate their popular 

appeal. The decades that followed brought back democratizing 

reforms to widen participation in party nominating conventions. 

 As a result, most states now hold primary elections. 

Depending on the laws of the state, primary voters may cast a 

ballot for a party’s presidential nominee and a slate of “pledged” 

delegates, may vote for the presidential candidate with 

delegates to be chosen later to reect the vote, or may indirectly 

vote for a candidate in a caucus by choosing convention 

delegates who are “pledged” to one or another nominee. Under 

the caucus system, partisans who live within a relatively small 

geographic area — a local precinct — get together and vote 

for delegates who are pledged to support specic candidates 

for president. Those delegates, in turn, represent their precinct 

at a county convention, which chooses delegates to attend the 

congressional district and state conventions. The delegates 

to these conventions ultimately elect delegates to represent 

the state at the national convention. Although this system 

takes place over several months, the candidate preferences are 

essentially determined in the rst round of voting.

 The actual size of any state’s delegation to the national 

nominating convention is calculated on the basis of a formula 

established by each party that includes such considerations as 

the state’s population, its past support for the party’s national 

candidates, and the number of elected officials and party 

leaders currently serving in public office from that state. The 

allocation formula that the Democrats use results in national 

conventions that have about twice as many delegates as those 

of the Republicans.

 As a result of these reforming tendencies since World War II, 

two important trends stand out. First, more states have moved 

their presidential primaries and caucuses earlier on the calendar 

toward the decisive early stage of the nominating season, a 

trend known as “front-loading.” Being an early primary or caucus 

state may allow voters in the state to exercise more inuence 

over the ultimate selection of the nominees. In addition, it 

30

State-by-state primary elections (or sometimes caucuses) have become the road to the 

Republican and Democratic presidential nominations. Here, a Republican presidential 

aspirant, Lamar Alexander (checked shirt, center), greeted media and New Hampshire 

primary voters in winter, 1996.

31
may encourage 

the candidates to 

address the needs 

and interests of the 

state early on, and 

may force candidates 

to organize within the 

state, spending money 

on staff, media, and 

hotels in order to try 

to obtain a decisive 

psychological victory 

early in the party 

nomination process.

 In addition, in some 

parts of the country, 

states have cooperated 

with one another to organize “regional primaries” by holding 

their primaries and caucuses on the same date to maximize the 

inuence of a region.

 Both of these trends have forced candidates to begin their 

campaigns earlier to gain a foothold in the increasing number of 

states that hold the early contests. Candidates also have had to 

depend increasingly on the mass media — radio, television, and 

the Internet — and on the endorsements of state party leaders 

to help them reach voters in the multiple states that may be 

conducting their primaries on the same day.

Decline of the Political Convention

 One consequence of the changes in the presidential 

nomination process has been the decreasing importance of the 

party’s climactic, televised, national nominating convention. 

Today, the presidential nominee is effectively determined by 

the voters relatively early in the primary elections process. That 

eventual nominee may, in turn, even indicate his choice for a 

vice presidential candidate before the convention meets. (Vice 

presidential candidates do not run independently for that office 

in primaries but are selected by the party’s winning presidential 

nominee.)

 Thus, the presidential nominating process continues 

to evolve. In recent decades, this evolution has enhanced 

participation, improved demographic representation, and 

strengthened the tie between the average partisan and the 

candidates. As presently constituted, the process provides an 

advantage to candidates who are better known, can raise more 

money, have the most effective campaign organizations, and 

can generate the most enthusiasm among voters early in the 

presidential primary season.

The Internet Connection

 Candidates and their supporters have been quick to 

adopt the Internet as a campaign tool. It has proved to be 

an effective and efficient way to solicit funds from potential 

supporters and to promote one’s policies and experience. 

Campaign organizations now maintain their own blogs. 

Increasingly, the Internet is used to raise money and 

to gain attention for long-shot candidates. An Ohio 

congressional candidate (right) and his communications 

director (left) pose and show off their blog page.

32 33
34

The bloggers on these sites are campaign staffers paid to 

write about the statements and activities of their particular 

candidates. Meanwhile, thousands of independent bloggers 

write commentaries in support of their favorite candidates and 

engage in debate with other bloggers who oppose them.

 Video sharing on sites such as YouTube has provided 

opportunities and pitfalls for political campaigning. Candidates 

have taken advantage of the technology to produce videos 

about themselves, occasionally humorous. At other times, 

candidates have been recorded in an unguarded moment 

saying or doing something that they would not say or do 

before a general audience — and having their faux pas shown 

countless times on the Internet and on television.

CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS

Elections for the U.S. Congress can be as competitive and important as those for president. This is because of the 

central role that Congress plays in making laws.

 Unlike a parliamentary system where the chief executive 

comes from the parliament, the American system, as noted, 

separates the legislature and the presidency. Presidents and 

legislators are elected separately. Although a sitting president 

may propose laws to Congress, they have to be drafted in 

Congress by his allies within that institution, and must be 

passed by the Congress before being sent back to the president 

35

for his signature. The House and Senate are legally and 

politically independent of the will of the president.

 Within Congress, party discipline is less strictly observed in 

the American system than in parliamentary systems. It is fairly 

easy for members of Congress to vote on policies as they think 

best, including what they think best for winning their own 

reelection. As a result, congressional leaders must put together 

a winning coalition one member at a time, rather than count 

on automatic support from highly disciplined parties. This 

makes every congressional legislative victory difficult to obtain. 

Democrat Sheldon 

Whitehouse 

celebrates his 

election as a U.S. 

senator from 

Rhode Island. 

Both senators and 

congressmen wield 

signicant power.
Thus, Congressional elections are important to the nation, 

as Congress is powerful, and difficult to predict; and so are 

individual congressmen.

House and Senate Differences

 The House and the Senate have nearly equal powers, but 

their means of election are quite different. The founders of 

the American Republic intended members of the House of 

Representatives to be close to the public, reecting the public’s 

wishes and ambitions. Therefore, the Founders designed the 

House to be relatively large in order to accommodate many 

members from small legislative districts, and to have frequent 

(two-year) elections. Originally, a two-year term was considered 

by some to be too long. In the days when transportation was by 

horse, a two-year term in Washington could keep a congressman 

away from his constituents for two years. Today, the concern is 

that elections every two years force congressmen to y back to 

their districts every weekend or so to shore up political support. 

 Each House seat represents a unique geographic 

constituency, and, as noted above, every member is elected as 

sole representative from that district by plurality rule. Each of 

the 50 states is assured of at least one seat in the House, with the 

rest allocated to the states according to population. Alaska, for 

Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi (left) swears in two sisters, Linda 

(center) and Loretta Sánchez, both elected to the House from California.

The upper house of Congress, the Senate, was designed by the Founders to be a 

conservative, stabilizing force. Here, the 100 senators pose for their portrait.

36 37
subtracted from voter support. In recent decades, the views 

and personalities of individual candidates have become more 

central to electoral politics and have somewhat diminished the 

importance of party loyalties.

 Indeed, since the 1960s, national elections have become 

increasingly candidate-centered. The growth of the media 

and the Internet, the importance of aggressive campaign 

fundraising, constant opinion polls, and other aspects of 

modern campaigning have made the voter more aware of the 

candidate as an individual. As a result, voters tend to weigh 

individual candidate’s strengths and weaknesses along with 

party loyalties in deciding whom to support. The establishment 

of broad-based public education in the early 20th century and of 

higher education after World War II has also made voters more 

condent of their own judgment; and less reliant on party cues 

with respect to ballot choices.

 In this context of candidate-centered elections, incumbent 

members of Congress fare very well, with reelection rates 

well above 90 percent. This is partly due to often bland media 

coverage of Congress, and particularly coverage of individual 

members by local media in their states or congressional 

districts. With this generally favorable media exposure and daily 

involvement with public policy issues — and individuals and 

groups that seek to inuence policy — incumbents also tend 

to raise far greater sums of money with which to campaign. For 

these reasons and more, incumbents who run for reelection are 

very likely to win, no matter which party they belong to.

example, has a very small population and therefore holds only 

one seat in the House. California is the mostly highly populated 

state and holds 53 seats. Following each decennial census, the 

number of seats assigned to a state is recalculated to account 

for changes in state populations during the past 10 years, and 

state legislatures redesign congressional district boundaries 

within states to reect changes in the number of seats assigned 

to the state or population shifts within the state.

 The Senate was designed for its members to represent 

larger constituencies — the entire state — and to provide 

equal representation to that body of each state, regardless of 

population. Thus small states possess as much inuence (two 

senators) as large states in the Senate.

 Senators were originally selected by the state legislatures. 

It was not until enactment of the Seventeenth Amendment to 

the Constitution in 1913 that senators were directly elected 

by their state’s voters. Every state has two senators elected for 

staggered six-year terms, with one-third of the Senate seats up 

for reelection every two years. A senator is chosen by plurality 

vote of the state electorate. 

Loyalty to Party or Person

 In the past, congressional elections tended to be “party 

centered,” as many voters held long-term loyalties toward one 

political party or the other and tended to vote along party lines 

for Congress. The individual personalities and performances 

of office-holders may have only marginally added to or 

38 39
POLLS AND PUNDITS

Though not part of the rules and laws governing electoral politics, public opinion polls have become an essential 

part of the electoral process in recent decades. Many political 

candidates hire pollsters and take frequent polls. Polling informs 

political candidates of how well they are being perceived in 

relation to their competitors, and what issues are uppermost in 

the minds of the voters. The media — newspapers, television 

— also conduct opinion polls and report them (along with 

results of private polls) to give citizens a sense of how their 

preferences for candidates, issues, and policies stand in relation 

to the preferences of others.

 Fifty years ago, only one or two large organizations 

dominated public opinion polling. Today, in an era of instant 

news, the Internet, and 24-hour cable-news channels, numerous 

sources regularly provide the results of opinion polls.

Polls in History

 By now, constant polling of public opinion by private, 

competent pollsters has become commonplace for individual 

candidates, as well as for high-level government officials such as 

the president, who want to know which way the political winds 

are blowing. However, independent, media-commissioned 

polls have been more typical throughout U.S. history.

 Although the rst political poll was conducted in 1824 by the 

local newspaper in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, independent polls 

did not become a staple of media news coverage of political 

campaigns until the 1930s. By the 1970s, all three major U.S. 

television network news operations of the day (ABC, CBS, and 

NBC) were offering their own polls for the presidential races, and 

thereafter for important state races for governor and for the U.S. 

Congress.

 Modern media polls — such as those conducted in the name 

of a TV news network and a newspaper partner (e.g., CBS/New 

York Times, ABC/Washington Post, NBC/Wall St. Journal) — are 

conducted frequently and can track public opinion about 

candidates and issues on a weekly, or daily basis. They are well 

designed to be neutral and independent. Over the decades, 

Lee Miringoff of Marist College’s Institute for Public Opinion supervises polling activity.

40 41
independent political polling 

has offered an objective 

look at election races, an 

assessment of each candidate’s 

strengths and weaknesses, 

and an examination of 

the demographic groups 

supporting each candidate. 

Such independent polling 

gives reporters and editors 

the ability to make and report 

honest assessments of the 

status of a campaign, and 

voters a better sense of the political landscape.

Sample Size and Makeup

 Sometimes, overnight polls are conducted after a major 

event such as the president’s annual State of the Union Address 

or a debate between candidates for political office. Often these 

polls are done in one night for quick publication the next day 

and feature a sample of only 500 adults nationwide.

 While these “overnighters” might offer a fast take on public 

reaction, some experts believe that a sample of 500 citizens is 

too small for serious consideration in a nation of more than 300 

million people. Many professionals prefer posing questions to 

at least 1,000 adults to provide a representative sample of the 

entire population. Even the most thorough polls are open to 

interpretation, and there are numerous examples of candidates 

who have risen from relative obscurity to wide popularity, 

contrary to trends suggested by early polling results.

 Early polls can provide a wealth of data well beyond showing 

which candidates are ahead in the race. They can reveal concern 

for current issues and portray the public’s overall mood. As one 

pollster has said, “Polls merely add science to what candidates 

see and what crowds feel — contentment, resentment, anger, 

frustration, condence — or even despair.” Both private and 

public polling results, then, help candidates determine the 

optimum communications message to emphasize, while 

focusing issues for members of the public.

Exit Polls

 Exit polls (polls taken by television networks as voters 

leave their polling places) have been a staple in U.S. elections 

since the 1970s. They also are arguably the most controversial, 

because they give TV networks the means to predict election 

victories based on interviews with people who have just voted. 

Exit polls achieved particular infamy in the 2000 U.S. presidential 

election, when they were misused by the television networks to 

make not one, but two, incorrect projections of the winner who 

had been selected by voters in Florida. The pressure to get the 

projection rst trumped the pressure to get it right.

 However, exit polls, when used properly, can be a vital tool 

for pollsters, the press, and academics. Above and beyond their 

Mark Penn, chief strategist and pollster for 

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary 

Clinton, speaks to reporters following a 

debate in January 2008.

42 43
questionable use in projecting winners early on election day, 

they provide experts and political scientists with details of how 

specic demographic groups have voted and the expressed 

reasons for their vote.

FINANCING CAMPAIGNS

Federal law dictates how candidates for the federal offices of president, senator, and representative — and certain of 

their political allies — may raise funds, as well as from whom, 

and in what amounts. Federal campaign nance laws are 

separate from state laws that regulate elections for state and 

local offices.

 In the American system, presidential candidates raise 

hundreds of millions of dollars for a campaign directed at a 

nation of more than 100 million voters. Though in many cases 

the fund-raising is from private sources, the process by which 

they raise and spend the money is highly regulated.

 A candidate for president must establish a campaign 

organization, called a political committee. The political 

committee must have a treasurer and must register with 

the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Notwithstanding its 

Voters in rural Pennsylvania (including members of the Amish community) enter and exit a 

polling place.

Voters leave a polling place in West Virginia. This group of pastors came to vote against a 

ballot measure to expand legalized gambling.

44 45
name, the FEC 

only supervises 

and enforces 

campaign nance 

laws; it does not 

actually conduct 

the elections. 

(The process of 

registering voters, 

conducting the 

balloting, and 

counting the votes 

is the responsibility of state and local election officials.)

 Various types of political committees are registered with the 

FEC. In addition to the candidates, political parties must register 

their own committees with the agency. In addition, any group 

of private citizens may form a political committee. For example, 

groups of individuals from corporations, labor unions, and 

trade associations often form such committees (although use 

of corporate or labor union treasury funds is prohibited). These 

political committees are often referred to as PACs, or political 

action committees, and must also register with the FEC.

 Once registered, political committees may start raising 

campaign funds. Such funds, as well as expenses, are reported 

to the FEC on either a quarterly or monthly basis. The reports 

may also be led electronically and are available to the public 

on the FEC’s Web site [www.fec.gov]. Numerous private 

organizations also maintain Web sites to monitor contributions 

and expenses of the candidates, political parties, and PACs. The 

point of this is to make it easier for the press and the voters to 

know which groups are giving money to which candidates and 

causes. There are legal limits to how much money individual 

citizens and individual committees can give to candidates they 

favor. Accordingly, a candidate for president who needs to raise 

hundreds of millions of dollars for a presidential campaign must 

attempt to nd thousands 

of contributors.

 To campaign for office, 

a candidate needs to 

hire staff; arrange for 

office space and travel; 

conduct research; issue 

position papers; advertise 

on radio and television, 

in publications, and 

on the Internet; and 

conduct numerous 

public appearances and 

fundraising events. A 

candidate for the House 

of Representatives will 

base these activities 

in his or her specic 

congressional district, while 

46

New York politician Andrew Cuomo (center) chats with 

supporters at a fundraising affair during his campaign for 

governor.

Republican Senator John McCain has spent much 

effort trying to reform campaign nance. What 

constitutes desirable reform is still debated.

47
a Senate candidate will do likewise throughout his entire state. 

(Congressmen and senators may also conduct specic fundraising events elsewhere, such as Washington, D.C.). Candidates 

for president have the daunting task of organizing their primary 

campaigns state by state and then, if nominated, their general 

election campaign throughout the nation.

Public Financing

 Since 1976, candidates for president have been eligible 

to participate in a public nancing system. Until the 2000 

elections, all candidates nominated for president participated 

in this system by accepting government funds in exchange for a 

promise not to spend more than a specied amount. However, 

this system has become increasingly unappealing to candidates 

because the imposed spending limit is considered too low 

— and less than the amount that major candidates can often 

easily raise from private sources. Consequently, many major 

candidates have been opting out of public funding.

 Spending invariably increases from one election to the 

next. In addition to candidate spending, the political parties, 

PACs, and other interest groups will spend money to inuence 

elections. A recent development in funneling money for 

elections, for example, is the “527 political organization,” 

... or hold fund-raising parties, in art galleries or elsewhere.

Political Action committees can lobby and raise money in all kinds of ways. They may 

telephone to mobilize voters...

48 49
50 51

named for a section of the U.S. tax code. These groups are 

organized primarily for the purpose of inuencing the selection, 

nomination, election, or appointment of an individual to a 

federal, state, or local public office. 527 political organizations, 

such as MoveOn and Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, are not 

regulated by the Federal Election Commission or by a state 

elections commission, and are not subject to the same 

contribution limits as PACs. Critics of these and similar groups 

have long asserted that high spending in U.S. elections, 

combined with the reliance on private sources for funds, raises 

the specter of undue inuence over public policy by wealthy 

donors and powerful interest groups.

 Proposed reforms have been opposed by those who see 

election spending as proportionate with both the costs of 

goods and services in today’s economy. In this regard, election 

spending is seen as the price a democracy pays for electoral 

competition, with large contributions and expenditures by 

interest groups as the contemporary expression of America’s 

long-standing pluralism. It is hard to prove any specic 

connection between interest-group donations and government 

policy. Courts have also questioned whether further restrictions 

on campaign giving and spending might unduly limit donors’ 

constitutionally protected right to free speech in the political 

arena. Given the immense expense of modern campaigning, 

certain extremely wealthy individuals simply fund their own 

campaigns for public office — there is no rule against it. 

Sometimes they win, sometimes they don’t.

U.S. ELECTIONS PROCEDURES

Thousands of administrators are responsible for organizing and conducting U.S. elections, including tabulating and 

certifying the results. These officials have an important and 

complex set of tasks — setting the exact dates for elections, 

certifying the eligibility of candidates, registering eligible 

voters and preparing voter rolls, selecting voting equipment, 

designing ballots, organizing a large temporary work force to 

administer the voting on election day; then tabulating the votes 

and certifying the results.

 While most American elections are not particularly close, 

there are occasionally races with a very small margin of victory 

or races in which the outcome is contested. The outcome of 

the 2000 U.S. presidential election — the drawn-out contest 

to determine a winner in the closest presidential election in 

American history — exposed Americans to many of these 

administrative issues for the rst time.

 Voting in the United States is a two-step process. There is no 

national list of eligible voters, so a citizen must rst qualify by 

becoming registered. Citizens register to vote where they live; if 

they move to a new location, they have to register again at their 

new address. Registration systems were designed to eliminate 

fraud, but the procedures for registering voters vary from state 

to state. In times past, selective registration procedures were 

used to discourage certain citizens — most notably, African 

Americans in the South — from participating in elections. 
Recently, there has been a tendency to ease registration 

requirements. For instance, the 1993 National Voter Registration 

Act makes it possible for citizens to register to vote at the time 

they renew their state-issued drivers’ licenses.

 One of the most important functions for election officials 

is ensuring that everyone who is eligible to vote is on the 

registration lists but that no one who is unqualied is included. 

Generally, local election officials err on the side of keeping 

people on the lists even if they have not voted recently, rather 

than eliminating potentially eligible voters. When people appear 

at the polls whose names are not on the lists, they are now 

given a provisional ballot to record their votes. Their eligibility is 

subsequently reviewed before their votes are counted.

Administering Elections

 As we have seen, in the United States, an election, even an 

election for federal office, is a locally conducted administrative 

exercise. And, as noted, election administrators — typically 

county or city officials or clerks — have a daunting task. Not 

An election clerk displays a new voting device in Austin, Texas.

A young woman in Rhode Island signs up to get her driver’s license and registers to vote, 

simultaneously.

52 53
only are they responsible for registering voters all year long and 

for determining who is eligible to vote in a particular election 

— they also have to design the ballots for each election, and 

make sure that all certied candidates are listed and all issues 

up for decision correctly worded. And they must try to make the 

ballot as simple and as clear as possible.

 Currently, there are no national standards for ballot forms. 

Under the Voting Rights Act, election officials may have to 

provide for ballots in multiple languages (if a percentage of 

the population does not speak English as a primary language). 

In some jurisdictions, the order of the candidates and parties 

on the ballot has to be randomly assigned. Ultimately, local 

election officials have to select the specic voting machines to 

use, and the ballots must t the devices.

 In between elections, these officials are responsible for the 

storage and maintenance of the voting devices. And one of their 

most difficult tasks is to hire and train a large temporary staff for 

one long session of work (typically 10 to 15 hours) on election 

day.

The Nature of Balloting

 Thus, a certain effort goes into fair, legal, and professional 

preparation for elections. Since the equipment and ballot forms 

are generally purchased by officials at the local level, the type 

and condition of equipment that voters use often is related to 

the socioeconomic status and the tax base of their locale. Since 

local tax revenue also funds schools, police, and re services, 

as well as parks and recreation facilities, investments in voting 

technology often have been given low priority.

 A wide variety of voting devices is available in the United 

States, and the landscape of voting technologies is continuously 

changing. Today, there are very few places where voting 

takes place with handheld paper ballots marked with an “X” 

next to a candidate’s name, as was done in the past, but many 

computerized systems still depend on paper ballots on which 

circles are lled in or lines connected. These ballots are 

54

Voters wait patiently to cast their ballots during a voting machine breakdown, New York 

City, 2004.

55
then scanned mechanically to have the votes recorded; the 

equipment is known as an optical scan system.

 Some jurisdictions still use “lever” machines, on which 

voters turn a small lever next to the names of the candidates 

they prefer or the side of an issue they support. Another very 

common device is a “punch-card” machine. The ballot is a card 

where holes or punches are made next to a candidate’s name, 

or the card is inserted into a holder that lines up with a ballot 

image, and then the holes are punched. This is the form of 

ballot that caused controversy in counting votes for the 2000 

U.S. presidential election in Florida. As a result of that situation, 

many jurisdictions have eliminated punch-card devices. 

The Help America Vote Act provided voluntary funding to 

jurisdictions to replace lever and punch card voting systems.

 The current trend is toward adoption of direct recording 

electronic (DRE) devices, which have touch screens that 

resemble those of automated banking machines. Security 

specialists are working to rene these systems to resolve 

security issues.

 A signicant change in balloting in recent years has been 

the adoption of procedures that make ballots available to 

voters before the election. This trend started with provisions for 

absentee ballots, issued to voters who anticipate being away 

from their home (and their voting place) on election day. Some 

states and local jurisdictions gradually liberalized this provision, 

allowing citizens to register as “permanent absentee voters” and 

routinely have a ballot mailed to their home. Oregon conducts 

its elections entirely by mail, but it is the only state to do so 

at present. Absentee voters generally return their completed 

ballots by mail.

 Another new provision is “early voting,” for which voting 

machines are set up in shopping malls and other public places 

for up to three weeks before election day. Citizens stop by at 

their convenience to cast their votes. 

Counting the Votes

 Tabulation of votes takes place on election day. Even though 

early ballots are becoming more popular, they are not counted 

until tabulation begins after the polls close, so that no official 

information can be released about which candidate is ahead or 

behind. Information about early results of balloting could affect 

later stages of the election.

The Reform Movement

 One of the distinct lessons of the 2000 presidential election 

was that the election administration, balloting, and votecounting issues encountered in Florida could have occurred 

to some degree in almost any jurisdiction in the United States. 

Several studies were commissioned, and a variety of panels 

heard expert witnesses and took testimony about the need for 

reform.

 In 2002, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act 

(HAVA), which includes several notable elements. First, the 

56 57
58

federal government offered payments to states and localities 

to replace outdated punch-card and lever-voting machines. 

Second, it established an Election Assistance Commission to 

provide technical assistance to local election administration 

officials and establish standards for voting devices. The 

commission’s portfolio includes establishment of research 

programs to study voting machine and ballot design, methods 

of registration, methods for provisional voting and for deterring 

fraud, procedures for recruiting and training poll workers, and 

education programs for voters, among other matters.

 The HAVA represents a signicant departure from limited 

federal involvement in what has historically been a local 

administrative issue. But this procedural reform effort has 

helped reconrm the faith that Americans have in their electoral 

system. And the costs involved are small when one considers 

that elections are the legitimizing foundation of democracy.

Cover: ©Jupiterimages Corp. 2007. Intro: Ted S. Warren/AP 

Images. 2: Gerald Weaver/AP Images. 3: Joseph Kaczmarek/

AP Images. 4: Tetona Dunlap/AP Images. 6: J. Scott 

Applewhite/AP Images.

7: Gina Gayle/AP Images. 9: Jim Cole/AP Images. 11: Prints 

and Photographs Division, Library of Congress (LOC) (2). 13: 

Gerald Herbert/AP Images. 15: Nati Harnik/AP Images. 16: 

Ted S. Warren/AP Images. 18: Jim Cole/AP Images. 19: Daniel 

K. Akaka/AP Images. 21: Pat Sullivan/AP Images. 23: Mario 

Tama/Getty Images. 

24: © CORBIS. 25: AP Images. 26: Andy Kuno/AP Images. 28: 

© Bettmann/CORBIS. 

29: Paula Merritt/The Meridian Star/AP Images. 30: Elise 

Amendola/AP Images. 

32: Ron Schwane/AP Images. 35: Brian Snyder/Reuters. 36: 

Susan Walsh/AP Images.

37: U.S. Senate Historical Office. 41: Jim McKnight/AP 

Images. 42: Prints and Photographs Division, LOC. 44: Carolyn 

Kaster/AP Images. 45: Jeff Gentner/AP Images. 

46: Erik Freeland/CORBIS SABA. 47: Terry Ashe/AP Images. 

48: Andy Kropa/The New York Times/Redux Pictures. 49: G. 

Paul Burnett/The New York Times/Redux Pictures. 52: Harry 

Cabluck/AP Images. 53: Robert E. Klein/AP Images. 55: 

Bebeto Matthews/AP Images. 

Editor-in-Chief—George Clack

Executive Editor—Mildred Solá Neely

Editor—Paul Malamud

Writer—Guy Olson

Cover Designer—Min-Chih Yao

Photo Research—Maggie Johnson Sliker

Graphic Designer—Sylvia Scott

Consulting Editors:

Kevin Coleman, R. Sam Garrett