10 March 2017

Outline

  • populism?
  • review 2016 U.S. presidential election: a populist uprising?
  • Australian comparisons: July 2016 Federal election
  • the role of political institutions
  • observations about the current state of U.S. politics

Populism

  • political appeals based on mass vs elite.
  • claims to be authentic expression of national spirit, preferences
  • ``politics as usual'' unable to solve problems: e.g., captured by big business, neo-liberal economic orthodoxy, international financiers, technocrats/bureaucrats.
  • charismatic leader often involved.
  • e.g., Trump's repudiation of liberal, internationalist orthodoxy in his campaign rhetoric; rejection of decades of bipartisanship on America's role in the world.
  • Australian Democrats: ``keeping the bastards honest''.

US 2016: Clinton won substantially more votes than Trump…

  • Clinton 65.85M votes to Trump's 62.99M; difference of 2.87M votes.

  • 2.1% popular vote margin.

  • Clinton 51.1 to Trump 48.9, in two-party terms.

  • Bigger than the winning margins of Al Gore (2000), Richard Nixon (1968) and John Kennedy (1960).

  • Electoral College: 304 (Trump) to 227 (Clinton), 7 Others.

  • Clinton won 20 states, plus 1 EV in Maine.

… but Democratic vote is ``packed'' into big states.

state EVs Clinton Trump Clinton margin margin (%)
CA 55 8,753,788 4,483,810 4,269,978 30.0
NY 29 4,556,124 2,819,534 1,736,590 22.5
IL 20 3,090,729 2,146,015 944,714 16.9
MA 11 1,995,196 1,090,893 904,303 27.2
TX 36 3,877,868 4,685,047 -807,179 9.0

Texas is Trump's only big-state, lop-sided win.

WI, MI & PA (46 EVs): combined margin 77,744 votes, 0.06% of national vote.

state EVs Clinton Trump margin margin (%)
PA 20 2,926,441 2,970,733 -44,292 0.7
WI 10 1,382,536 1,405,284 -22,748 0.8
MI 16 2,268,839 2,279,543 -10,704 0.2
state EVs Clinton Trump margin margin (%)
OH 18 2,394,164 2,841,005 -446,841 8.1
IA 6 653,669 800,983 -147,314 9.4
FL 29 4,504,975 4,617,886 -112,911 1.2
NH 4 348,526 345,790 2,736 0.4
MN 10 1,367,825 1,323,232 44,593 1.5
  • larger margins in FL, OH and IA (53 EVs) & Trump almost won MN & NH

The Midwest: rural vs city

  • Rural counties produced the biggest swings (bubble size proportional to popln)

Urban-rural divide: Clinton vote share vs population density, by county

swing from Obama (2012) to Clinton (2016) by change in turnout

Congress

  • Clinton won majority of popular vote
  • Republicans will about 49.1% of vote cast in House of Reps elections (down 2.1%)
  • But Republicans will win 241 - 194 (66.9%)
  • Democratic vote is packed; partisan gerrymandering
  • NC: Dems will win 3/13, all with margins above 67-33
  • control of state legislatures is key

Senate

  • 52/48 R/D split
  • don't forget the filibuster!
  • 8-9 Democratic senators incredibly powerful:
  • can avoid filibuster by lumping proposals into budget reconciliation process

Australian electoral institutions and populism

  • In Australia, compulsory voting pushes turnout above 90%
  • Enrolled-but-disgruntled must vote at pain of fine
  • a steady supply of voters for none-of-the-above
  • STV for Senate — perhaps especially at DD elections — provides a pathway for these kind of candidates
  • AV in House a two-edged sword: (1) preferences can come back; (2) preference deals make for unattractive politics, but probably better than seeking outright conversion of voters preferring minor/populist candidates.
  • investigate with AEC data, AES 2016

Australia 2016, Senate 1st preferences for others, polling places

Do you think that voting at Federal elections should be compulsory, or do you think that people should only have to vote if they want to?

Percent
Strongly favour compulsory voting 49
Favour compulsory voting 23
Favour people voting only if they want to 17
Strongly favour people voting only if they want to 11

Would you have voted in the election if voting had not been compulsory?

Percent
Definitely would have voted 64
Probably would have voted 17
Might/might not have voted 8
Probably not have voted 6
Definitely not have voted 5

Voluntary turnout by House vote, AES 2016

Major incl GRN Other
Definitely would have voted 92 8
Probably would have voted 88 12
Might/might not have voted 77 23
Probably not have voted 76 24
Definitely not have voted 70 30

Voluntary turnout by Senate vote, AES 2016

Major incl GRN Other
Definitely would have voted 85 15
Probably would have voted 81 19
Might/might not have voted 64 36
Probably not have voted 66 34
Definitely not have voted 54 46

Conclusion: Institutions matter…

  • in the U.S.,winner-take-all/most helped Trump secure the Republican nomination
  • in the U.S., the Electoral College: mismatch between popular vote and the U.S. election outcome
  • winner-take-all, by state
  • in Australia, CV, STV plus DD dramatically lower the entry costs for populist candidates.
  • CV generates demand
  • STV + DD on the candidate-supply side