Quality. Independence. Impact.

Home | Contact Us | Media Resources

Wednesday July 9, 2008

Welcome   |   Register   |   Log in

Past Event

A Governance Studies Event

The Marketplace of Democracy: A Groundbreaking Survey Explores Voter Attitudes About Electoral Competition and American Politics

U.S. Politics, Elections, Politics, Political Campaigns

Event Summary

Despite the attention on the mid-term races, few elections are competitive. Electoral competition, already low at the national level, is in decline in state and primary elections as well. Reformers, who point to gerrymandering and a host of other targets for change, argue that improving competition will produce voters who are more interested in elections, better-informed on issues, and more likely to turn out to the polls.

Event Information

When

Friday, October 27, 2006
10:00 AM to 12:00 PM

Where

Falk Auditorium
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Map

Contact: Brookings Office of Communications

E-mail: events@brookings.edu

Phone: 202.797.6105

On October 27, the Brookings Institution—in conjunction with the Cato Institute and The Pew Research Center—presented a discussion and a groundbreaking survey exploring the attitudes and opinions of voters in competitive and noncompetitive congressional districts. The survey, part of Pew's regular polling on voter attitudes, was conducted through the weekend of October 21. A series of questions explored the public's perceptions, knowledge, and opinions about electoral competitiveness.

The discussion also explored a publication that addresses the startling lack of competition in our democratic system. The Marketplace of Democracy: Electoral Competition and American Politics (Brookings, 2006), considers the historical development, legal background, and political aspects of a system that is supposed to be responsive and accountable, yet for many is becoming stagnant, self-perpetuating, and tone-deaf. Michael McDonald, editor and Brookings visiting fellow, moderated a discussion among co-editor John Samples, director of the Center for Representative Government at the Cato Institute, and Andrew Kohut and Scott Keeter from The Pew Research Center, who also discussed the survey.

Transcript

SCOTT KEETER: Does the name, Elbridge Gerry, ring a bell? Elbridge Gerry was a double founding father, if there is such a thing. He signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He tried and failed but eventually got elected as Governor of Massachusetts and was instrumental in the redistricting there in the early 19th Century, and as a result of that, got himself immortalized in our political lexicon with the term, gerrymandering. I think the point here is that this question, this debate, this controversy about the drawing of district lines and about the presence or absence of competition or fair competition in elections is about as American as apple pie. It goes all the way back to the very beginning of the Republic. Given the long history, good lineage, if you will, of this particular debate and controversy, it seems a natural topic for people who are interested in politics to study.

Now, I should point out that the Pew Research Center does not take positions on issues and does not advocate for any perspective. We are here to give you just the facts and not to make a statement. But when Mike McDonald approached me and said that their project was interested in gathering some objective data about how the public perceives and views competition and what they think should be done about, I thought this was a natural for the Pew Research Center. We don't take positions on tough issues, but we are interested in tough issues and we don't shy away from them as topics to poll on. So that is why we are here today.

The survey that we conducted in association with Brookings and the Cato Institute was done just last week. The field period was October 17 to 22. We interviewed 2,006 adult Americans in the continental U.S. We were able, as a result of the collaboration, to over-sample people who live in competitive Congressional districts. We selected 40 districts based on the early October ratings by collection of the usual suspects, Charlie Cook, Stewart Rothenberg, Larry Sabato, the Congressional Quarterly, and the New York Times. The list of competitive districts actually expanded a bit since then. That happened really after we were able to draw this sample, but even taking those districts and putting them into the analysis that I am going to describe to you doesn't change the basic findings that I am going to show you. We ended up with a total of 528 registered voters in the competitive districts, and so the comparisons that we will talk about today are based on enough samples to be able to feel that they are reliable.

First of all, there is a very low level of awareness of the debate about redistricting and this issue, despite the long lineage of the issue, despite the fact that it has been very much in the news with ballot measures in both Ohio and California last year, with the Texas redistricting that was undertaken by the Republicans in the mid-decade. There is a very significant gulf between what people who are interested in this professionally think about it and what the general public thinks about it, which is they don't think about it. Moreover, there is not significant public awareness of the levels of competition in the elections that they face for the House of Representatives. I will show you some evidence for that. There is, however, awareness of the level of competition for statewide races, governorships this year and Senate races.

Participants

Moderator

Michael P. McDonald

Nonresident Senior Fellow, Governance Studies

Panelists

Andrew Kohut

President, The Pew Research Center

John Samples

Director, Center for Representative Government, Cato Institute

Scott Keeter

Director of Survey Research, The Pew Research Center

My Portfolio

My New Content

View suggested content based on items you have saved to your Portfolio.
Log in or register now