A Student’s Guide to Elections
The Puzzles of Democracy in the US & Texas
What does “Democracy” even mean?
You hear “we live in a democracy” all the time, but what does that actually mean? Is it just about voting? Or is it more? Political scientists have a few “puzzles” about this. At the center of it all is one key idea: elections.
View 1: The “Minimalist” View
This view, famously from Joseph Schumpeter, is super simple. Democracy is just a system where leaders are chosen through a “competitive struggle for the people’s vote.”
- The Goal: To pick leaders.
- Your Job: To vote ’em in or vote ’em out.
- In short: It’s all about the election day “main event.” As long as you can choose between Party A and Party B, it’s a democracy.
View 2: The “Polyarchy” View
This view, from Robert Dahl, says a “minimal” democracy isn’t enough. Real democracy needs two things, like a two-way street:
- Public Contestation (Competition): You need *real*, meaningful choices. Multiple parties must be allowed to compete, and the press must be free.
- Inclusiveness (Participation): It’s not just enough to *have* an election; people must be *allowed* to vote. Who can participate? Is it just landowners? Just men? Or is there universal suffrage (voting for all adults)?
The Bottom Line: No matter which view you take, elections are the central mechanism. They are how we select leaders, give direction on policy, and hold our officials accountable. This guide explores the “how” of this system, starting with the different *types* of elections you’ll encounter.
Texas Deep Dive: How Does the Lone Star State Vote?
Texas runs its own elections (as does every state), and it has some unique quirks. From our “kinda-sorta-open” primaries to our famous low turnout, here’s a look at the puzzles of the Texas system.
Puzzle: Is the Texas Primary Open or Closed?
This is a classic trick question. You don’t register by party in Texas, so it *can’t* be closed. But when you vote, you have to pick one… so what’s the deal?
The Texas “Runoff” Rule
In many states, you can win a primary with a **plurality** (just getting more votes than anyone else). If Candidate A gets 30%, B gets 25%, and C gets 20%, Candidate A wins.
Not in Texas. Texas requires a **majority (50% + 1)** to win a primary. If no one hits 50% (which often happens in crowded races), the top two candidates go to a separate **runoff election** a few weeks later. This is why a Texas primary can feel like it lasts forever!
The Texas Turnout “Sawtooth”
Texas is famous for its low voter turnout. But the *real* story is the massive gap between Presidential years and “Midterm” years (when we vote for Governor). This up-and-down pattern looks like a sawtooth.
The Rules of the Game: Why Just Two Parties?
Ever wonder why it’s *always* a Democrat vs. a Republican for every major office? Why can’t a third party (like the Libertarians or Greens) ever seem to break through? Is the system… rigged? Well, it’s not a conspiracy. It’s a “puzzle” solved by two simple rules that define our system.
Rule 1: Winner-Take-All (or “First Past the Post”)
In most US elections, we use a **single-member district** (one person represents one area) and a **plurality** voting system (whoever gets the most votes wins, even if it’s not 50%). Think of it like a horse race. You don’t have to win by a certain amount; you just have to be the first one to cross the finish line.
Example: A Simple Election
Party A Wins!
Even though 60% of the people voted *against* them, Party A got the *most* votes, so they win 100% of the power (the one seat).
Rule 2: The “Psychological” Effect (Duverger’s Law)
So, what happens to the 25% of people who voted for Party C? They realize their vote was “wasted.” It didn’t help their candidate win, and it didn’t stop Party A (who they might dislike).
Next election, they think, “I *really* like Party C, but I *hate* Party A. I know Party B is the only one with a chance to beat A.” So, they “hold their nose” and vote for Party B. This is called **strategic voting**.
Duverger’s Law: This system of “winner-take-all” districts creates a “psychological” effect that pushes voters to abandon third parties. This pressure naturally squeezes the system down to… just two parties.
The Money Puzzle: Who Pays for This?
You see the ads. You get the texts. Elections cost billions. But where does all that money come from? It’s a complex puzzle of committees, contributions, and a very famous Supreme Court case. Here’s the simple breakdown of the two biggest “money players” you hear about.
Player 1: The PAC
(Political Action Committee)
Individuals
PAC
LIMIT: $5,000 per year
Candidate’s Campaign
Can give money *directly*
The Gist: A PAC collects contributions from many individuals and gives that money *directly* to candidates it supports. It is heavily regulated and has *strict limits* on how much it can raise and give.
Player 2: The SUPER PAC
(Independent Expenditure-Only Committee)
Individuals, Corps, Unions
SUPER PAC
LIMIT: NONE
Candidate’s Campaign
X
TV Ads, Mailers, etc.
“Independent” Spending
The Gist: A Super PAC can raise *unlimited* money from *anyone* (including corporations). But it is *banned* from giving money to or coordinating with a candidate. It can only spend that money “independently” on ads supporting or attacking them.
The “Big Bang”: Citizens United v. FEC (2010)
So what created Super PACs? This Supreme Court case. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that corporations and unions have First Amendment free speech rights, and that spending money on political ads is a form of that speech. This decision effectively said the government *cannot* limit how much a corporation or union spends on “independent” political ads, as long as they don’t give it directly to a candidate. This ruling is what gives Super PACs their power.
Today’s Challenges: What Are the Big Debates?
The system is far from perfect, and it’s constantly being debated. These are some of the biggest “puzzles” and problems facing American elections today. Click on any topic to see the core of the debate.