|
In United States politics, balancing the ticket is when a political candidate chooses a running mate, usually of the same party, with the goal of bringing more widespread appeal to the campaign. It is most prominently used to describe the selection of the U.S. Vice Presidential candidate. There are several means by which the ticket may be balanced. Someone who is from a different region than the candidate may be chosen as a running mate to provide geographic balance to the ticket. If the candidate is associated with a specific faction of the party, a running mate from a competing faction may be chosen so as to unify the party. Similarly, running mates may be chosen to provide ideological, age, or demographic balance. In U.S. presidential elections, balancing the ticket was traditionally associated with the smoke-filled room cliché, but this changed in 1970 with reforms in the primary system resulting from the McGovern-Fraser Commission. According to Douglas Kriner of Boston University, the McGovern-Fraser reforms brought an end to traditional ticket balancing practices. Now, presidential candidates are less concerned with regional and ideological balance, says Kriner, and are more inclined to pick compatible running mates with extensive government experience. () ==History== In the earliest days of American presidential elections, the President and Vice-President were technically elected on the same ballot with the person receiving the most votes becoming the President and the person with the second most votes becoming the Vice-President. When this system proved unwieldy, the Twelfth Amendment was passed in 1804 providing that the President and Vice-President run on the same ticket but be elected on different ballots. Most elections before the American Civil War featured a northerner paired with a southerner or vice versa. After the Civil War, geographical balance between north and south became less critical but would remain a factor well into the 20th century, especially in the Democratic Party. In the 20th Century, an increased interest in the electoral college led many presidential candidates to choose vice-presidential candidates from populous states with large numbers of electoral votes. It was hoped that voters in this state could be swayed by having a favorite son on the ticket. Later in the 20th century, ideological balance became more prominent with a very liberal or conservative presidential candidate often paired with a more moderate vice presidential candidate or vice versa to bring more widespread appeal. Other factors came to prominence in the late 20th century such as gender, religion, age and other issues. The trend has continued in recent times, although it is less of a predictable science. In 1992, Bill Clinton, seen as a more moderate southern Democrat, chose the more liberal southerner Al Gore as his running mate. However, they were both white Protestant southerners from the baby boom generation, and most political analysts saw them as similar in political ideology. This brought little in the way of ticket balancing. In 2000, Al Gore chose the centrist Joseph Lieberman, a northeastern Jewish Democrat who had been one of the first people to criticize President Clinton for his scandal with Monica Lewinsky. John Kerry's choice of John Edwards in the 2004 presidential election was widely seen as an appeal to southern voters who traditionally would not have supported a northeasterner such as Kerry without the geographic balance that Edwards could bring. Also, Edwards, still serving his first term in the Senate, was regarded by many as an "outsider" with a youthful appeal; two characteristics that Kerry, a 60-year-old four-term Senator, was unable to acquire. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Ticket balance」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|