American Government Mock Election Puts Politics Into Practice at GU
Published: May 06, 2024
Author: Kollin Fields, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of History Director, McAllaster Schola
James Madison writes in Federalist 10 that “Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires.” Madison and the Founders believed that factions, which meant groups of people with common interests, were inevitable. A political system could avoid factions, but only at the expense of eliminating liberty. Thus, in America, the idea is to guarantee a degree of personal liberty, even while knowing that Americans will group up and form factions. Madison describes in the same essay a roadmap for controlling the potentially pernicious effects of factionalism. In the “extended republic” that was to be the United States, the solution was to increase the range of territory in which citizens lived. This is counterintuitive since more territory would mean more factions and thus more divisiveness, but Madison suggested that more factions would make it even more difficult for any one group (or, in our day, any one political party) to dominate the political landscape. Perhaps he was proven right, as even in our two-party system, Americans have a menu of political options, whether at the local, county, state, or federal level. The pendulum of presidential officeholders, as but one example, might validate Madison’s theory, as no single party has been able to control the presidency for long.
While Madison was likely correct that the extended republic could prevent a political monopoly, it’s possible he didn’t foresee the way that two large factions, such as political parties, could divide average Americans. In our modern two-party system, it can often seem like politics is us-versus-them, all-or-nothing. Experts describe a trend of extreme “polarization,” where Americans just can’t seem to get along politically. The political philosopher Robert Talisse suggests we’re “overdoing democracy,” meaning we are infusing politics into areas of life that aren’t inherently political. His remedy is to “put politics in its place” and return to a sense of normalcy where politics are just part of life, not its entirety. Of course, this course correction depends in large part on future generations of Americans. With that in mind, the American Government course at GU has, for the last few years, conducted a semester-long Mock Election process, where our students can put healthy politics into practice as they prepare to engage the civic community after their time in Greenville.
On the first day of class each semester, my students and I discuss what it means to be “political.” For Aristotle, humans are “political animals,” meaning they aspire to their best selves in a political community. For the Greeks, this was the polis, defined as the city-state or citizen-state. For Americans, this might be New York, L.A., Dallas, and even here in Greenville. So the question is, I think especially for Christians, how do we engage one another as both believers and “political animals”? How do we agree and disagree with one another as members of various “factions”? As I tell students, politics are a part of life whether they participate or not. So, to be “political” can mean several different things, but in this course, we cover a variety of ways to participate, including voting in elections, writing one’s representative, joining an interest group, or even something as simple as posting on social media. All of this has the potential to be political action, and it’s my aim to give students space to think seriously about these topics and issues, and also to learn how politics operate in practice.
The Mock Election has several different components. Students first complete a personality questionnaire and then are arranged in groups based on perceived strengths, such as public speaking, social media management, and organizational abilities. After they are in groups, students must first complete a “Statement of Organization,” where they give their party a name, logo, and motto. We’ve had an array of party names and concepts, from the Pretty in Pink Party catered especially to women to the Separatist Party, whose idea is to establish separate national governments. The point is not necessarily to construct the perfect party or government but to begin thinking politically: what message resonates with voters, and what will convince them to vote for their party? After this, parties create platforms to replicate national platforms. They write policy views on everything from the size of government to the budget to civil liberties. With a clearer party identity, we glean a better sense of the “factions” that have formed and begin thinking about how to win the election.
Throughout the semester, students create websites for their candidates, social media profiles, flyers and posters, and even campaign advertisements. All of these features give students real-world experience in thinking and acting politically. They are forced to confront real political issues, but also to play the game of politics which is how to win an election. Some parties run negative ads against fellow candidates, which is a useful window into the strategy of politics, while others present their parties as positive and inclusive. Halfway through the semester, the class participates in a Mock Debate, where candidates have time to present their views, engage in discourse with one another, and answer questions from both the moderator (myself) and the audience (their fellow classmates). The class is polled afterward and cannot vote for their own candidate. Determining the winner of the debate is an interesting exercise in voter psychology, thinking through what appeals to voters and their perceptions of candidates. Some voters, both in class and in the real world, may simply prefer a candidate who looks and sounds intelligent, while others may care more about the issues at stake.
Toward the end of the semester, a Mock Election is held on campus in which any student, staff member, or faculty can vote for one of the candidates. Parties are prohibited from campaigning near the polling booth, but are encouraged to campaign elsewhere on campus. This semester, some parties passed out flyers during Election Day, others gave out candy and bracelets, and some were hopeful that the various flyers and emails sent out during the semester would be enough to win the election. The experiment averages about a 25% voter turnout from the total student body, and while this may seem low, is a bit higher than average voter rates in local elections, which are as low as 15% in some parts of the country. Of course, in presidential elections, voter turnout is much higher, averaging between 50-60% of eligible voters. This year’s winner of the Mock Election earned 47% of all GU votes, which was quite a bit higher than other parties. What is interesting about the numbers, both here and in real elections, is that the winner can be determined by a relatively small minority of eligible voters. If we look at a real presidential election, for example, the noteworthy statistics include not only the results of the Electoral College but also the Popular Vote as a percentage of eligible voters. This means that if only 60% of Americans vote in a real presidential election, and the Popular Vote is fairly even, the winner is determined by about 30% of all eligible voters across the country. This is likely a surprising fact for your average American, but it reveals something about how politics function in reality. The largest “faction” of Americans, both in the Mock Election and in real elections, is the non-voter. So for both my students and real political parties, the challenge is in either getting non-voters to the polls or in convincing voters to switch parties.
Of course, the Mock Election has its limitations. “Voters” are not required to register, there are no mail-in or absentee ballots, and the stakes are not all that high. “Exit Polls” conducted on-site during our Mock Election Day concluded that many voters voted for a candidate simply because they knew them personally or liked their messaging, and typically not because they were familiar with their views, despite their views being readily available. But even this is in some ways indicative of real-world politics, where voters often appreciate “signals” from a candidate or party more so than their official platforms. For instance, voters may like a slogan, photo-op, TV advertisement, or social media post, which convinces them that a candidate is the best person for the job. And more often than not, voters associate with a political ideology or party more than they do a candidate’s specific policy views. This is not to suggest that voters are tricked into voting for someone; as we discussed in class, people have lives to live, and politics is only one part of that life. Political parties and ideologies give Americans a bit of a “shortcut” when it comes time to vote: they often trust that the party or the ideology is the best way to determine how to cast their ballot. This sometimes results in straight-ticket voting, where voters vote for a Republican or Democrat, sometimes not even necessarily knowing the candidates or their views. This plays into the game of politics because parties and candidates either have to go after non-voters or convince enough partisans to switch teams, as it were. At the end of the day, students in the Mock Election are sometimes left guessing as to why a voter did or did not vote for them. Here and in the real world, we can be confident that there is little less sure in politics than a “sure thing.”
As a final note, we might consider what Exit Polling from our GU Mock Election tells us about trends in politics. Historically, younger Americans vote less often than older Americans. In the 2020 Presidential Election, the age group of 18-34 voted at higher rates than in previous elections but still trailed older groups by about 15% in terms of turnout. This may indicate that younger Americans are trending up in terms of political participation, and perhaps this year’s presidential election will confirm or deny the trajectory. Nonetheless, GU voters in the Mock Election were asked a few anonymous questions after voting, and the results are telling. Out of 191 voters, 58 completed exit polls, which means the results are indicative of 30% of all voters and about 7% of the overall student body. While this may seem low, typical “sample polls” represent a much smaller percentage of the population, sometimes as few as 1,000 out of 200 million or so adult-aged citizens. So, while we cannot claim that our GU Exit Polls represent all Americans, we can suggest that they represent some of the views of our current students. Even more convincingly, our exit polling spans a fairly even cross-section of the student body: 33 respondents were female, and 25 were male; 19 were freshmen, 12 were sophomores, 15 were juniors, and 12 were seniors. At the very least, we can say that the exit polling data is not exclusive to a particular sex or class.
Some of the questions from the anonymous polling asked about the perceived level of political identity, such as “extremely interested in politics,” “somewhat interested,” or “not interested.” Another question asked about past behavior in local, state, and federal elections, and then finally, if and/or for whom they plan to vote in the 2024 Presidential Election. The results are interesting and give us a window into the politics of our students. About 26% of respondents reported that they were “not interested in politics.” 57% described themselves as “somewhat interested in politics,” and the remaining 17% identified as “extremely interested in politics.” To the extent that identifying as either somewhat or extremely interested in politics correlates with voting rates, our exit polls are in keeping with national trends. For instance, 67% of eligible voters voted in the 2020 Presidential Election. If we assume that those polled at GU who identified as “not interested in politics” imply that they have not, or regularly do not, vote in national elections, this likewise correlates with the remaining third or so of the country who at least did not vote in the most recent presidential election. Of note in this particular category, however, is that if we divide those polled between “older” and “younger” students, i.e. freshmen/sophomore versus junior/senior, the data indicates that younger students vastly outnumber older students in the category of “extremely interested in politics” at a rate of 4 to 1. While inconclusive, this could indicate an upward trend in students who would classify themselves as “extremely interested in politics.”
Another area of the survey asked respondents if they had ever voted in a local, state, and/or federal election. The results are a bit murky because, with college-aged students, we cannot be sure how long they’ve been eligible to vote. But if we only consider results from juniors and seniors, with the assumption that they’ve been eligible to vote in at least one election since turning 18, we can draw some conclusions. Of this “older students” group, 26% reported that they have never voted in any election at any level. From the group of students who have voted in at least one election, 50% have voted in a local election, 45% have voted for statewide office, and 35% have voted in a federal congressional election. Interestingly, the fact that 50% of the “older students” category has voted in a local election is out-of-line with the typically low voter turnouts for local elections, but we must also keep in mind that the response indicated having voted in at least one local election, and therefore we cannot assume this same group regularly votes in local elections. Nevertheless, it could suggest that college students are increasingly more interested in local politics.
Finally, as we look ahead to this year’s presidential election, we might consider the exit polling data that asked respondents if they intend to vote in the election and, if so, for whom. The options included “the Republican nominee,” “the Democratic nominee,” 3rd party or write-in, and a final option of “I do not intend to vote in the 2024 Presidential election.” The data from this last question is more telling than other electoral data points since it may be safely assumed that the vast majority of respondents are eligible to vote in the upcoming election. Only 36% of the respondents reported that they intend to vote for either the Republican or Democratic nominee, and of this group, there is a clear preference for one of the major parties over the other, indicating a sense of strong partisanship among those polled who plan to vote for a major party. Also of note, of all students who intend to vote in the election, 22% intend to vote for a 3rd party or perform a write-in. Three respondents expressly indicated that they do not plan to vote in the election. Finally, and perhaps most telling, is the fact that of the 58 respondents, 30 did not indicate whether they plan to vote in the election. This absence of information could mean a few things.
It’s possible that these students have not made up their minds about the upcoming election, including whether or not they intend to vote, and if so, for whom. It’s also possible that though the surveys were anonymous, they did not feel comfortable expressing a political preference when actual party names were used in the question. Based on other sections of the survey, it’s clear that most students were comfortable answering generic questions about political perceptions and past voter behavior, but there is a stark dropoff in responses when students were asked about their personal politics as they pertain to an upcoming election. This might confirm feelings of polarization in American society at large, where students, in this case, do not want to be so closely identified with their politics, even if they have a clear plan or preference for the election. This may remind some readers of Nixon’s idea of the “Silent Majority”: those Americans who don’t wear their politics on their sleeve but go to the polls nonetheless. Only time will tell how these undecided students, and undecided Americans in general, behave politically in the coming months and years.
At the end of the day, we would do well to reconsider Madison’s idea of factions. We might reflect on the various factions to which we all belong and the role we play in fostering healthy political action and dialogue. If we agree with Madison that factions are inevitable—and coming from a Dallas Cowboys fan, I can attest to the presence of factions—we as Christians should lead the way in putting the love of neighbor before political partisanship. It is my hope that the Mock Election prepares our students to better navigate the complicated vista of American politics.
