Advertisement

Wahlen und Direkte Demokratie in den USA: Demokratische Teilhabe im Spannungsfeld politischer Machtinteressen

  • Philipp Weinmann
Living reference work entry

Zusammenfassung

Die Vereinigten Staaten sind nicht zuletzt aufgrund ihrer langen Tradition regelmäßiger, kompetitiver Wahlen ein Vorbild für viele junge Demokratien. Für Politiker und Parteien hingegen stellen die zahlreichen und häufigen Partizipationsmöglichkeiten eine große Herausforderung dar. Wie kann es in einem solchen Umfeld gelingen, sich machtpolitische Vorteile in Form von Ämtern oder Gestaltungseinfluss zu verschaffen? Um dieser Frage nachzugehen, werden die für die demokratische Teilhabe grundlegenden Regeln des Wahlrechts und Wahlsystems, der Wahlkampffinanzierung und der direkten Demokratie sowie der Umgang mit ihnen in der politischen Praxis vorgestellt. Schließlich ist es für Kandidaten essentiell, eigene Anhänger zu gewinnen und diese zum Wählen zu bewegen. Daher werden außerdem die Erklärungsfaktoren von Wahlbeteiligung und Wahlverhalten sowie die daraus resultierenden Einflussmöglichkeiten behandelt.

Schlüsselwӧrter

Wahlen Gerrymandering Primaries PACs Realignment direkte Demokratie 

Literatur

  1. Abramson, Paul R., John Herbert Aldrich, und David W. Rohde. 2012. Change and Continuity in the 2008 and 2010 Elections. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  2. Balinski, M. L., und H. Peyton Young. 2001. Fair Representation: Meeting the Ideal of One Man, One Vote. 2. Aufl. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bowler, Shaun, Todd Donovan, und Jennifer van Heerde. 2005. The United States of America: Perpetual Campaigning in the Absence of Competition. In The Politics of Electoral Systems, Hrsg. Michael Gallagher und Paul Mitchell, 185–205. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brennan Center for Justice. 2010. A Citizen’s Guide to Redistricting. http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/citizens-guide-redistricting-2010-edition. Zugegriffen am 22.05.2014.
  5. Brennan Center for Justice. 2013. Criminal Disenfranchisement Laws Across the United States. http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/d/download_file_48642.pdf. Zugegriffen am 22.05.2014.
  6. Bundeswahlleiter. 2013. Wahl zum 18. Deutschen Bundestag. http://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/de/bundestagswahlen/BTW_BUND_13/. Zugegriffen am 22.05.2014.
  7. Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, und Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). 2013. Presidential Race. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12. Zugegriffen am 22.05.2014.
  9. Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). 2014a. Outside Spending. http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending. Zugegriffen am 22.05.2014.
  10. Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). 2014b. The Money Behind the Elections. http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture. Zugegriffen am 22.05.2014.
  11. Chen, Jowei, und Jonathan Rodden. 2013. Unintentional gerrymandering: Political geography and electoral bias in legislatures. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 8: 239–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Christmann, Anna. 2012. Die Grenzen direkter Demokratie: Volksentscheide im Spannungsverhältnis von Demokratie und Rechtsstaat. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coleman, Kevin J., und Eric A. Fischer. 2011. The Help America Vote Act and Elections Reform: Overview and Issues Hrsg. Congressional Research Service. http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/167975.pdf. Zugegriffen am 22.05.2014.
  14. Congressional Quarterly (CQ), Hrsg. 2005. Guide to U.S. Elections. 5. Aufl. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  15. Council of State Governments (CSG). 2013. The Book of the States 2013. http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/kc/category/content-type/content-type/book-states/bos-2013. Zugegriffen am 22.05.2014.
  16. Cox, Gary W. 1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cox, Gary W., und Jonathan N. Katz. 1999. The reapportionment revolution and bias in U.S. Congressional Elections. American Journal of Political Science 43: 812–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cox, Gary W., und Jonathan N. Katz. 2002. Elbridge Gerry’s Salamander: The Electoral Consequences of the Reapportionment Revolution. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Donovan, Todd, Caroline J. Tolbert, und Daniel A. Smith. 2008. Priming presidential votes by direct democracy. The Journal of Politics 70: 1217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Epstein, Leon D. 1986. Political Parties in the American Mold. Madison, Wis: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  21. Federal Election Commission (FEC). 2014. Contribution Limits 2013–14. http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml. Zugegriffen am 22.05.2014.
  22. Green, Donald P., und Alan S. Gerber. 2008. Get Out the Vote: How to Increase Voter Turnout. 2. Aufl. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hall, Thad E. 2013. US voter registration reform. Electoral Studies 32: 589–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hershey, Marjorie Randon. 2013. Party Politics in America. Boston u.a: Pearson.Google Scholar
  25. Heußner, Hermann K. 2012. Minorities and Direct Democracy in the USA: Direct Legislation Concerning Minorities and Instruments of Minority Protection. In Direct Democracy and Minorities, Direct Democracy in Modern Europe, Hrsg. Wilfried Marxer, 123–144. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  26. Katz, Richard S. 2007. Political Institutions in the United States. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Key Jr., V.O. 1955. A theory of critical elections. Journal of Politics 17: 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Key Jr., V.O. 1959. Secular realignment and the party system. Journal of Politics 21: 198–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Keyssar, Alexander. 2009. The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States. Revised Aufl. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  30. Lindner, Ralf, und Rainer-Olaf Schultze. 2005. United States of America. In Elections in the Americas. A Data Handbook. volume 1: North America, Central America, and the Caribbean, Hrsg. Dieter Nohlen, 647–729. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lösche, Peter. 2007. Die politischen Parteien. In Regierungssystem der USA: Lehr- und Handbuch, Hrsg. Wolfgang Jäger, Christoph M Haas, und Wolfgang Welz, 289–325. München u.a.: Oldenbourg.Google Scholar
  32. Maisel, Louis Sandy, und Mark D. Brewer. 2012. Parties and Elections in America: The Electoral Process. 6. Aufl. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Manza, Jeff, und Christopher Uggen. 2006. Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Mayer, William G., und Andrew Busch. 2004. The Front-Loading Problem in Presidential Nominations. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  35. McDonald, Michael P. 2008. United States Redistricting: A Comparative Look at the 50 States. In Redistricting in Comparative Perspective, Comparative Politics, Hrsg. Lisa Handley und Bernard Grofman. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. McDonald, Michael P. 2009. United States Elections Project. Election of a Century? http://elections.gmu.edu/Election_of_a_Century.html. Zugegriffen am 22.05.2014.
  37. McDonald, Michael P. 2014. United States Elections Project. Voter Turnout Frequently Asked Questions. http://elections.gmu.edu/FAQ.html. Zugegriffen am 22.05.2014.
  38. McDonald, Michael P., und Samuel L. Popkin. 2001. The myth of the vanishing voter. American Political Science Review 95: 963–974.Google Scholar
  39. McGhee, Eric, Seth Masket, Boris Shor, Steven Rogers, und Nolan McCarty. 2014. A primary cause of partisanship? Nomination systems and legislator ideology. American Journal of Political Science 58: 337–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moeckli, Silvano. 2007. Direkte Demokratie in den Gliedstaaten der USA. In Direkte Demokratie: Bestandsaufnahmen und Wirkungen im internationalen Vergleich, Hrsg. Markus Freitag und Uwe Wagschal, 19–40. Berlin: Lit.Google Scholar
  41. National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). 2008. Redistricting Commissions: Legislative Plans. http://www.ncsl.org/research/redistricting/2009-redistricting-commissions-table.aspx. Zugegriffen am 22.05.2014.
  42. National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). 2013a. The Term Limited States. http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/chart-of-term-limits-states.aspx. Zugegriffen am 22.05.2014.
  43. National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). 2013b. Initiative, Referendum and Recall. http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/initiative-referendum-and-recall-overview.aspx. Zugegriffen am 22.05.2014.
  44. National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). 2014. Elections Laws and Procedures Overview. http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/election-laws-and-procedures-overview.aspx. Zugegriffen am 22.05.2014.
  45. Niemi, Richard G., Herbert F. Weisberg, und David C. Kimball. 2011. Controversies in Voting Behavior. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  46. ProPublica. 2013. Everything That’s Happened Since Supreme Court Ruled on Voting Rights Act. http://www.propublica.org/article/voting-rights-by-state-map. Zugegriffen am 22.05.2014.
  47. Schreyer, Söhnke. 2007. Wahlsystem und Wählerverhalten. In Regierungssystem der USA: Lehr- und Handbuch, Hrsg. Wolfgang Jäger, Christoph M Haas, und Wolfgang Welz, 289–325. München u.a.: Oldenbourg.Google Scholar
  48. Smith, Daniel A. 2010. US States. In Financing referendum campaigns, Hrsg. Karin Gilland Lutz und Simon Hug, 39–61. Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  49. Stanley, Harold W., und Richard G. Niemi. 2011. Vital Statistics on American Politics, 2011–2012. Los Angeles: Sage/CQ Press.Google Scholar
  50. Steger, Wayne. 2013. Polls and elections: Two paradigms of presidential nominations: Two paradigms of presidential nominations. Presidential Studies Quarterly 43: 377–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. The Green Papers. 2014. Election 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses, and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12. Zugegriffen am 22.05.2014.
  52. The Guardian. 2001. Inquiry into New Claims of Poll Abuses in Florida. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/feb/17/usa.julianborger. Zugegriffen am 22.05.2014.
  53. U.S. Census Bureau. 1995. Census of Governments. http://www.census.gov/prod/2/gov/gc/gc92_1_2.pdf. Zugegriffen am 22.05.2014.
  54. U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. 2010 Apportionment Results. http://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/data/2010_apportionment_results.html. Zugegriffen am 22.05.2014.
  55. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. 2001. Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election. http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/main.htm. Zugegriffen am 22.05.2014.
  56. U.S. Department of Justice. 2014. Civil Rights Division Statutes Overview. http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/overview.php. Zugegriffen am 22.05.2014.
  57. Uggen, Christopher, und Jeff Manza. 2002. Democratic contraction? Political consequences of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States. American Sociological Review 67: 777–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Uggen, Christopher, Sarah Shannon, und Jeff Manza. 2012. The Sentencing Project. State-Level Estimates of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States, 2010. http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/fd_State_Level_Estimates_of_Felon_Disen_2010.pdf. Zugegriffen am 22.05.2014.
  59. Voting Technology Project. 2001. Voting – What Is, What Could Be. http://www.vote.caltech.edu/content/voting-what-what-could-be. Zugegriffen am 22.05.2014.
  60. Wand, Jonathan N., et al. 2001. The butterfly did it: The aberrant vote for Buchanan in Palm Beach County, Florida. American Political Science Review 95: 793–810.Google Scholar
  61. Washington Post. 2001. Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html. Zugegriffen am 22.05.2014.
  62. Wolfinger, Raymond E., und Steven J. Rosenstone. 1980. Who Votes? New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Wolter, Kirk, Diana Jergovic, Whitney Moore, Joe Murphy, und Colm O’Muircheartaigh. 2003. Reliability of the uncertified ballots in the 2000 presidential election in Florida. The American Statistician 57: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yale University, Institution for Social and Policy Studes. 2014. Get Out the Vote! http://gotv.research.yale.edu. Zugegriffen am 22.05.2014.

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität FreiburgFreiburgDeutschland

Personalised recommendations