Assignment 1: Elections, democracy, and the media analysis

Prokop Diana (12341692)

Why do US presidential elections focus on the candidate rather than the party?
US presidential elections have gradually become a single-candidate struggle rather than a
party parish. Consequently, this shift towards candidate-centered elections provides the main
implications for the nature of electoral campaigns, and generally, political processes rarely
engage in voters. Or, in other words, as described above, the combination of the historical,
institutional, and media causes amplified by the cultural factors seems to play a major role in
paying more attention to the individual candidates compared to political parties during the US
presidential election time.
Historical and Institutional Factors
The basics and structure of the US political system have inherently plagued its presidential
elections with a candidate-centered approach. Very important components in the system
devised by the framers of the Constitution were those of individual leadership and
accountability. Under the electoral college system, votes had to be garnered individually on a
state-by-state basis, which fostered a focus on the personal campaign over the party platform.
The rise of primary elections in the early 20th century shifted emphasis from parties to
individual candidates. In open primaries, the authority over party nominees is handed to the
electorates, which reduces holds of the party elites on nominations and places a premium on
candidate appeal (Norrander, 2015). Under this system, candidates are encouraged to have
special personal brands, appeal directly to constituents other than rely upon the infrastructure
of the party.
Media Influences and Technology
The mass media, and especially television, have undoubtedly fostered candidate-
centeredness with respect to U.S. presidential elections by projecting candidates into the
living rooms of voters. Issues of personal image and media presence are now central to
gaining electoral success. This development is clearly attested to by the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon
debate, in which Kennedy's telegenic presence was to prove decisive. Social media platforms
like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram have further personalized presidential elections in the
digital age. They allow candidates to reach voters directly, sidestepping traditional party
structures and media gatekeepers. This kind of direct contact maintains a closer relationship
between candidates and the electorate, hence reinforcing the candidate-centered campaign.
Cultural Factors
 To that effect, the strong emphasis that American political culture places on individualism
and personal achievement sets the role of candidates in motion. Very often, voters want
leaders with personal virtues and leadership qualities which set them distinct. This cultural
preference for a charismatic and strong leader, observed Lasswell in 1930, is in accord with a
more general emphasis on success. The American system of politics is one of personal
charisma and leadership capability, tending to be illustrated in candidates at media and
campaign rallies. The making of powerful, independent leaders who express the nation very
well is sustained by a cultural base.
The Role of Political Parties
While political parties are an integral factor, their role with respect to US presidential
elections has changed over the years. Although parties do indeed take care of most of the
organizational apparatus and resources for campaigns, at the same time, the focus on
individual candidates often eclipses party platforms. Schmitter and Karl (1991) have argued
that the ability of political parties to structure political competition and present options to the
electorate is undeniable. However, candidate-centered emphasis has only been increasing
pressurizing candidates to define the agendas for parties. This is evident in the way that party
platforms are reshaped through primary contests and in the influence candidates have when
gaining election to Congress, whereby personal stories and individual policy proposals come
to overshadow any kind of party agenda.
Voter Behaviour Implications
More importantly, voter behavior becomes candidate-centered and party-centered. They
would base their decisions on the personal attributes, leadership qualities, and policy stand of
a given candidate rather than party affiliation. It will increase variability in the preferences of
voters and make the electoral prospects more dynamic and unpredictable. Moreover, the
personalization of presidential elections can lead to increased voter turnout as individuals feel
closer to a particular candidate than they do about a political party. This too might lead to
disillusionment amongst voters in case the promised goals are not achieved by the candidates
or if the personal flaws of these candidates come to light.
Conclusion
A combination of historical, institutional, media, and cultural explanations has driven the
presidency to its position of prominence in American elections. Furthermore, those same
factors have also dramatically redefined electoral campaigns, voter action, and political
parties, transforming them to be more candidate-centered in the operation. Therefore, a
candidate himself was more and more seen as prevailing in the modern political space during
the election of US presidents.

What are the implications for:

(1) a candidate’s electoral strategy
Personal brand management
Personal branding and image management are critical elements of a candidate's electoral
strategy. Candidates have to project a persuasive brand of their personality that appeals to the
electorate. Clothing, mannerisms, speech style, and other aspects of public image need to be
managed very carefully.
A successful candidate, according to Newman, 1999, creates a consumable narrative that
makes them seem trustworthy, down-to-earth, and able to lead their electorate. This narrative
is relevant to developing a strong emotional bond between the presidential candidate and the
people. For example, Barack Obama's campaign in 2008 used "Hope and Change" as a way
of building his positive image; this made him very attractive to many Americans. By contrast,
Hillary Clinton's 2016 run became a trust issue, which was one of the main reasons she lost it
(Sides, Tesler, & Vavreck, 2018).
Targeted Campaigning
This system clearly forces presidential candidates to become strategic about the countries
in which they campaign, swing states, and significant demographics. This has to include
tailoring the message to deal with issues and themes that are of utmost concern or appeal to
constituents within those very pivotal areas.
Data-driven campaigning is a way to identify and target specific voter segments, according
to Shaw 2006. State-of-the-art data analytics helps modern campaigns understand the
behavior and tastes of the voters, which enables candidates to communicate relevant
messages to potential constituents. For example, Obama's 2012 campaign used data analytics
in its micro-targeting with personalized messages; this was one of the basic elements that
guaranteed his success in battleground states.
Indeed, according to Schmitter and Karl, among the first duties of a democratic system is
"to order the nature of participation among the several groups of voters" (Schmitter and Karl,
1991). Candidates therefore must be able to strike a balance between broad national appeals
for support that are invariably with strong demographic overtures.
Fund Raising and Resource Allocation.
 Fundraising and the proper allocation of resources are major components of a candidate's
electoral strategy in a candidate-centered election. Advertisement, ground operations, and
voter outreach activities are some of the very costly activities involved in any presidential
campaign.
Herrnson writes that it is the successful candidate who builds a large network of donors in
order to draw on both small-dollar contributions and large contributions. Online ways of
fundraising have become available by opening ways of reaching a broader base of donors and
democratizing the process of raising funds. For example, Bernie Sanders raised tons of
money for his 2020 campaign with small-dollar donations, which was an indication of the
power of having people at the grassroots level fundraise.
Resource allocation is also critical to ensuring good use of funds raised for a campaign.
Candidates will have to make tough decisions about allocating resources between advertising,
field operations, and voter mobilization in these key battleground states.
Adapting to Changes in Media and Technology
The shifting media landscape and new technologies deepen the electoral strategy of the
candidate. The appeal of social networking sites, such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, is
snowballing candidates into direct engagement with the electorate and creating personal
narratives outside the integrated party communication channels. Kreiss argues that, through
social media, there has been a democratization of political communication in that candidates
are now able to reach out directly to voters and engage them in a real-time dialogue. Such
kind of direct engagement suggests that candidates bond more closely with the electorate and
highlight individual personalities above party ideologies. Moreover, one has to prove that
candidates can manage their online activeness; then, because of the dynamics of digital
media, response at the moment is essential. As such, it is important to have a proactive and
responsive digital strategy.
Conclusion
This unusually strong candidate-centered nature of the US presidential election carries
deep implications for the candidate's electoral strategy. It essentially means personal
branding, issue ownership, and geographically targeted campaigning—each deployed as the
constituent elements of a frau-efficient fund-raising apparatus within the highly competitive
and fast-moving campaigning field. Fully understanding these strategic imperatives, the
candidate would master the intricacies of modern American presidential campaigns and
communicate much more effectively with his electorate.
 (2) the party influence and power of political parties
Historical and Institutional Context
History has gradually reduced the role and influence of political parties in the US electoral
system, with a shift from parties to individual candidates. Primary elections introduced at the
beginning of the 20th century reduced the influence of party elites in the nomination process
and activated voters gaining more candidate appeal. Norrander (2015) comments that on the
one hand, this democratized the electoral process, on the other hand, made it less party-
centered.
Media and Technological Changes
The rise of mass media and digital communication technologies accelerated the decline of
political parties. The role that television was allowed to play earlier is now played by social
media: the ability for candidates to reach voters on their own and circumvent traditional party
structures. Direct communication embeds personal appeals, reducing the need for party
machinery to contact and mobilize voters.
Influence on Party Cohesion/Unity
The focus on individual candidates affects intraparty cohesion and unity. With the
presence of robust personal brands, along with divergent policy views, such individuals may
set their agendas above party unity. This can create internal fissures, as recently seen in the
conflicts between the progressive and centrist wings of the Democratic Party. Schmitter and
Karl (1991) argue that political parties are "structuring competition and choices for the
electorate". However, this strong presence of many candidates could weaken the parties'
ability to have a consistent, unified policy agenda, hence weakening an influence on
governance.
Influence on mobilizing and participating in voting
Historically, political parties served as the driving forces for the mobilization of voters.
The candidate-centered campaign has changed this. Candidates design data-driven strategies
to reach out to specific voter groups, often sidestepping party-driven mobilization efforts.
Shaw (2006) makes the case that the utilization and implementation of techniques and
messages of micro-targeting in modern campaigns undercut broader, grassroots-based
mobilization normally driven by parties. This shift therefore places parties in a secondary role
related to voter engagement and outreach activities.
Policy Influence and Governance
This in turn has huge implications for the policy influence of political parties through a
candidate-centered approach to elections. Emphasizing candidates' personal goals on policy
matters could unleash inconsistency and intraparty conflict. Party leaders face difficulties
moving lawmakers toward overall party policy goals during governance. Petrocik introduced
the concept of "issue ownership," referring to how candidates focus on their expertise and
commitments in definite policy fields, which benefits individual candidates but places
problems on creating a party policy image. This tension can be vividly found within
intraparty rows between the Republican Party on issues regarding health and immigration
policies under the Trump presidency.
Conclusion
This candidate-centered nature of the US presidential elections had serious implications
for the power, influence, and strength of the political parties in the country. While parties
cannot command the same influence over campaigns and setting policy agendas, they do have
significant contributions to the process. In fact, building from the ground up and turning to
new technologies, parties can continue doing their core functions, such as structuring
elections and shaping political discourse. Knowing the dynamics behind the events is
important in understanding the complexities that exist in modern American politics and the
changed role of parties.

(3) and democratic practice

Greater Voter Participation and Accountability
A person-centered system of elections raises voter turnout and accountability. If elections
are focused on a person, the tendency is that voters begin to identify more with politics in
general. This increased level of identification can further enhance general voter engagement
as citizens become more interested in politics based on personal characteristics or policy
positions of particular candidates.
Kreiss (2016) highlights that with social media, candidates are in a position to talk directly
to voters, hence personalizing activities and creating the sense of immediacy. Direct
engagement might increase democratic participation by making voters feel involved and
informed about the electoral process.
This, therefore, leads to an increase in accountability. If the candidate is at the center of an
election, they will then be held directly responsible by the electorate regarding actions that
are to be taken and policies to be implemented. Such a direct line of accountability
strengthens democratic practice because it makes the elected official more responsive to the
issues or priorities of voters.
Effects on Democratic Institutions.
 Seen as such, this primacy accorded to individual candidates might have wider
implications for democratic institutions. Beware, for here is where, in taking centralizing
power in the executive, personalization of politics is taken: generally, winning candidates
interpret victory as a mandate for their personal agenda. What may result from here to the end
is likely an erosion of checks and balances by the executive leaders striving to bypass
legislative and judicial restraining constraints.
In addition, the emphasis on personal charisma and media presence helps foster the rise of
populist leaders who bypass the electorate in great measure at the cost of institutional norms
and democratic processes. According to Sides, Tesler, and Vavreck (2018), many of these
populist candidates have captured the synergism of media with that of their own personalities,
sometimes at the cost of democratic norms actualized through and founded upon institutions.
Influence on Voter Behavior and Electoral Integrity
These candidate-driven elections often affect voter behavior in ways that are deployed by
a candidate for the sake of affecting the integrity of the electoral process. For example, in
candidate-centered kinds of elections, personality and media portrayals often overshadow
substantive policy debates between individuals. This shift causes on one hand a superficial
understanding of political issues and at the same time shifts the concentration towards
attaining short-term results at the expense of long-term policy solution attainment.
Moreover, personalization may strengthen phenomena of polarization and divisiveness. In
order to differentiate themselves and 'activate' their base, candidates resort to polarizing
rhetoric. Related to that, it paves the way toward a more fragmented and contentious political
environment. Polarization of this kind will undermine democratic deliberation and
compromise and leave very little chance of common ground on any essential policy topics.
Conclusion
The US presidential elections' candidate-centered nature holds serious implications for
democratic practice. On the one hand, it increases voter engagement and accountability. Still,
at the same time, it challenges party cohesion and policy consistency and thus the integrity of
democratic institutions. It would do political parties and democratic institutions very well to
diversify their electoral fortunes by understanding these dynamics.