Texas Government

Question

1. List and discuss the reasons why campaigns in Texas are so expensive.
2. Discuss and explain at least four reasons why Texas voter turnout is so low. What can be done to increase voter participation?
3. If you ran for office in Texas, what issues would you emphasize? How would you connect with voters? What types of media would you use to get your positions out to the public?

Elaborate on your responses

Answer 1

1. Texas is an expensive campaign state because of a multitude of reasons but the factor we can branch from and discuss sub-factors is the number of expensive media markets. (Also, I believe the question means "running in Texas state-wide" but I digress.) These sub-factors include Texas' immense geography, large population, diversity in languages spoken (Vietnamese is the the most common spoken language in TX), and the importance of the office and the specific elections are on the ballot. A year where there is a governor's race could result in more money spent statewide than a year when there is not a high profile statewide office up for grabs. Although there was a gubernatorial election in 2018, the statewide election where eyes fixed was on the Senate race between Beto O'Rourke and Ted Cruz. That was the most expensive Senate campaign in Texas history and was for a time in the top 5 or so most expensive Congressional campaigns for until the 2020 elections.
2. First, voting is optional. While some countries require their eligible voters to cast a ballot, Americans are not. Second, while early voting in Texas gets a good chunk of voters, there are still many folks who choose to vote on election day. And since this is not a holiday or workers would have to take time off, that also serves a barrier or inhibitor to the ballot box. Third, states with one-party control can find some voters feel disenfranchised, if not functionally disenfranchised (though I am not saying TX de jure creates nefarious barriers to the ballot box). This gives off a hopeless feeling and voters won't go to the polls if they feel their effort is futile, perhaps that contributes to politicians creating language of catastrophe. Fourth, time and place. The ability to physically get to the ballot box and spend the time voting is a barrier. Though partly connected to the second point, this one is a bit different. During COVID-19, voting fundamentally changed with en masse mail-in voting and drop-off ballots. That flexibility could have a bearing on turnout.
3. I won't comment on issues you should run on- that's a fun exercise! I will say that as for communicating with voters, social media is quite effective. However, door-to-door and meeting voters in person remains one of the most powerful tools. Few communication tools can beat the impact of person-to-person interactions.

Answer 2

1 Texas is a big state, large population, requiring more campaign stops and advertising.

Texas is a potential swing state. More need for both sides to put more money into the campaigns

Presidential candidates are in Texas: George W. Bush, Ted Cruz, Beto O'Rourke. or relatives like George P. Bush. they get more funding

It has a high Hispanic and Spanish speaking population. Ads need to be in Spanish as well as English running up the costs a little.

2 Turnout may appear lower than it is, if you're comparing voters to total population which includes illegal aliens, convicted felons and other inelligible voters.

Turnout depends on having important issues on the ballot.

Midterms always have a lower turnout

informed voters vote more. As the movie "Bernie" and the Big Bang Tv show indicate, Texans especially East Texas, may not be that informed.

No real need to increase voter participation. The less voters, the more informed people decide the elections. Greater turnout means less informed people decide the elections, which is a major negative,

but if you're into having even more people vote who are clueless about the issues, maybe make voting mandatory and failure to vote a crime, do away with any requirements to vote, no residency requriements, no age, no registration, no voter ID, send ballots to everyone, and don't check whether more people are voting than could possibly vote.

Arrow's Paradox may apply. Mathematical economist Kenneth Arrow proved no social choice system is rational. His proof is part of what won him the Nobel Prize. A huge academic literature is on his paradox. It basically applies in close elections, due to lack of any way to register intensity of preference. Tolerating low voter turnout helps give greater weight to the more intense preferences, avoiding Arrow's Paradox. those who care most vote. Those who care least don't vote. Why tip election results to the "preferences" of those who care least? by encouraging more voter turnout?

While every system may violate fundamental axioms of rationality (Arrow's Paradox), as Winston Churchill said "democracy is a very bad form of government, but all the alternatives are even worse."

another solution may be what is popular in Europe, which avoids runoffs: the automoatic runoff where computers switch your 2nd choice to 1st choice if your real choice didn't make the top two. This has an additional advance of seeing how much support there is for 3rd parties, what people really prefer especially when the top two parties are increasingly less popular. This encourages people who otherwise might sit out the election to vote as their real preference is on the ballot with greater likely percentages. It more honestly shows what people really want.

Also, count write in votes, instead of ignoring them unless they are previously certified write in candidates, as many states do.

If you really want the most informed voters to count more, give the voter a blank ballot and make everyone write in the candidate's name and office. If they don't know who is running or for what office, that's your uninformed voter. At a minimum don't put the candidates' party affiliation on the ballot. That makes too many uninformed voters just vote a straight party ticket.

Okay, I confess, I'm super biased due to a personal experience in 2nd grade. This civic minded teacher wanted to teach us the importance of voting, so he asked the class who wanted chocolate or vanilla ice cream. I, selflessly let others decide. I really wanted strawberry. I watched as the chocolate voters held up two hands each as the teacher didn't notice and declared chocolate the winner. Then this overbearing teacher focused on me and demanded "why didn't you vote?" You're letting Nazis and communists win elections by not voting. He didn't want an answer. He just ridiculed me in front of the entire cheating class (okay half the class + the other wimpy half that let the fraud go undetected). I'll never forget that incident, a true lesson in civics for all time. about how our system is rigged against 3rd parties and rigged against fair elections. A lot the way Democrats trashed Ralph Nader voters, or Republicans complain about Libertarians siphoning off votes.