Export your learner materials as an interactive game, a webpage, or FAQ style cheatsheet.
Unsaved Work Found!
It looks like you have unsaved work from a previous session. Would you like to restore it?
Total Categories: 6
The fundamental purpose of a primary election is to select the final winner of a political office.
Answer: False
Primary elections are designed to select party nominees or narrow the field of candidates for a general election, not to determine the ultimate winner of the office.
In a partisan primary, a political party selects its nominee for a specific office.
Answer: True
The defining characteristic of a partisan primary is that it is conducted by a political party to choose its candidate who will represent the party in the subsequent general election.
What is the primary function of a primary election?
Answer: To determine which candidates will compete in the general election.
Primary elections serve as preliminary contests to select a party's nominee or narrow the field of candidates who will advance to the general election.
How does a partisan primary differ from a nonpartisan primary?
Answer: In partisan primaries, parties select nominees; in nonpartisan primaries, candidates run without party affiliation.
Partisan primaries involve political parties selecting their official nominees, whereas nonpartisan primaries allow candidates to run without declaring party affiliation, often leading to a different selection mechanism for the general election.
Nonpartisan primaries require candidates to declare their party affiliation before running.
Answer: False
In nonpartisan primaries, candidates do not declare a party affiliation, and often all candidates appear on a single ballot, with the top vote-getters advancing to the general election.
Only voters registered with a specific party can vote in that party's closed primary.
Answer: True
A closed primary system restricts participation to voters who are registered members of the political party holding the primary.
Open primaries allow voters to participate in any party's primary, regardless of their own party registration.
Answer: True
In an open primary system, voters do not need to be affiliated with a party to vote in its primary; they can choose which party's ballot to cast on election day.
A semi-closed primary system allows registered members of a party to vote in another party's primary.
Answer: False
In a semi-closed primary, registered party members must vote in their own party's primary, but unaffiliated voters may choose which party's primary to participate in.
In a nonpartisan blanket primary, the top two vote-getters advance to the general election, irrespective of their political party.
Answer: True
This describes the 'top-two' variant of the nonpartisan blanket primary, where all candidates compete on a single ballot, and the two highest vote-getters proceed to the general election.
A unified primary uses approval voting, where voters can only select one candidate.
Answer: False
A unified primary, or 'top-two approval primary,' utilizes approval voting, which allows voters to support as many candidates as they deem acceptable, not just one.
The 'partisan two-round system' uses a non-partisan blanket primary approach.
Answer: False
The 'partisan two-round system' is distinct from a nonpartisan blanket primary. The former typically involves party nominations within a runoff structure, while the latter features all candidates on one ballot, with the top two advancing regardless of party.
Candidates in closed primaries typically focus on appealing to a broad, moderate electorate.
Answer: False
In closed primaries, candidates often focus on mobilizing the party's base, which may hold more ideologically distinct views, rather than appealing to a broad, moderate electorate.
The 'jungle primary' system is a type of partisan primary where only party members can vote.
Answer: False
The 'jungle primary' (or top-two primary) is a nonpartisan system where all candidates compete on a single ballot, and the top two vote-getters advance, regardless of party affiliation.
Which type of primary restricts voting to only registered members of a specific political party?
Answer: Closed Primary
A closed primary system exclusively permits voters registered with a particular political party to cast ballots in that party's primary election.
What distinguishes an open primary from a closed primary?
Answer: Open primaries allow any registered voter to participate, while closed primaries only allow party members.
The key difference lies in voter eligibility: open primaries permit any registered voter to participate in any party's primary, whereas closed primaries restrict participation to voters formally registered with that specific party.
In a semi-closed primary system, who is allowed to participate?
Answer: Registered party members vote in their own primary, and unaffiliated voters can choose one party's primary.
A semi-closed primary allows registered party members to vote in their party's primary, while also permitting voters not affiliated with any party to select which party's primary they wish to participate in.
What is the defining characteristic of a nonpartisan blanket primary's 'top-two' variant?
Answer: All candidates appear on one ballot, and the top two vote-getters advance to the general election.
In the 'top-two' variant of a nonpartisan blanket primary, all candidates are listed on a single ballot, and the two individuals who receive the most votes proceed to the general election, irrespective of their party affiliation.
How might candidate campaign strategies differ between closed and open primaries, according to the median voter theorem?
Answer: In closed primaries, candidates appeal to party bases (potentially more extreme); in open primaries, they may appeal to a broader, more moderate electorate.
In closed primaries, candidates often target the party faithful, who may hold more ideologically distinct views. In open primaries, candidates may need to appeal to a wider range of voters, potentially including moderates, to secure nomination and prepare for the general election.
What is the nickname for Louisiana's 'top-two' primary system, where all candidates are on one ballot?
Answer: The Jungle Primary
Louisiana's 'top-two' primary system, where all candidates compete on a single ballot and the top two advance to the general election regardless of party, is commonly referred to as the 'jungle primary'.
What is the 'jungle primary' system, also known as a 'top-two' system?
Answer: A system where all candidates are on one ballot, and the top two advance.
The 'jungle primary' or 'top-two' system is a nonpartisan electoral format where all candidates appear on a single ballot, and the two highest vote-getters, regardless of party affiliation, advance to the general election.
The progressive movement in the U.S. sought to increase the power of party leaders in candidate selection.
Answer: False
The progressive movement advocated for direct primaries precisely to reduce the power of party bosses and leaders, transferring candidate selection authority to the electorate.
The McGovern-Fraser Commission was established after the 1968 presidential election controversies.
Answer: True
The McGovern-Fraser Commission was formed by the Democratic Party in response to the contentious 1968 National Convention and subsequent nomination process, aiming to reform delegate selection rules.
'White primaries' were legal until the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Smith v. Allwright in 1944.
Answer: True
The Supreme Court's decision in Smith v. Allwright (1944) declared the exclusion of Black voters from primary elections unconstitutional, effectively ending the practice of 'white primaries'.
Critics argue that early presidential primary states like Iowa and New Hampshire give too little influence to voters.
Answer: False
A primary criticism is that early states wield disproportionate influence, potentially giving a small number of voters excessive power in shaping the nomination process.
The counterargument to criticism of early primary states suggests they help vet candidates for fitness.
Answer: True
Proponents argue that the rigorous scrutiny candidates face in early primary states serves as a valuable mechanism for assessing their qualifications and suitability for office.
Iowa holds the first presidential primary, while New Hampshire holds the first presidential caucus.
Answer: False
Iowa traditionally holds the first presidential caucus, and New Hampshire holds the first presidential primary.
The 1968 Democratic National Convention controversy led to reduced reliance on state primaries.
Answer: False
The controversy surrounding the 1968 convention led to increased reliance on state primaries as a means of delegate selection, aiming to democratize the nomination process.
The progressive movement supported primaries to consolidate power among party bosses.
Answer: False
The progressive movement championed direct primaries as a means to democratize candidate selection, thereby diminishing the influence of party bosses and empowering rank-and-file voters.
Which historical movement in the United States is credited with the development of primary elections?
Answer: The Progressive Movement
The Progressive Movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries advocated for and implemented direct primary elections as a reform to democratize the process of candidate selection.
What was the main outcome recommended by the McGovern-Fraser Commission regarding presidential nominations?
Answer: A requirement for states to hold primaries.
Following the 1968 convention controversies, the McGovern-Fraser Commission recommended reforms that led to a significant increase in the number of states holding presidential primaries, thereby altering the nomination process.
What is a common criticism leveled against the early states (like Iowa and New Hampshire) in the U.S. presidential primary schedule?
Answer: They give disproportionate influence to a small number of voters.
A frequent criticism is that the early scheduling of primaries and caucuses in states like Iowa and New Hampshire grants disproportionate influence to voters in those states, potentially shaping the nomination race before voters in larger states have had their say.
Leadership elections in parliamentary systems are analogous to primaries, determining the party's candidate for head of government.
Answer: True
In many parliamentary systems, the leader of the majority party typically becomes the head of government. Therefore, internal party leadership elections function similarly to primaries in selecting the party's candidate for this high office.
European primaries are generally organized by the public administration, similar to the U.S. system.
Answer: False
In most European countries, primaries are typically organized and administered by the political parties themselves, contrasting with the U.S. system where they are often managed by state election authorities.
The Socialist Party of France held its first open primary in 2011.
Answer: True
The Socialist Party of France conducted its inaugural open primary in October 2011, a significant development in European party nomination practices.
The Lisbon Treaty requires European Parliament elections to be considered when selecting the President of the European Commission.
Answer: True
The Lisbon Treaty mandates that the results of European Parliament elections must be taken into account during the selection process for the President of the European Commission.
In Canada, party leaders are typically chosen through delegated conventions, not direct member votes.
Answer: False
While delegated conventions were historically common, many Canadian parties have shifted towards direct elections where all party members can vote for the leader.
Russian primaries are often criticized for being non-binding and having results ignored by party leadership.
Answer: True
Primaries in Russia, particularly those conducted by major parties, have faced criticism for lacking binding force and for outcomes that may be disregarded by party leadership.
The 2020 Hong Kong pro-democracy primaries aimed to select candidates for the Legislative Council election.
Answer: True
The pro-democracy primaries held in Hong Kong in 2020 were organized to choose candidates for the territory's Legislative Council elections.
Party headquarters in Canada never intervene in local candidate nominations.
Answer: False
Canadian party headquarters can, and sometimes do, intervene in local nominations, for instance, by approving candidates or strategically placing prominent figures in specific electoral districts.
How are leadership elections in parliamentary systems often similar to U.S. primaries?
Answer: They select the party's candidate for head of government.
In parliamentary systems, the leader of the majority party typically becomes the head of government. Therefore, internal party leadership elections function analogously to primaries by determining the party's candidate for this crucial executive position.
How do the organization and administration of primaries typically differ between the U.S. and most European countries?
Answer: European primaries are run by parties; U.S. primaries are run by the government.
In the United States, primaries are generally administered by state and local governments. Conversely, in most European countries, primaries are typically organized and managed directly by the political parties themselves.
The Lisbon Treaty's influence on the European Commission Presidency selection encourages parties to:
Answer: Hold primaries to select their candidate for Commission President.
The Lisbon Treaty requires that the outcome of European Parliament elections be considered when selecting the Commission President. This has incentivized European political parties to designate and promote candidates for this role, often through primary processes.
How have Canadian political parties evolved in selecting their leaders?
Answer: They have shifted from delegated conventions towards direct elections by all members.
Historically, Canadian parties often used delegated conventions for leadership selection. However, there has been a notable trend towards direct elections, allowing all registered party members to vote for the leader.
How are primaries in Russia often described in contrast to the U.S. system?
Answer: Less transparent and often non-binding.
Russian primaries are frequently characterized as less transparent and often non-binding, with results potentially subject to the discretion of party leadership, contrasting with the more formalized and publicly administered primaries in the U.S.
The 'spoiler effect' occurs when a third-party candidate causes a major candidate to lose by drawing votes away.
Answer: True
The spoiler effect describes the phenomenon where a third-party or independent candidate draws votes away from a major candidate, potentially altering the election outcome in favor of another major candidate.
The 'no-show paradox' describes a situation where a candidate wins even if they receive fewer votes than another.
Answer: False
The no-show paradox refers to situations where a voter's abstention from voting could potentially change the election outcome, or a candidate's win/loss status could change based on voter turnout patterns.
The median voter theorem suggests candidates in a two-party system will move towards the political center.
Answer: True
The median voter theorem posits that in a competitive electoral environment, candidates will tend to adopt policy positions closer to the center to maximize their appeal to the median voter.
Strategic voting involves voters choosing their most preferred candidate, regardless of electability.
Answer: False
Strategic voting occurs when a voter casts a ballot for a candidate they perceive as more likely to win or to prevent a less desirable outcome, rather than for their most preferred candidate.
Condorcet's Paradox illustrates how collective preferences can be cyclical and lack a stable winner.
Answer: True
Condorcet's Paradox demonstrates that under certain preference profiles, pairwise majority comparisons can result in a cycle (A beats B, B beats C, C beats A), meaning no single candidate is preferred over all others.
The 'tyranny of the majority' refers to a minority group imposing its will on the majority.
Answer: False
The 'tyranny of the majority' describes the potential for a dominant majority group to oppress or disregard the rights and interests of minority groups within a democratic system.
The 'sincere favorite criterion' suggests voters should rank candidates strategically, not necessarily truthfully.
Answer: False
The 'sincere favorite criterion' implies that voters should be able to rank candidates truthfully without negative consequences, rather than needing to employ strategic ranking.
Truncation in voting strategy means ranking all candidates from most to least preferred.
Answer: False
Truncation in voting strategy involves not ranking all candidates, often to avoid 'wasting' a vote on a candidate perceived as having little chance of winning.
A 'wasted vote' is always a vote for a losing candidate.
Answer: False
A 'wasted vote' can also refer to a vote cast for a candidate who has already secured enough votes to win, as the additional votes do not affect the outcome.
The 'independence of clones' paradox suggests adding identical candidates can alter election outcomes.
Answer: True
The 'independence of clones' paradox highlights how the introduction of a candidate identical or very similar to another can potentially change the election winner, violating the principle that such additions should not affect relative rankings.
The Condorcet winner criterion ensures that a candidate preferred over all others pairwise is elected.
Answer: True
The Condorcet winner criterion mandates that if a candidate defeats every other candidate in head-to-head comparisons, that candidate must be declared the winner.
The 'best-is-worst paradox' occurs when ranking a candidate lower helps them win.
Answer: True
The 'best-is-worst paradox' describes a situation where a voter's strategic decision to rank their preferred candidate lower might paradoxically lead to that candidate winning, or conversely, ranking a disliked candidate higher might lead to their defeat.
The 'multiple districts paradox' involves a candidate winning overall but losing individual districts.
Answer: False
The 'multiple districts paradox' typically refers to a candidate winning the popular vote nationwide but losing the election due to the structure of electoral districts (e.g., the Electoral College), or vice versa, where winning individual districts does not guarantee an overall victory.
Liquid democracy allows voters only to vote directly on issues, not delegate their vote.
Answer: False
Liquid democracy is characterized by the ability of voters to either vote directly on issues or delegate their voting power to trusted representatives, offering flexibility in participation.
Gibbard's theorem states that any non-dictatorial voting system with three or more options is immune to strategic voting.
Answer: False
Gibbard's theorem asserts the opposite: any non-dictatorial voting system with three or more alternatives is susceptible to strategic voting, meaning voters may benefit from misrepresenting their preferences.
The McKelvey–Schofield chaos theorem suggests stable majority winners are common in spatial voting models.
Answer: False
The McKelvey–Schofield chaos theorem suggests that in spatial voting models with three or more alternatives, stable majority winners are often absent, and outcomes can be highly sensitive to the order of voting.
The 'tyranny of the majority' relates to the potential for a dominant group to oppress minorities.
Answer: True
The concept of the 'tyranny of the majority' addresses the risk that a majority faction in a democracy might enact policies or exert power that infringes upon the rights or interests of minority groups.
The Condorcet loser criterion ensures that a candidate who loses to everyone else pairwise is not elected.
Answer: True
The Condorcet loser criterion posits that a candidate who is defeated by every other candidate in pairwise comparisons should not win the election. Many runoff systems satisfy this criterion.
The 'independence of irrelevant alternatives' (IIA) criterion is violated if removing a losing candidate changes the winner.
Answer: True
The Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives (IIA) criterion states that the winner should remain unchanged if a losing candidate is removed or if voters alter their preferences between two losing candidates. A violation occurs when this condition is not met.
Which voting paradox describes a situation where election outcomes might change simply because some voters abstain?
Answer: The No-Show Paradox
The 'no-show paradox' refers to the counterintuitive possibility that a voter's decision not to participate in an election could alter the outcome, potentially changing the winner or loser.
According to the median voter theorem, what strategy do candidates in a two-party system typically employ?
Answer: Adopt policies close to the center to appeal to the median voter.
The median voter theorem predicts that in a competitive two-party system, candidates will tend to moderate their platforms and converge towards the political center to capture the support of the median voter.
What does 'strategic voting' entail?
Answer: Voting for a candidate perceived as more likely to win, rather than one's top choice.
Strategic voting involves casting a ballot not for one's most preferred candidate, but for another candidate deemed more electable or strategically advantageous, often to prevent an undesirable outcome.
The concept of the 'tyranny of the majority' primarily concerns:
Answer: The potential for a majority to oppress or disregard minority rights.
The 'tyranny of the majority' refers to the potential danger in a democracy where a majority group could impose its will upon minority groups, potentially infringing upon their fundamental rights and interests.
Which voting paradox occurs when adding a 'clone' or identical candidate can change the election winner?
Answer: The Independence of Clones Paradox
The 'independence of clones' paradox describes a situation where the introduction of a candidate nearly identical to another can alter the election outcome, contrary to the expectation that such additions should not affect the relative standing of the original candidates.
What does the 'Condorcet winner criterion' require?
Answer: The winner must be the candidate preferred in pairwise comparisons against all other candidates.
The Condorcet winner criterion stipulates that if a candidate is preferred by a majority over every other individual candidate in direct pairwise comparisons, that candidate must win the election.
What is 'liquid democracy' as mentioned in the context of electoral systems?
Answer: A representative system where voters can delegate their vote to others.
Liquid democracy is an electoral model that combines direct and representative democracy, allowing individuals to vote directly on issues or delegate their vote to a chosen proxy, who can then vote on their behalf.
Gibbard's theorem implies that for most voting systems (with 3+ options), voters:
Answer: May benefit from voting strategically (misrepresenting preferences).
Gibbard's theorem demonstrates that in any non-dictatorial voting system with at least three alternatives, voters may find it advantageous to vote strategically, meaning they can achieve a better outcome by not expressing their true preferences.
What is the primary goal of the 'median voter theorem'?
Answer: To predict how candidates in a competitive (often two-party) system will adjust their platforms.
The median voter theorem aims to predict the behavior of candidates in competitive electoral systems, suggesting they will tend to adopt policy positions close to the median voter's preferences to maximize their chances of winning.
Caucuses and conventions are the only alternative methods parties use besides primaries to select candidates.
Answer: False
While caucuses and conventions are significant alternative methods, parties may also employ other mechanisms such as direct nomination by leadership or internal party committee selections.
Party raiding is a strategy used in closed primaries to influence nominations.
Answer: False
Party raiding is a tactic employed in open or semi-open primaries, where members of one party attempt to influence the nomination of another party, typically by voting for a weaker candidate.
A 'sore loser law' prevents a candidate who lost a primary from running as an independent in the general election.
Answer: True
Sore loser laws are regulations designed to prohibit candidates who were defeated in a party primary from subsequently running as independent or third-party candidates in the general election.
An exhaustive ballot eliminates the candidate with the *most* votes in the first round.
Answer: False
In an exhaustive ballot system, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated in each round, continuing until a candidate achieves a majority.
A 'sore loser law' aims to prevent candidates who lost primaries from running as independents.
Answer: True
Sore loser laws are designed to preclude candidates who were unsuccessful in a party primary from subsequently seeking office as an independent or third-party candidate in the general election.
Besides primaries, what is another method political parties might use to select candidates?
Answer: Caucus or convention selection
Political parties frequently utilize caucuses and conventions as alternative mechanisms for selecting candidates, particularly for higher offices or in jurisdictions where primaries are not mandated.
What is the strategic goal of 'party raiding' in open primaries?
Answer: To help a weaker candidate from the opposing party win the nomination.
Party raiding involves voters from one party participating in another party's primary with the strategic aim of influencing the outcome, often by supporting a less formidable candidate from the opposing party.
What is the purpose of a 'sore loser law' in electoral systems?
Answer: To stop candidates who lost a primary from running as independents in the general election.
Sore loser laws are enacted to prevent individuals who were defeated in a party primary from subsequently running as independent candidates in the general election, thereby maintaining the integrity of the party nomination process.