Free Archives - Page 15 of 23 - Close Up Foundation

Election 2020: The Electoral College – Wise or Outdated?

Posted on October 15, 2020June 21, 2024 by Scot Wilson

What is the Electoral College?

In 2016, more than 138 million people voted in the general election, but only 538 of them directly voted for president and vice president.¹ The reason that both of these statements can be true is the existence of the Electoral College. The Constitution says that rather than voting directly for the president and vice president, citizens vote for a panel of “electors” associated with each candidate in each state. The Electoral College is the name given to this group of 538 individuals spread out across the 50 states.

Each state receives a number of electors that is equal to the state’s total number of representatives and senators in Congress, with the minimum being three (in Alaska and North Dakota, for example). More populous states have more electors, such as Texas (38) and California (55). There are 538 electoral votes in total, representing all 50 states and Washington, D.C. In order to win the presidential election, a candidate must garner a majority of the electoral votes (at least 270). Electors usually follow the outcome of the popular vote in their state, although “faithless electors” do emerge occasionally since there is no federal law mandating that electors obey the statewide popular vote. At present, 29 states and Washington, D.C., have laws that require electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their state or district.²

To hear federal lawmakers’ opinions about the Electoral College, visit A Starting Point’s Electoral College resource.

You Can Win Even When You “Lose”

So is the Electoral College outdated or still relevant today? In the Electoral College system, it is possible for a candidate to win a presidential election even if they do not receive the majority of the nationwide popular vote. This has happened five times in U.S. history, in 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016.³ The fact that this phenomenon has occurred twice in the past two decades has led to increased criticisms of the Electoral College. Some Americans want to abolish the Electoral College altogether, arguing that if such a system was ever needed, that time has passed. They believe that direct popular vote should determine the winner of the presidential election, just as it does for other political offices. Advocates for abolishing the Electoral College often point to the 17th Amendment, which made senators elected by a direct popular vote rather than by a vote in their state legislature.⁴

However, supporters believe reasons to keep the Electoral College include that the system still serves a valuable purpose: to make sure that small states matter. They note that without the Electoral College, presidential candidates would focus only on winning the vote in high-population states, such as California, New York, and Texas.⁵ There are also critics of the Electoral College who argue that abolishing the system is not only unnecessary, but would require an amendment to the Constitution—an amendment that would be unlikely to pass due to a lack of support from smaller states. These critics have put forward a number of potential reforms that would require changes to state laws, rather than constitutional amendments. The two most commonly proposed reforms are proportional electors and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).⁶

Two Models for Reform

Currently, most states award electors on the basis of a winner-take-all model, in which the candidate who receives the most votes statewide receives all of the available electoral votes. However, Maine (four electors) and Nebraska (five electors) use a proportional representation system, in which there are two at-large electors who vote for the winner of the statewide popular vote, as well as district electors (two in Maine, three in Nebraska) who vote for the winner of the popular vote in each congressional district. Therefore, the presidential candidates compete in each district. For example, if Candidate A receives 60 percent of the popular vote in Nebraska but only had the most votes in two of its three districts, Candidate A receives four electoral votes from Nebraska while Candidate B still receives one. Proponents of this proportional representation system argue that it preserves the spirit of the Electoral College by keeping smaller states relevant, but it better represents the will of the different populations in each state.⁷

Alternatively, some states have agreed to take part in the NPVIC. Rather than binding electors to the winner of the statewide popular vote, the NPVIC circumvents the Electoral College by binding electors to the winner of the nationwide popular vote, regardless of whether or not the people in their state voted for that candidate. Since the NPVIC was established in 2006, 15 states and Washington, D.C., have signed on, although the pact has been suspended in Colorado pending review. Another five states are considering signing on to the NPVIC. If Colorado and those five states join the pact, the electoral vote count of NPVIC states would be 260. However, the NPVIC stipulates that the agreement does not go into effect until its members represent at least 270 electoral votes.⁸

If The Electoral College Fails: The Implications For 2020 Election

One of the most peculiar aspects of the Electoral College is that there is an even number of votes, making a 269-269 tie possible. There are arguments over whether this is a flaw or a feature; regardless, a tie can happen—and did happen in 1800 between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr.⁹ In the event of a tie, the vote for president goes to the House of Representatives and the vote for vice president goes to the Senate. In the House, each state is given one vote; in the Senate, each member is given one vote. The votes are carried out by the newly elected Congress in January. If Democrats take control of the Senate and/or expand their majority in the House, they could vote for former Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Kamala Harris, D-Calif. However, because the House vote is one vote per state rather than one vote per member, President Donald Trump could still win reelection since there are more states with a Republican-majority delegation. This system also leads to strange possibilities such as a Biden/Pence or Trump/Harris White House.¹⁰

In reality, a tie is extraordinarily unlikely. What is more likely is a situation in which neither candidate receives 270 votes, also known as a “contingent” election. Normally, this would be virtually impossible, since with only two major candidates to choose from, one candidate’s loss is the other’s gain. However, states are required to officially certify their 2020 election results by the end of December. With concerns being raised over mail-in voting systems, President Trump’s refusal to commit to accepting the results should he lose, and various court procedures that could hold up the 2020 election results, the possibility that one or more states could fail to certify their election results has become more likely. In the event that neither Biden nor President Trump has the required 270 electoral votes, the 2020 election would be sent to Congress just as it would be in the event of a tie. Congress has had to decide the election outcome on only two occasions, in 1800 and in 1824, so this situation is unlikely but not impossible.¹¹

Discussion Questions

Do you believe the Electoral College is necessary/a good idea? Or do you believe that the nationwide popular vote should determine the president and vice president?
If Congress or the states wanted to reform the Electoral College, which change, if any, would you favor?
- Abolish the Electoral College through a constitutional amendment
- Change state laws to award electoral votes proportionally
- Join the NPVIC and award all electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote
- Keep the Electoral College as it is
In the 2000 election, the race was so close that it came down to one state: Florida. After weeks of delay and confusion, a pivotal case came before the Supreme Court; the Court’s ruling ultimately led to George W. Bush being declared the winner in Florida and therefore the winner of the presidential election. If a highly contested election were to occur again, do you think the decision should be left to the courts or to the House?
The most common defense of the Electoral College is that it allows states with small populations to play a more significant role in the election, making the process more fair. However, some have pushed back on the fairness argument by comparing states’ electoral vote totals to their relative populations. For example, California has 55 electoral votes and a voting population of 30.5 million people, meaning that each voter accounts for 0.00018 percent of the electoral votes. In contrast, in Wyoming, with its three electoral votes and voting population of 443,000, each voter accounts for 0.00067 percent of the electoral votes. While neither of those numbers is particularly large, it nevertheless means that a vote in Wyoming impacts the final Electoral College total nearly four times as much as a vote in California. Is the Electoral College still fair? Is it still valuable to preserve this system in order to prevent high-population areas, such as cities and the coasts, from overshadowing more rural areas?
In some elections, when no candidate achieves a majority, the election is re-run later in what is called a “run-off” election. In a run-off, the field of candidates is narrowed on the basis of the level of support they received in the first round of voting. Other elections use ranked-choice voting, a process that allows voters to order their preferences. If the voter’s preferred candidate does not reach a certain threshold of support, the voter’s support is given to their second choice until, finally, all voters have given their support to one of two candidates. Currently, no provisions exist for such a process in presidential elections. Do you think that one or both of these systems should be put in place? Is there another alternative that would make the process more fair?

For more of our election coverage, see our recent posts on Political Violence and the 2020 Election, The Supreme Court Fight and The Election, and Election 2020: Guides for Discussing the Debates.

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Mark Newman/University of Michigan

[1] https://guides.libraries.psu.edu/post-election-2016/voter-turnout

[2] http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=967

[3] https://www.history.com/news/presidents-electoral-college-popular-vote

[4] https://www.courierpress.com/story/opinion/2019/07/18/letter-electoral-college-must-go/1773483001/

[5] http://hnn.us/articles/474.html

[6] https://calmatters.org/commentary/my-turn/2020/09/abolish-the-electoral-college-or-award-electors-on-a-proportional-basis/

[7] Ibid.

[8] https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

[9] https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

[10] https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/electoral-college-tie-democrats.html

[11] https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-inaugurations-archive-election-recounts-elections-fa1f88c9ff0681bd78b147137c09b3d9

The Art of Political Storytelling: How Leaders Win Hearts

During this Close Up Conversations webinar, available on-demand, Close Up’s, Eric Adydan, discusses ‘The Art of Political Storytelling’ with Kenny Cunningham, COO of Article III Project.

The weaving of a narrative is as old as politics itself. Candidates running for office work hard to reduce the complexities of the modern world into simple, soundbite-friendly stories. They invoke heroes and villains, fear and hope. This webinar will examine and reveal how politicians use storytelling strategies to win the hearts of their constituents.

Political Violence and the 2020 Election

Posted on October 13, 2020October 13, 2020 by Scot Wilson

Journaling Task: Reflecting On Political Violence

On October 8, the FBI announced that it had thwarted a plot led by a right-wing militia to kidnap and potentially assassinate Governor Gretchen Whitmer, D-Mich.¹ Whitmer, in an op-ed published in the Washington Post, laid some of the blame at the feet of President Donald Trump, writing:

I’m not going to waste my time arguing with the president. But I will always hold him accountable. Because when our leaders speak, their words carry weight. When our leaders encourage domestic terrorists, they legitimize their actions. When they stoke and contribute to hate speech, they are complicit. And when a sitting president stands on a national stage refusing to condemn white supremacists and hate groups, as President Trump did when he told the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by” during the first presidential debate, he is complicit. Hate groups heard the president’s words not as a rebuke, but as a rallying cry. As a call to action.²

In an interview about the foiled kidnapping plot, Representative Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., said, “I hope that this got a lot of people’s attention and we can all take a deep breath and really think about how fear and division is dividing this country and stop being pitted against each other.”³

Even before news of the plot broke, some pundits, political leaders, and citizens had expressed concern about the potential for violence before, during, and/or immediately after the 2020 election. One cause for these worries is that a high number of mail-in ballots could make the outcome of the election uncertain, with the results on Election Day potentially differing from the final results.⁴ Some experts have predicted violence if President Trump loses and refuses to leave office.⁵ Others, such as Howard Simon, the former executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, are concerned about the use of violence prior to the election as a tool to disrupt or discredit voting.⁶

Election Violence in Context

In the United States, violence connected to elections is not new, but many believed it to be a thing of the past. For much of the 19th and 20th centuries, white supremacy groups, local and state officials, and law enforcement officials ensured that Black Americans did not have the right to vote. In addition to restrictions such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses,⁷ violence and intimidation were used to keep Black people from voting. For example, in 1873 in Colfax, Louisiana, 150 Ku Klux Klan members and former Confederate soldiers killed between 60 and 150 Black men (accounts differ) who were attempting to participate in the political process.⁸

Primary Source: “To the Colored Men of Voting Age in the Southern States,” a pamphlet designed to help Black Americans vote

Some historians see echoes of another political movement, the Know-Nothings, in today’s politics. The Know-Nothings, formally called the American Party or the Native American Party, was an anti-immigrant, nativist movement in the middle of the 19th century.⁹ During the election of 1856, members and supporters of the party formed street gangs to intimidate voters in Baltimore and elsewhere.¹⁰ Similarly, there were riots and clashes between supporters of the Whig Party and the Democratic Party during the election of 1834.¹¹

The 2020 Election

The Center for Strategic and International Studies has tracked political violence and terrorism in the United States for more than 20 years. According to its analysis, 2016, 2017, and 2019 saw the most instances of right-wing violence since 1995, the year of the Oklahoma City bombing. The report concludes that the 2020 election has the potential to make matters worse.¹²This year has seen political violence in cities such as Portland, Oregon, where a left-wing antifa supporter shot and killed a member of Patriot Prayer, a pro-Trump group. And a bipartisan group of former elected officials and academics (none of whom support President Trump) recently discussed multiple scenarios in which violence follows the 2020 election. Rosa Brooks, a professor of law and policy at Georgetown University and a former Defense Department official who helped organize the group, said, “The law is essentially … it’s almost helpless against a president who’s willing to ignore it.”¹³

In the midst of a widening partisan divide,¹⁴ heightened fear and anger toward members of the opposite party,¹⁵ and rhetoric from political leaders that stokes the fires,¹⁶ Americans’ views toward political violence are changing, with more people finding violence acceptable under certain circumstances. A research team of fellows from the Hoover Institution, New America, and other institutions wrote in Politico Magazine, “Our research, which we’re reporting here for the first time, shows an upswing in the past few months in the number of Americans—both Democrats and Republicans—who said they think violence would be justified if their side loses the upcoming presidential election.”¹⁷ According to the researchers, “44 percent of Republicans and 41 percent of Democrats said there would be at least ‘a little’ justification for violence if the other party’s nominee wins the election.” Those figures increased from June, when the numbers were 35 and 37 percent, respectively.¹⁸

Discussion Questions

What have you heard or read about political violence in the news and on social media?
Are any of your friends or family members concerned about violence during this election? What have they been saying?
Are you worried about political violence in your community? Why or why not?
How should citizens respond if there is violence in the wake of the 2020 election?
What other concerns do you have about this election?

Further Reading

The first of these readings offers historical context for election-related violence in the United States. The others relate to current trends and attitudes toward violence, partisanship, and the election.

The New Yorker: “Our Long, Forgotten History of Election-Related Violence”
Carnegie Endowment Report: “Should America be Worried about Political Violence? And What Can We Do to Prevent It?
Politico Magazine: “Americans Increasingly Believe Violence is Justified if the Other Side Wins”
New York Magazine: “Americans are Becoming More Open to Post-Election Violence”

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Alex Lourie/Redux

[1] BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54482846

[2] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/09/gretchen-whitmer-hold-trump-accountable/

[3] ABC17News: https://abc17news.com/politics/national-politics/2020/10/09/dingell-hopes-plot-against-whitmer-will-bring-attention-to-threat-of-political-extremism-2/

[4] New York Magazine: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/americans-increasingly-open-post-election-violence-study.html

[5] Newsweek: https://www.newsweek.com/bipartisan-group-predicts-violence-if-trump-loses-election-refuses-leave-white-house-1520561

[6] Tampa Bay Times: https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2020/09/08/be-prepared-for-threat-of-election-disruption-through-violence-column/

[7] Constitutional Rights Foundation: https://www.crf-usa.org/brown-v-board-50th-anniversary/race-and-voting.html

[8] Smithsonian Magazine: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/1873-colfax-massacre-crippled-reconstruction-180958746/

[9] Smithsonian Magazine: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/immigrants-conspiracies-and-secret-society-launched-american-nativism-180961915/

[10] The New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/09/14/our-long-forgotten-history-of-election-related-violence

[11] Ibid.

[12] Center for Strategic and International Studies: https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states

[13] Newsweek: https://www.newsweek.com/bipartisan-group-predicts-violence-if-trump-loses-election-refuses-leave-white-house-1520561

[14] Pew Research Center: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/09/02/in-views-of-u-s-democracy-widening-partisan-divides-over-freedom-to-peacefully-protest/

[15] Pew Research Center: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/06/22/partisanship-and-political-animosity-in-2016/

[16] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/america-political-violence-risk/2020/09/11/be924628-f388-11ea-999c-67ff7bf6a9d2_story.html

[17] Politico: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/10/01/political-violence-424157

[18] Ibid.

Building Bridges – The History of the Presidential Debates

Podcast Host: Joe Geraghty | Podcast Contributors: Scot Wilson and Dr. Dan Wallace

This episode of Building Bridges looks at the history of televised Presidential Debates going back to the Nixon-Kennedy debates of 1960. We will drill down on the role of the moderator, the 16-year gap in the debates, and we will also look at some of the most fascinating moments in the last 60 years of televised presidential debates.

Part 1: Role of the Moderator (00:53)

Part 2: 16-year gap (11:31)

Part 3: Fascinating moments in debate history (17:19)

Building Bridges – The National Political Party Convention

Podcast Host: Joe Geraghty | Podcast Contributors: Sante Mastriana and Dr. Dan Wallace

This episode of Building Bridges looks at the history of the national political parties’ conventions going back to the first Democratic Convention in Baltimore in 1832 and the first Republican Convention in Philadelphia in 1856. This podcast highlights some of the most famous and infamous moments over that long and often politically turbulent history.

Part 1: Republican Convention of 1880 (04:37)

Part 2: Democratic Convention of 1964 (21:40)

Part 3: Democratic Convention of 1964 (37:41)

Voting Rights: From the Civil War to the Present

During this seminar Close Up’s, Joe Geraghty, discusses ‘Voting Rights: From the Civil War to the Present’ with Dr. Frank Smith and Dawn Chitty from the African American Civic War Museum.

Since the Constitution only gave the right vote to white land-owning males, American history is filled with the struggle to expand the franchise to all Americans. After a bloody Civil War where the country lost nearly 700,000 people, the 15th Amendment gave the right to vote to African American men, but not women. All women would have to wait 50 more years for the vote. And, in reality, because of poll taxes, and various forms of intimidation most African Americans in the South did vote have voting rights protections until the 1965 voting rights law. During this session, we will explore the stories behind the struggle for voting rights and the attempts to undermine the right to vote.

Election 2020: Guides for Watching and Discussing the Debates

Posted on September 23, 2020June 2, 2021 by Scot Wilson

There are three presidential debates scheduled for September 29, October 15, and October 22, as well as a vice presidential debate taking place on October 7. For many voters, the debates are the best chance to see the differences between the candidates as they decide how to cast their vote in November. Campaigns put a lot of effort into the debates; getting a candidate ready for these events often requires weeks of preparation.

Political debates are typically a mix of legitimate policy arguments and attempts to score points with voters through soundbites and “zingers” that can be used for campaign ads and media promotions. What this usually means for the candidates is that the style of their responses and rebuttals is just as important as the substance of what they are saying.

The Impact of Debates

Presidential debates, as we think of them today—formally agreed to by each candidate and televised for the whole country to see—began in 1960 with the debate between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy. This event is often cited as one of the most significant debates in history, not just because it was the first but because of its perceived impact on the election.¹ Prior to the debate, Nixon was leading in the polls and was regarded as the favorite, having been vice president for nearly eight years.² However, on television, Nixon appeared uncomfortable, haggard, and awkward; Kennedy, on the other hand, was able to present himself as calm, charismatic, and confident. Although Nixon’s performance improved in the subsequent debates, Kennedy’s polling improved significantly after the first debate.³

Despite the legendary status of the first Nixon-Kennedy debate, it is difficult to say how much the debates themselves contributed to Kennedy’s ultimate victory in the 1960 election. Televised presidential and vice presidential debates were not a matter of routine until 1976, but their impacts on elections remain a source of discussion. Anticipation for the debates is often drummed up by the media and the organizations that host them, but political scientists generally agree that the impact of debates is arguable at best.⁴

Still, some political observers argue that although “winning” a debate may not be that important, it is very important that a candidate not be perceived as the “loser.” Between debates, media figures will often speculate, comment, and fixate on mistakes and questionable moments in debates. If the debates themselves do not change voters’ minds, the media narratives generated by the debates still can.⁵

Setting the Stage: Trump vs. Biden

Political observers widely agree that now-President Donald Trump “lost” all three debates with Hillary Clinton in 2016, yet he was victorious in the election.⁶ However, in 2016, President Trump had yet to hold any political office; therefore, he had no record to put forward or to challenge. This election cycle is different for many reasons, not the least of which is that President Trump now has a term as president under his belt, carrying all the perceived successes and failures that go with it.

Joe Biden has not held public office since January 2017, but up until that point, he had served in the federal government at different levels continuously since 1973. He is also seen as a standard-bearer for the Obama administration and can therefore expect to answer questions not only about his own policies and record but about those of President Barack Obama as well. The latest polling indicates that Biden has a six- or seven-point lead over President Trump nationally, but with only weeks to go until Election Day, the debates could affect that lead … or not.⁷

Discussion Questions

Teacher Note: These discussion questions are intended to be used after students view any of the 2020 debates. Below, you can also find student worksheets/guides to use before a debate, during a debate, and after a debate.

What was your impression of the debate? Which candidate do you think “won” the debate? For what reasons?
Were there any elements of the debate (the style of the questions, the rules for how candidates interacted, etc.) that you feel could be improved upon to make the debate more informative or helpful to voters?
Which policy/policies presented by a candidate did you find most appealing? Was there an issue that was not addressed or that you feel should have been addressed more thoroughly?
What impact, if any, do you think this debate will have on the election?
Confirmation bias is a phenomenon in which people see the world in a way that matches what they already believe to be true. Confirmation bias helps account for why two people can see the same politician say the same thing and have two completely different impressions of that politician. Do you believe that confirmation bias plays a role in how people judge political debates? How might confirmation bias have factored into people’s perspectives of this debate?

Debate Guides

These resources will help you work with your students to deconstruct the candidates’ positions and make informed decisions about which of the candidates’ policies they favor. It is recommended (but not required) that you use all three of the guides in sequence to support students before, during, and after each debate.

1. Before the Debate

The Pre-Debate Guide asks students to describe their expectations for the debate, including the issues they want to hear about and their anticipations for each candidate’s performance. The guide also contains a number of links to previous debates, as well as reflection questions for those clips to help familiarize students with the typical style of presidential debates.

2. During the Debate

The Debate Watch Guide asks students to respond to questions as they view the debate live or in class. This guide helps students follow along and asks them to comment on their impressions and takeaways in the moment. In addition to helping students make sense of the debate, this guide can be a helpful reference for students for any in-class discussion about the debates.

3. After the Debate

The Debate Reflection Guide asks students to consider the debate and their impressions of each candidate in greater depth. Students are tasked with comparing their expectations of the debate with what actually took place, commenting on the positions they favored, and explaining the impressions of each candidate that they had at the conclusion. This guide can also be a helpful resource for students if you want to hold a discussion of the debate in class.

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Getty Images/AP

[1] https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/kennedy-nixon-debates

[2] https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-debate-that-changed-the-world-of-politics

[3] https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/29/politics/jfk-nixon-debate/index.html

[4] https://journalistsresource.org/studies/politics/elections/presidential-debates-effects-research-roundup/

[5] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1532673X15614891?journalCode=aprb

[6] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/19/13340828/hillary-clinton-debate-trump-won

[7] https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html

Gender, Politics, & The Media

During this civics discussion seminar, Close Up’s Chief Development Officer, Mia Charity discusses ‘Gender, Politics & the Media’ with Annelise McGough, newsletter editor at The 19th.

While the 19^th Amendment did not grant suffrage to all women, it was an important milestone in the advancement of equality, a journey that we continue on today. During this session you will learn more about the intersection of gender, media, policy and the work of The 19th–a new media organization founded to be a source of news and information for all women with a special emphasis on those who have been underserved by and underrepresented in the media landscape.

Summer Round-Up #3: Protests, Police Reform, and Civil Unrest

Posted on September 9, 2020July 9, 2021 by Scot Wilson

This summer has been more dramatic and more tumultuous than any other in recent memory. To help teachers and students explore key issues from this summer, we have done a series of summer round-up articles including developments related to the COVID-19 pandemic and our review of the 2020 campaigns and conventions. In our third and final summer round-up, we examine the protests and policy responses since Minneapolis police killed George Floyd in May. The police shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin, reinvigorated the protests and demands for reform and justice.¹

A Summer of Protests

Over the course of the summer, protests broke out and continued around the country. In major cities such as Portland, Oregon,² and Louisville, Kentucky,³ protests have been daily or almost daily. The protests have ranged in their intensity and have evoked a wide array of responses from the media and public officials. Federal agents used tactics that raised alarm bells in Portland, grabbing suspected protesters from off the street in unmarked vans. Some called these actions kidnapping,⁴ and evidence suggests that they escalated the tension and violence in that city.⁵

LISTEN: From The Daily, “The Showdown in Portland”

In some cases, protests have coincided with violence and looting, frequently distracting the media and the public from the protesters’ cause.⁶ President Donald Trump has pointed to the violence as evidence that a greater police presence,⁷ and even a military presence,⁸ is needed. And, while polls showed that support for the Black Lives Matter movement was at an all-time high in the weeks following Floyd’s killing,⁹ that support has decreased as the protests have continued.¹⁰

Activists and advocates across the country are working to identify ways to keep pressure on policymakers and to keep their cause in the public eye. On August 28—the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom at which Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech—the NAACP and other groups coordinated a virtual March on Washington.¹¹ The family of Blake, the man shot by police in Kenosha, participated in that march.¹² Athletes have also used their platforms to raise awareness. The NBA’s Milwaukee Bucks decided to boycott a playoff game, ultimately leading to a brief shutdown of the league.¹³

Summer of Reform

The protests have continued to shine a light on police practices and procedures that activists believe to be unjust. Some jurisdictions have instituted reforms. Many states and cities have banned the use of chokeholds and similar tactics. Cities and states have passed bills to make it easier to hold police officers accountable for wrongdoing.¹⁴ There are also newly instituted bans on the use of tear gas and no-knock warrants,¹⁵ the latter of which played a role in the police killing of Breonna Taylor.¹⁶

However, larger, more significant reform efforts have stalled. For example, in California, lawmakers proposed several bills that would have made police departments and records more transparent and that would have created civilian oversight commissions to investigate alleged instances of police brutality. Legislators decided not to take up those bills before the end of the session.¹⁷ Virginia legislators considered, but ultimately rejected, a bill that would have ended qualified immunity for police officers.¹⁸ Qualified immunity, established by the Supreme Court in a 1967 ruling, shields public officials from legal suits if the plaintiff is not able to establish that a clear violation of rights occurred before the case begins.¹⁹ This practice makes it difficult for people to bring cases against police officers and other civil servants. A Reuters analysis of data from qualified immunity cases found that in more than half of cases, police officers were protected from prosecution by the statute.²⁰

At the federal level, there are several bills that have been introduced and, in some cases, passed by the House of Representatives. One such bill, the George Floyd Justice for Policing Act, passed the House in June.²¹ If it became law, this bill would make it easier to investigate, indict, and convict police officers for use of excessive force and would grant the Department of Justice more authority in examining patterns of abuse in police departments across the country. This bill has been introduced, but not yet debated, in the Senate.

Protesters’ most ambitious demand, the call to defund the police, remains unmet. In Minneapolis, the city council initially committed to disbanding the police department and replacing it with a Department of Community Safety and Violence Prevention and a Department of Law Enforcement.²² However, that effort has stalled in the city council until at least 2021.²³

WATCH: From The Guardian, “What Does It Mean to Defund the Police?”

Defunding or abolishing police departments would be a significant change in state and local governments. It is a new idea to most Americans. Initial polling indicated that most Americans oppose the idea, but as people have learned more about it, those opinions have seemed to be in flux.²⁴

WATCH: From PBS NewsHour, “Two Views on the Future of American Policing”

State and local governments across the country are grappling with questions about the future of policing, criminal justice, and issues pertaining to racial justice. And, during this election, some national politicians are calling for change at the federal level. Meanwhile, people across the country are protesting, hoping to keep these issues on the public agenda.

Discussion Questions

Have there been protests in or near your community? What impact have they had?
Do you have a mostly positive or mostly negative view of the protests? Why? Do your reasons have to do with what you see happening, your views on the issues, or both?
Which of the suggested police reforms, if any, do you agree with? Why?
Do you think the federal government should take action to reform policing, or do you think those efforts are best handled at the state and local levels?
Do you support the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act? Why or why not?
What do you think of the call to defund the police? Explain your answer.

Possible Extension Activities

Have students read the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act and work together to write letters to their senators in support or in opposition.
Ask students to research “defunding the police” or “abolishing the police” to understand the different ideas and policies involved in that demand. Resources embedded in this post provide good starting points, as does this overview from the Associated Press.
After researching the ideas of defunding the police, ask students to design a model for providing/enforcing community safety. What would they prioritize? What agencies would they need? What would those agencies do?

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Getty Images

[1] CBS News: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jacob-blake-sr-kenosha-wisconsin-police-shooting-victim/

[2] CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/02/us/portland-protests-wednesday/index.html

[3] National Public Radio: https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/02/us/portland-protests-wednesday/index.html

4] PolitiFact: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/04/bob-casey/sen-bob-casey-said-federal-agents-kidnapped-protes/

[5] National Public Radio: https://www.npr.org/2020/08/06/899882025/portland-protests-de-escalate-as-federal-agents-leave-city-streets

[6] USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/08/31/riots-violence-erupting-turning-many-away-blm-and-protests-column/5675343002/

[7] Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-police-endorsement-speech-officers-fight-back-2020-8

[8] Council on Foreign Relations: https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/trumps-threat-use-military-against-protesters-what-know

[9] FiveThirtyEight: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/support-for-black-lives-matter-surged-during-protests-but-is-waning-among-white-americans/

[10] Boston Globe: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/09/01/opinion/support-black-lives-matter-is-dropping-among-white-americans/

[11] NAACP.org: https://www.naacp.org/marchonwashington/

[12] Chicago Tribune: https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/evanston/ct-jacob-blake-family-kenosha-protest-plans-20200828-f6xbocfmqbdzdfhzy46z753ssq-story.html

[13] CBS Sports: https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/nba-boycott-how-players-reached-decision-to-resume-season-timeline-overnight-disagreement-owners-role/

[14] Minneapolis Star-Tribune: https://www.startribune.com/states-race-to-pass-policing-reforms-after-floyd-s-death/572051772/?refresh=true

[15] Axios: https://www.axios.com/police-reform-george-floyd-protest-2150b2dd-a6dc-4a0c-a1fb-62c2e999a03a.html

[16] USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/30/fact-check-police-had-no-knock-warrant-breonna-taylor-apartment/3235029001/

[17] Los Angeles Times: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-09-02/california-police-reform-bills-derailed

[18] ABC 8 News, Richmond, Virginia: https://www.wric.com/news/politics/virginia-house-rejects-bill-eliminating-qualified-immunity-for-police/

[29] Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity

[20] Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-police-immunity-scotus/

[21] Congress.gov: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/7120/actions

[22] CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/06/us/minneapolis-police-abolish-delay/index.html

[23] Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-13/minneapolis-falters-in-plan-to-disband-the-police

[24] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/03/us/politics/polling-defund-the-police.html

Summer Round-Up #2: Campaigns, Conventions, and the Race to Election Day

Posted on August 31, 2020August 16, 2021 by Scot Wilson

Over the course of the summer, the 2020 election has taken shape. Most primaries for congressional office have concluded, and the parties and presidential candidates were able to showcase their respective visions during their conventions. In this second summer round-up, we take a look at the state of the 2020 election. Our first summer round-up explored the ongoing impact of the coronavirus and the responses to the pandemic. Our third and final summer round-up will discuss ongoing protests, the Black Lives Matter movement, and the changing politics of race and equity since the murder of George Floyd.

Congressional Races

All of the seats in the House of Representatives are up for election this year, as are a third of the seats in the Senate. The presidential election inevitably receives the most attention, but control of Congress plays a significant role in shaping U.S. politics as well. At the moment, the Republican Party controls the Senate¹ while the Democratic Party controls the House of Representatives.² It is technically possible for both chambers to change hands, although the latest polls and expert observers predict that Republicans are unlikely to win enough seats to take control of the House.³ The Senate is more competitive. Currently, Republicans hold 53 seats to Democrats’ 47 (including two independents who caucus with the Democratic Party).⁴ Some election observers predict that Democrats will win enough seats to secure a majority in the Senate,⁵ while others believe the races remain too close to call.⁶

One of the key dynamics in the congressional primaries has been the contest for the future of the Democratic Party. Centrist Democrats mounted unsuccessful challenges to young, progressive women of color, including Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).⁷ Meanwhile, several progressive challengers, most notably Jamal Bowman of New York⁸ and Cori Bush of Missouri,⁹ were able to knock off centrist Democratic incumbents. The presidential primary contests between Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2016 and between Sanders and former Vice President Joe Biden in 2020 also highlighted philosophical differences and tensions within the party.¹⁰ This fight will likely continue after Election Day, no matter the outcome.

Party Conventions and Visions for the Future

Both parties have now completed their quadrennial conventions to cement their priorities and nominate their presidential candidates.

WATCH: PBS NewsHour’s 17-minute video with highlights from both conventions

The Democratic National Convention focused on two major themes: party unity and defeating President Donald Trump.¹¹ Speakers largely argued that President Trump is a threat to democracy, as well as a threat to people’s lives, pointing to his administration’s handling of the coronavirus.¹²

Meanwhile, President Trump and Republican speakers argued that Biden and the Democratic Party represent a radical shift towards socialism and communism.¹³ In an unusual move, the Republican Party decided not to draft a new platform for 2020, and instead ratified its 2016 platform once again and offered a strong endorsement of President Trump as the voice of the party.¹⁴

READ: NPR’s 7 Takeaways from the Democratic Convention and 7 Takeaways from the Republican Convention

Final Days of the Election

There are a little over two months left until Election Day. The economy and COVID-19, two of the issues on the top of most voters’ minds, are in constant flux. The stock market is experiencing significant gains, especially in the technology sector,¹⁵ but the unemployment rate remains high and seems to be growing.¹⁶

Credit: Pew Research Center

While many big issues clearly weigh on the minds of voters, the presidential campaign has largely focused on character and vision. Looking ahead, the debates and the candidates’ closing arguments will add further definition to the differences between the two men. However, many voters may begin voting by mail before the election cycle reaches that final push.

Discussion Questions

Which Senate and House races are taking place where you live? Are they contested? Who do you and your family support?
Which of the presidential candidates do you support? Why?
If you were voting in this election, would you be excited to support your preferred candidate? Why or why not?
Have you seen many political advertisements? For or against which candidates? How do those ads impact you?

Sources