Whose preferences count in the electoral process?

Citizenship as defined before and after 1868.
Before: each state defined citizenship, and citizens of a state were also citizens of the US. (Slaves were not citizens.)

After: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." (Amendment XIV, section 1.)

Franchise (the right to vote):
Article I, section 2. Electors (for the House) in each state "shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.:"

Amendments XV, XIX, XXVI: note the negative phrasing in each case.
And note the second sentence in each of the 3 amendments.

Amendments XIX and XXVI did not need "appropriate legislation." Why?

Amendment XV did need "appropriate legislation," which it did not get for 95 years. Why?
                    1. Literacy tests in many of the 11 Confederate states. (see test on p. 138 from Light)
                    2. Grandfather clause connected with the literacy test
                    3. Poll tax (but see Amendment XXIV)

                    The VRA abolished literacy tests in 7 states that used them and had a registration rate of less than 50% of voting age residents,
                        and demanded advance clearance by DOJ of changes in election laws in areas covered by above trigger mechanism.
                    US Attorney General authorized to send federal examiners to assure that legally qualified persons would be registered.

                    Voting Rights Act was amended in 1970, 1975 and 1982:

From assuring that blacks were not discriminated against in the drawing of district lines
                    (See Mississippi maps: before and after black enfranchisement.)
            … to drawing district lines to assure the election of blacks.
                    (See map of NC 12^th district on p. 315 of Light).

Can you imagine how policies like these led simultaneously to a dramatic increase in the number of blacks in Congress, and a Republican majority?

Does the drawing of "majority minority districts" suggest that proponents think race is more important than other dimensions of political life?

How do the preferences of those with the right to vote count? What are the issues? What do voters want or think they want?

Once upon a time the Gods set up a society with two kinds of people, Xs and Ys.
    Ys were given power and privilege.
    Xs were made subordinate.
    Ys would have the opportunity to achieve the full range of positions in society, including the maximum in power, wealth and prestige.
    Xs would be denied these chances, and were taught not to want them.

But the subordinate Xs were not segregated into separate neighborhoods or communities, where they might realize their common plight, organize, and perhaps even revolt.

Instead, Xs were integrated with the Ys on a largely one-to-one basis. Most Xs were assigned to a single Y, and even had a lot of choice about which Y they would live with.

Xs would live with compatible Ys, and cook, clean and shop for them. They would even share intimate physical gratification to the occasional enjoyment of both.

Since Xs were integrated into the hierarchical class structure of the Ys, they didn’t think of themselves as subordinate. They thought of themselves as middle class if the Ys with whom they lived were middle class. Or they thought of themselves as working class if the Ys with whom they lived were working class. In this way they did not even notice their common subordinate status as Xs.

Many of the subordinate Xs took active pleasure in their status. Some would say "I enjoy being an X." Xs accepted their condition as natural and fair, because they had never known anything else.

This society was one of the most effective systems of subordination ever designed. It subjugated one half the population for the ostensible benefit of the other half without the use of force and with almost no risk of revolt.

Participation exercise of the right to vote.
        Voter participation or turnout in US presidential elections is about 50% of eligible voters.

        Turnout for off-year elections, for state and local elections, and for primary elections is even lower.

        Why? Why do individuals participate or not?      An individual level "calculus of voting:"

        Without D, the expected value of voting would be negative for almost everyone.

What difference would it make if turnout were higher?
We know that presidential election outcomes would have been the same in
        1964 Johnson (D) vs. Goldwater (R)
        1968 Nixon ( R ) vs. Humphrey (D) vs Wallace (I)
           1980 Reagan ( R ) vs. Carter (D) vs, Anderson (I)
           1988 Bush ( R ) vs. Dukakis (D).
Because we know the preferences of the non-voters from polls.
But maybe the nature of the options would differ if candidates knew that everyone would vote or if they knew that more of the have-nots would vote.

How much difference is there between Republicans and Democrats? And would it be greater if we knew that lower income and lower education people would vote in the same proportions as higher income and education people?

Participation as a collective action problem
Imagine that there are two groups in society, the rich and the poor. Each is interested in government providing a public good of interest to them.

The public goods might be a clean air program for the rich, and a job training program for the poor.
For each group, which we will consider as having three persons, it takes two persons voting to get the program.

Under such circumstances, voting is a collective action problem with other people who want the same policies, like contributing taxes for national defense (see topic 2).

Consider the calculus of voting without the D term. For the person choosing to vote or not (choosing between rows), not voting is (almost) always better than voting.
 

	No other vote	One other vote	Two other votes
Vote	-C	B – C	B – C
Abstain	0	0	B

Groups with a higher D term may get more benefits from government because the D term helps them overcome the collective action problem and .secure the benefit that they want.