Deliberation or Tabulation? The Self-Undermining Constitutional Architecture of Election Campaigns

IF 0.6 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW Buffalo Law Review Pub Date : 2006-04-18 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.897518
James A. Gardner
{"title":"Deliberation or Tabulation? The Self-Undermining Constitutional Architecture of Election Campaigns","authors":"James A. Gardner","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.897518","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Perhaps the one completely uncontested truth in the shared public ideology of American politics is that an election campaign ought to be a serious occasion in the life of a democratic polity, a time when citizens reflect maturely on the great public issues of the day. On this view, the ultimate purpose of election campaigns is to offer voters and candidates a meaningful opportunity for deliberation and persuasion. Of course, the typical modern American election campaign does not seem seriously reflective and deliberative so much as shallow and unengaging. Reasoned persuasion seems to play a minor role, if that. The paper asks whether this gulf between American political ideals and reality might have its roots in any kind of flaw in our legal institutions. Do we have, that is to say, a constitutional infrastructure well suited to summoning forth the kind of electoral politics to which we aspire? The paper pursues this question through a close institutional analysis of the federal constitutional jurisprudence of ballot access, public financing of presidential campaigns, the associational rights of political parties, and the giving and spending of money in election campaigns. This analysis reveals that although the American constitutional regime pays emphatic lip service to the ideal of reasoned persuasion in elections, its actual institutional arrangements in fact presuppose just the opposite - election campaigns that are thin rather than thick, that are aggregative rather than deliberative, that are aimed at counting political preferences, not creating them. The paper concludes by examining briefly some of the implications of this disjunction between our democratic ideals and practices for our conceptions of democratic legitimacy, our aspirations for better quality campaigns, our notions of the venues in which democratic politics is actually conducted, and some important scholarly critiques of electoral regulation.","PeriodicalId":51843,"journal":{"name":"Buffalo Law Review","volume":"54 1","pages":"1413"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2006-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Buffalo Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.897518","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Perhaps the one completely uncontested truth in the shared public ideology of American politics is that an election campaign ought to be a serious occasion in the life of a democratic polity, a time when citizens reflect maturely on the great public issues of the day. On this view, the ultimate purpose of election campaigns is to offer voters and candidates a meaningful opportunity for deliberation and persuasion. Of course, the typical modern American election campaign does not seem seriously reflective and deliberative so much as shallow and unengaging. Reasoned persuasion seems to play a minor role, if that. The paper asks whether this gulf between American political ideals and reality might have its roots in any kind of flaw in our legal institutions. Do we have, that is to say, a constitutional infrastructure well suited to summoning forth the kind of electoral politics to which we aspire? The paper pursues this question through a close institutional analysis of the federal constitutional jurisprudence of ballot access, public financing of presidential campaigns, the associational rights of political parties, and the giving and spending of money in election campaigns. This analysis reveals that although the American constitutional regime pays emphatic lip service to the ideal of reasoned persuasion in elections, its actual institutional arrangements in fact presuppose just the opposite - election campaigns that are thin rather than thick, that are aggregative rather than deliberative, that are aimed at counting political preferences, not creating them. The paper concludes by examining briefly some of the implications of this disjunction between our democratic ideals and practices for our conceptions of democratic legitimacy, our aspirations for better quality campaigns, our notions of the venues in which democratic politics is actually conducted, and some important scholarly critiques of electoral regulation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
审议还是制表?选举运动的自我破坏的宪法架构
也许在美国政治的共同公共意识形态中,一个完全没有争议的真理是,在民主政体的生活中,竞选活动应该是一个严肃的场合,是公民成熟地反思当今重大公共问题的时候。根据这种观点,选举运动的最终目的是为选民和候选人提供有意义的审议和说服的机会。当然,典型的现代美国竞选活动似乎并不认真地反思和审议,而是肤浅和不吸引人。如果是这样的话,理性的说服似乎起的作用不大。这篇论文提出,美国政治理想与现实之间的这种鸿沟,其根源是否在于我们的法律制度存在某种缺陷。也就是说,我们是否有一个宪法基础设施,非常适合唤起我们所渴望的那种选举政治?本文通过对联邦宪法中有关投票权、总统竞选公共资金、政党结社权以及竞选资金的捐赠和支出的判例进行严密的制度分析,来探讨这个问题。这一分析表明,尽管美国宪政制度在口头上强调在选举中进行理性说服的理想,但其实际的制度安排实际上恰恰相反——选举活动是稀薄的而不是厚重的,是聚集的而不是审议的,旨在计算政治偏好,而不是创造政治偏好。本文最后简要地考察了我们的民主理想和实践之间的脱节对我们的民主合法性概念的影响,我们对更好质量竞选的渴望,我们对民主政治实际进行的场所的看法,以及对选举规则的一些重要的学术批评。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: Founded in 1951, the Buffalo Law Review is a generalist law review that publishes articles by practitioners, professors, and students in all areas of the law. The Buffalo Law Review has a subscription base of well over 600 institutions and individuals. The Buffalo Law Review currently publishes five issues per year with each issue containing approximately four articles and one member-written comment per issue.
期刊最新文献
The Gun Subsidy Abandoning Realization and the Transition Tax: Toward a Comprehensive Tax Base Rules, Standards, and Such What the Judge Had for Breakfast: A Brief History of an Unpalatable Idea Re-Reading Legal Realism and Tracing a Genealogy of Balancing
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1