Evaluating Campaign Quality
Can the Electoral Process be Improved?

Argues for a different approach to campaign conduct and political discourse in American elections.

L. Sandy Maisel (Author), Darrell M. West (Author), Brett M. Clifton (Author)

9780521700825, Cambridge University Press

Paperback, published 30 April 2007

172 pages, 34 tables
22.9 x 15.2 x 1 cm, 0.26 kg

"L. Sandy Maisel, Darrell West, and Brett Clifton show a keen understanding of the fundamental motive underlying the behaviors of political candidates and consultants: the desire to win. They also understand the lack of interest that most citizens have in politics. They exhibit a refreshing skepticism about the more high-flown aspirations of reformers, without entirely giving up on the possibility of improving campaign discourse and thereby improving the quality of American elections."
-Richard Skinner, Allegheny College, Perspectives on Politics

For a number of years, voters and academic observers have been dissatisfied with a number of elements of American campaigns. Contemporary races are seen as too negative, too superficial, and too unfair or misleading. Based on these complaints, a variety of reform organizations have targeted millions of dollars to improve the situation. Through their efforts and those within the academic community, a wide range of reform initiatives have been undertaken, such as voluntary codes of conduct, industry self-regulation, certificate programs, tougher ethics rules for consultants, and the encouragement of more substantive venues. This book seeks to evaluate whether these activities have improved the level of campaign discourse and conduct in US House and Senate campaigns and argues that while individual reform efforts have achieved some of their stated objectives, the overall effect of these reform efforts has been disappointing.

Preface
1. Campaign reformers: optimists, skeptics, and rejectionists
2. Dissemination of campaign practices
3. Impact on campaign conduct
4. Impact on campaign discourse
5. Impact on public perceptions
6. Improving the system
Appendices: A. Data and methodology
B. Public opinion survey
C. Consultant survey
D. Focus group protocol.

Subject Areas: Politics & government [JP], Social theory [JHBA], Media studies [JFD], Cultural studies [JFC], Communication studies [GTC]