North Carolina

DataNet June 2000 Issue # 25

Historical Perspectives on NC Politics

!

Thad Beyle, editor

( beyle@ email. unc. edu)

Jennifer Drolet,

managing editor

( jdrolet@ irss. unc. edu)

!

North Carolina DataNet is

a quarterly newsletter

published by the

Odum Institute

for Research in

Social Science,

University of North Carolina

at Chapel Hill.

!

To join our mailing list, please

contact Thad Beyle, Dept. of

Political Science, CB # 3265,

University of North Carolina,

Chapel Hill, NC, 27599- 3265.

!

850 copies of this public document

were printed at a cost of $ 475.

NC DataNet

June 2000

Issue # 25

Turnout in NC's Gubernatorial Primaries

Ferrel Guillory ( UNC- CH Program on Media, Southern Politics

and Public Life, School of Journalism and Mass Communications)

Despite competitive races in both the Democratic and Republican parties, North

Carolina’s gubernatorial primaries brought forth wails of lament over “ all- time low’’

voter turnout. Indeed, the turnout was very low, but that’s not the whole story. The ac-companying

table “ First Primary Turnout as a Measure of Party Strength” ( page 2)

points to several trends that form a more nearly complete picture.

As North Carolina has become increasingly a state of two- party competition

since 1972, there has been a steady drop in turnout ( i. e., total vote as a percentage of

registered voters), in party primaries for governor and U. S. senator. During much of the

twentieth century, when North Carolina was a one- party state, the battle for the gover-nor’s

mansion took place within the Democratic Party. Turnout was relatively high in

the primaries, because citizens who wanted to help decide who became governor knew

that they had to take part in the Democratic primary. Now, more than twice as many

voters cast ballots in the general election as in party primaries.

In total voters who show up to cast ballots, Democratic Party turnout still exceeds

GOP turnout. But Republican Party participation has expanded since the early ’ 70s.

Republican vote- count hit a peak in 2000, though it still fell more than a quarter of a

million votes below the Democratic total. Democratic primary votes peaked in 1984,

and stabilized in the mid- 500,000 range in the 1990s.

Over the past eight years, North Carolina has had an astounding 1.1 million in-crease

in the raw number of registered voters: registration climbed from 3.8 million in

1992 to 4.9 million in 2000. On the surface, it appears that voter registration out- paced

population growth in the 1990s. What happened? It is that North Carolina has dramati-cally

felt the effects of the 1993 federal law, popularly known as “ motor- voter.’’

This law made it easier for people to register to vote, whether through the de-partment

of motor vehicles, mail- in registration, or social services agencies. What’s

more, the law put limits on the purging of voter rolls. The staff of the State Board of

Elections estimates that the current voter registration total is inflated by 500,000 “ inac-tive’’

voters, including people who have moved away or who have not voted in recent

elections but whose names cannot be purged under the law until 2001. The two- party

vote total in 2000 was just about the same as in 1996, but the turnout percentage was

lower because the total registration figure was significantly larger.

( continued on page 2)

This will be the last issue of

North Carolina DataNet

published by the Odum In-stitute

for Research in Social

Science. See page 14 for

details on our new home. !

North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 2

Another factor probably has contributed to lower

turnout percentages in the 1990s than in the ’ 70s and

’ 80s. Presidential contests usually draw more voters to

the polls than statewide races. When the General Assem-bly

decided to schedule all first primaries in May, it had

the effect of putting North Carolina late in the presiden-tial

nominating lineup. With the national nominations

practically decided before North Carolinians have voted

for three consecutive primary elections, presidential races

have not served as a draw to higher turnout in gubernato-rial

and senatorial primaries.

In effect, North Carolina now has two distinct

electorates: 1) a core of partisan voters– Republicans as

well as Democrats– who decide party nominations, and 2)

a much larger general- election group that includes party

loyalists, independents, and swing voters. ♦

NC Party Registration: 1966- 2000

Thad Beyle ( UNC- CH Political Science)

Over the past one- third of a century there have

been some significant shifts in how North Carolina voters

view themselves when registering to vote. ( See “ NC Vot-ers’

Party Registration” table ( below left).

In the mid- 1960s, registered Democrats outnum-bered

registered Republicans by a 4.5 to 1 ratio. Since

then, there has been a consistent decline in the percentage

of voters registered as Democrats, from nearly 80% to

just above 50%. Between 1966 and 1972 the decline av-eraged

2.1 percentage points each two- year period. Be-tween

1972 and 1984 the decline slowed to an average of

only a half a percentage point each two- year period.

Then, since 1984 the decline has averaged about 2.5 per-centage

points each two- year period. By April of this

year, the Democratic- Republican registration ratio was

only 1.5 to 1.

Over the same period, Republican registration has

increased from just below 18% in 1966 to nearly 34%

this past April. But that increase has been at a slower

pace, averaging less than a percentage point gain each

two- year period. The periods of greatest gain were in the

mid 1960s and 1980s. However, since 1996 that growth

has leveled off at about one- third of the registered voters.

One of the most interesting shifts over the period

is the growth of Independent or non- affiliated voters in

the state. At only 2.5% of the registered voters in 1968,

their percentage has risen to 15.4% by this April— a six-fold

increase. For most of the period that growth was by

very small increments each two- year period. But over the

1990s the increments have become greater, rising from

5.5% of the registered voters in 1990 to 15.4% in April

2000.

No wonder both major political parties have

opened up their primaries to these unaffiliated voters. If

you can get them to vote in your party’s primary, you will

probably get their vote in the November election— or so

the theory goes. ♦

First Primary Turnout as a Measure of Party Strength

Democrat Republican Total Votes Reg. Voters % Turnout

1960 643,060- G ------------- 643,060 N/ A N/ A

1972 808,105- G 107,583- G 915,688 2,280,000 40.2

1984 955,799- G 148,574- S 1,104,373 3,271,000 33.8

845,946- S 140,354- G

1992 701,606- G 270,568- S 972,174 3,817,000 25.5

1996 588,926- S 279,610- G 867,536 4,331,000 20.0

1998 540,031- S 265,288- S 705,319 4,740,000 14.9

2000 553,794- G 312,529- G 865,323 4,930,000 17.5

G = Gubernatorial primary S = Senatorial primary Source: NC State Board of Elections

NC Voters' Party Registration:

1966- April 2000

Year % Dem. % Rep. % Ind.

1966 79.7 17.8 ( not avail.)

1968 75.5 21.6 2.5

1970 75.3 21.9 2.5

1972 73.4 22.9 3.7

1974 72.6 23.6 3.8

1976 72.5 23.5 4.0

1978 72.6 23.3 4.1

1980 72.4 23.5 4.1

1982 71.9 24.0 4.1

1984 70.0 25.6 4.4

1986 68.6 27.2 4.2

1988 65.6 29.6 4.9

1990 63.7 30.8 5.5

1992 60.6 31.9 7.5

1994 58.6 32.8 8.7

1996 54.4 33.7 11.9

1998 52.7 33.9 13.4

2000 ( April) 50.6 33.9 15.4

Sources: NC Center for Public Policy Research,

“ The Two Party System in NC,” ( Raleigh, Dec 1987);

NC Free, Sep 1998; and NC State Board of Elections.

North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 3

NC Voter Registration & Turnout in General Elections: 1960- 2000

Total NC Total NC NC Turnout Party of Winner

Voting- Age Registered # of % of Reg. % of Voting-

Year Population Voters Voters Voters Age Pop. Pres. Sen. Gov.

1960 2,585,000 N/ A 1,368,556 -- 52.9 D D D

1962 2,647,000 N/ A 813,155 ( senate) -- 30.7 -- D --

1964 2,723,000 N/ A 1,424,983 -- 52.3 D -- D

1966 2,798,000 1,933,763 901,978 46.6 32.2 -- D --

1968 2,921,000 2,077,538 1,587,493 76.4 54.4 D D D

1970 3,043,000 1,945,187 932,948 63.9 30.7 -- -- --

1972 3,541,399 2,357,645 1,518,612 64.4 42.9 R R R

1974 3,725,037 2,279,646 1,020,367 ( senate) 44.8 27.4 -- D --

1976 3,884,477 2,553,717 1,677,906 65.7 43.2 D -- D

1978 4,053,977 2,430,306 1,135,814 ( senate) 46.7 28.0 -- R --

1980 4,222,654 2,774,844 1,855,833 66.9 43.9 R R D

1982 4,416,444 2,674,787 1,330,630 49.7 30.1 -- -- --

1984 4,585,788 3,270,933 2,239,051 68.5 47.4 R R R

1986 4,738,687 3,080,990 1,591,330 ( senate) 51.6 33.6 -- D --

1988 4,887,358 3,432,042 2,134,370 62.2 43.7 R -- R

1990 5,016,747 3,347,635 2,068,904 ( senate) 61.8 41.2 -- R --

1992 5,182,321 3,817,380 2,611,850 68.4 50.4 R R D

1994 5,359,333 3,635,875 1,533,728 42.2 28.6 -- -- --

1996 5,499,000 4,330,657 2,618,326 60.5 47.6 R R D

1998 5,620,000 4,740,272 2,012,143 42.4 35.8 -- D --

2000 ( April) 4,930,319 ?? -- ??

Sources: Michael Barone and Grant Ujifusa, The Almanac of the United States ( Washington, DC: National Journal, 1972- 1998); US

Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the United States ( various years); Federal Elections Commission; Office of the Secre-tary

of State, North Carolina Manual ( Raleigh: Department of State, since 1966); NC State Board of Elections, " General Voter Registra-tion

and Election Statistics,” NC Center for Public Policy Research, North Carolina Focus ( 1989) and " The Two Party System in North

Carolina," ( Raleigh, Dec 1987); and Curtis Gans, Committee for the Study of the American Electorate.

Largest Vote- Getters in Major Statewide Office Races: 1980- 1998

Candidate Status Race Year Total Votes NC Outcome

Jim Hunt incumbent NC Governor 1996 1,436,638 won

Jim Hunt open seat NC Governor 1992 1,368,246 won

Terry Sanford incumbent US Senator 1992 1,194,015 lost

Harvey Gantt challenging inc. US Senator 1996 1,173,875 lost

Jim Hunt incumbent NC Governor 1980 1,143,143 won

Bill Clinton challenging inc. President 1992 1,114,042 lost

Bill Clinton incumbent President 1996 1,107,849 lost

Jim Hunt challenging inc. US Senator 1984 1,070,488 lost

John Edwards challenging inc. US Senator 1998 1,029,237 won

Rufus Edmisten open seat NC Governor 1984 1,011,209 lost

Harvey Gantt challenging inc. US Senator 1990 981,573 lost

Bob Jordan challenging inc. NC Governor 1988 957,687 lost

Michael Dukakis open seat President 1988 890,167 lost

Robert Morgan incumbent US Senator 1980 887,653 lost

Jimmy Carter incumbent President 1980 875,635 lost

Walter Mondale challenging inc. President 1984 824,287 lost

Terry Sanford challenging inc. US Senator 1986 823,662 won

Ronald Reagan incumbent President 1984 1,346,481 won

Jesse Helms incumbent US Senator 1996 1,345,833 won

Lauch Faircloth challenging inc. US Senator 1992 1,297,892 won

George Bush open seat President 1988 1,237,258 won

Bob Dole challenging inc. President 1996 1,225,938 won

Jim Martin incumbent NC Governor 1988 1,222,338 won

Jim Martin open seat NC Governor 1984 1,208,167 won

Jesse Helms incumbent US Senator 1984 1,156,768 won

George Bush incumbent President 1992 1,134,661 won

Jim Gardner open seat NC Governor 1992 1,121,955 lost

Robin Hayes challenging inc. NC Governor 1996 1,097,053 lost

Jesse Helms incumbent US Senator 1990 1,088,331 won

Lauch Faircloth incumbent US Senator 1998 945,943 lost

Ronald Reagan challenging inc. President 1980 915,018 won

John East challenging inc. US Senator 1980 898,064 won

James Broyhill incumbent US Senator 1986 767,668 lost

I. Beverly Lake, Jr. challenging inc. NC Governor 1980 691,449 lost

Source: Almanac of American Politics, 1982- 2000 D e m o c r a t s Re p u b l i c a n s

North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 4

Cost of Gubernatorial Elections

Thad Beyle ( UNC- CH Political Science)

The cost of running for office seems to be getting

higher and candidates’ need to raise money is as impor-tant

as their need to gain voting support. Nowhere does

this seem more true than in this state’s gubernatorial

elections since 1968. If we look at how much the candi-dates

reported spending over the last eight gubernatorial

elections, we see an increase from $ 2.2 million in 1968 to

$ 18 million in 1996. ( See “ Total Spending Reported”

column in table below.)

But when the inflation of the dollar over the period

is factored in, a somewhat different picture emerges. To

control for inflation in the expenditures for each of the

eight elections, the actual dollars spent were converted

into May 2000 dollar equivalents ( see “ Converting Cam-paign

Expenditures” box on page 6). Those results are

presented in the table below in the “ Total Spending ( in

2000$ Equivalent)” column. Here is what our analysis

reveals:

♦ The most expensive gubernatorial race over the pe-riod

was in 1972, when ten candidates sought the

governorship and both parties had to go to a second

primary to choose their candidates. Nearly four out

of every five dollars spent was by a Democratic can-didate.

By 51.3% to 48.7% margin, Jim Holshouser

beat Democrat Hargrove “ Skipper” Bowles and be-came

the first Republican to win the governor’s chair

in the twentieth century. The total spent for that race

was $ 33.6 million in 2000$, an average of $ 22.29

for each general election voter!

♦ The second most expensive race was the 1984 to

succeed then two- term Democratic Governor Jim

Hunt. A total of fourteen candidates spent the 2000$

equivalent $ 23.1 million in their quest for the gover-norship.

Again, Democratic candidates spent nearly

four out of every five dollars in the campaign ( in

good part because there were ten Democratic candi-dates

running and they needed a second primary to

select their candidate, Attorney General Rufus Ed-misten).

Congressman Jim Martin cruised through

Cost of Gubernatorial Elections: 1968- 1996

A. Campaign Expenditures per Election Year

Total Spending Total Spending Total # of Cost per Vote

Year Reported ( in 2000$ Equivalent) Votes Cast ( in 2000$)

1968 $ 2,190,136 $ 10,735,961 1,558,308 $ 6.89

1972 $ 8,201,585 $ 33,613,053 1,507,785 $ 22.29

1976 $ 4,428,910 $ 13,340,090 1,658,999 $ 8.04

1980 $ 3,818,190 $ 7,938,025 1,884,543 $ 4.21

1984 $ 14,048,311 $ 23,143,840 2,226,727 $ 10.39

1988 $ 12,513,720 $ 18,109,580 2,180,025 $ 8.31

1992 $ 13,353,473 $ 16,284,723 2,595,184 $ 6.27

1996 $ 18,021,728 $ 20,024,142 2,566,185 $ 7.80

Total $ 142,754,106 16,177,756 $ 8.82

Avg. $ 17,844,263 2,022,220 $ 8.82

B. Type of Election

Contested Primary?

Year Status Candidates Dem. Rep. Margin of Victory Dem $ Rep $

1968 Open Seat 5 Y Y + 6 D 55.7% 44.3%

1972 Open Seat 10 YY YY + 3 R 78.4% 21.6%

1976 Open Seat 9 Y YY + 32 D 90.2% 9.8%

1980 Incumbent 7 Y Y + 25 D 90.1% 9.9%

1984 Open Seat 14 YY Y + 9 R 78.2% 21.8%

1988 Incumbent 6 Y N + 12 R 53.9% 46.1%

1992 Open Seat 9 Y Y + 10 D 54.5% 42.5%

1996 Incumbent 9 N Y + 13 D 50.3% 49.7%

Note: Two “ total spending” figures are listed for each year: “ Total Spending Reported” is the total of the actual

amounts reported by all candidates; “ Total Spending in 2000$” is the reported amount converted to May 2000

dollar equivalents to control for the effect of inflation. ( See box on page 6 for details on conversion method.)

Contested Primary? Listed by party; Y = yes; YY = second primary

Dem $/ Rep $ = percent of total election expenditures spent by Democratic versus Republican candidates.

North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 5

his party’s primary and then defeated Edmisten 54%

to 45% to become North Carolina’s second Republi-can

governor in the century. The amount spent was

equal to $ 10.39 per general election voter.

♦ Next is the 1996 election, the third most expensive

race. Democrat Jim Hunt won his fourth term over

Republican Robin Hayes by a 56% to 43% margin.

The nine candidates spent $ 20 million in 2000$ in

this race, or about $ 7.80 per general election vote.

The least expensive race was Hunt’s 1980 second

term victory. The seven candidates only spent $ 7.9

million in 2000$ or $ 4.21 per general election vote.

♦ Looking at how much the candidates spent per vote

cast in the general election, we see that while the

races in 1972 ($ 22.29 per general election voter) and

1984 ($ 10.39) were the priciest, they were followed

by the 1988 race ($ 8.31), the 1976 race ($ 8.04), and

then the 1996 race ($ 7.80). Over the eight- election

period the average amount spent per voter was

$ 8.82. The five races for an open seat ( 1968, 1972,

1976, 1984, 1992) were more expensive on a $ 10.17

cost per voter basis than were the three incumbent

reelection races ( 1980, 1988, 1996) on a $ 6.95 cost

per voter basis.

♦ Note also the increasing parity in candidate spending

between the two parties. From 1972 to 1984, Demo-cratic

candidates considerably outspent their Repub-lican

counterparts. There was a 9 to 1 Democratic

advantage in Jim Hunt’s first two elections ( 1976,

1980) and a 4 to 1 ratio in the 1972 and 1984 elec-tions

as noted above. Since the 1984 election, Re-publican

spending has steadily closed in on Demo-cratic

spending: the margin difference in 1996 was a

mere 0.6%.

Several things stand out in terms of spending by

individual candidates in these eight elections ( see table

below):

♦ In five of the eight races, the winning candidate

spent more than the losing candidate. In 1976 Jim

Hunt outspent his opponent by a 6 to 1 ratio and then

followed that up by outspending his 1980 opponent

by a 8.5 to 1 ratio.

Winners’ and Losers’ Spending in NC Gubernatorial Elections: 1968- 1996

Campaign Spending by Winning Gubernatorial Candidates

Total Spending Total Spending Total # of Cost per Vote

Year Candidate Party Reported ( in 2000$) Votes Cast ( in 2000$)

1968 Bob Scott D $ 623,487 $ 3,056,309 821,233 $ 3.72

1972 Jim Holshouser R $ 962,289 $ 3,943,807 767,470 $ 5.14

1976 Jim Hunt D $ 1,665,913 $ 5,017,810 1,081,293 $ 4.64

1980 Jim Hunt D $ 3,199,316 $ 6,651,385 1,143,145 $ 5.82

1984 Jim Martin R $ 3,051,498 $ 5,027,180 1,208,167 $ 4.16

1988 Jim Martin R $ 5,770,785 $ 8,351,353 1,222,338 $ 6.83

1992 Jim Hunt D $ 6,978,623 $ 8,510,516 1,368,246 $ 6.22

1996 Jim Hunt D $ 9,063,854 $ 10,070,949 1,436,638 $ 7.01

Total $ 50,629,309 9,048,530

Average $ 6,328,664 1,131,066 $ 5.06

Campaign Spending by Losing Gubernatorial Candidates

1968 Jim Gardner R $ 651,351 $ 3,192,897 737,075 $ 4.33

1972 " Skipper" Bowles D $ 4,507,264 $ 18,472,393 729,104 $ 25.34

1976 David Flaherty R $ 277,045 $ 834,473 564,102 $ 1.48

1980 I. Beverly Lake, Jr. R $ 373,113 $ 786,098 691,449 $ 1.14

1984 Rufus Edmisten D $ 2,402,984 $ 3,958,787 1,011,209 $ 3.91

1988 Bob Jordan III D $ 6,738,168 $ 9,751,329 957,687 $ 10.18

1992 Jim Gardner R $ 5,655,013 $ 6,896,357 1,121,955 $ 6.15

1996 Robin Hayes R $ 6,953,236 $ 7,725,818 1,097,053 $ 7.04

Total $ 51,618,152 6,909,634

Average $ 6,452,269 863,704 $ 7.47

Average ( without 1972) $ 4,735,108 882,293 $ 5.36

Note: Two “ total spending” figures are listed for each year: “ Total Spending Reported” is the total of the actual

amounts reported by all candidates; “ Total Spending in 2000$” is the reported amount converted to May 2000

dollar equivalents to control for the effect of inflation. ( See box on page 6 for details on conversion method.)

Source: NC State Board of Elections

North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 6

♦ In two of the three exceptions to this winner spend-ing

more than losers pattern, Republican candidates

defeated their opponents in winning the election

( 1972, 1988). The other exception was in 1968 when

Lieutenant Governor Bob Scott bested Congressman

Jim Gardner by a six- point margin despite being

slightly outspent by Gardner.

♦ The most expensive campaign over the eight-election

period was in 1972 when Democratic candi-date

Hargrove “ Skipper” Bowles’ lost to Republican

Jim Holshouser even though spending $ 18.5 million

in 2000$ in the race! His nearly 5 to 1 spending ratio

against Holshouser still saw him lose by 3 percent-age

points. I once asked Terry Sanford why Bowles

lost the 1972 race despite spending so much on his

campaign. His answer was quick and short: “ It

wasn’t his turn!” Bowles had bested Lt. Governor

Pat Taylor in a tough second primary and it was

“ Taylor’s turn” to be governor. So, he lost support

among Democrats in the General Election.

♦ It may seem like an old saw, but every governor

elected since 1972 has been named Jim. And in

1968, the losing candidate was named Jim, and that

same Jim tried to come back in 1992 only to be

bested by another Jim, Hunt that is.

In this current 2000 election year, we may see the

Republican candidates outspend their Democratic coun-terparts

for the first time ever. Will that yield them their

third GOP governor since the turn of the last century?

Could be, and since the race is for an open seat it will be

expensive no matter who wins. And since there are no

Jims in the race, the results are not as easy to predict. ♦

Cost of U. S. Senatorial Elections

Thad Beyle ( UNC- CH Political Science)

The political history of North Carolina’s two U. S.

Senate seats is a tale of contrasts over the past 130 years.

The seat currently occupied by Jesse Helms was

held by a total of eleven individuals between 1872 and

1973, with an average term of service of more than nine

years. Between 1872 and 1946, only four individuals

held this seat, averaging nearly nineteen years of service

each. Then between 1946 and 1973, seven men averaged

under four years of service each.

Among the seat’s notable alumni were Furnifold

Simmons, who helped create and run the first Democratic

political machine over the first quarter of the twentieth

century; UNC System president Frank Porter Graham,

who was appointed by Governor Kerr Scott in 1950 to

fill a vacancy; and Governor Scott himself. By the 1970s,

it had become a seat of fairly rapid turnover.

The John Edwards seat was held by a total of nine

individuals between 1873 and 1975, with an average term

of service of more than eleven years. Between 1932 to

1974, only three men served, for an average of fourteen

years each.

Notables holding this seat included Governor Ze-bulon

Vance in the late nineteenth century; Governors

Cameron Morrison of the 1920s and Clyde Hoey of the

pre- World War II era; and Sam Ervin, the star of the

Senate Watergate hearings. This seat was relatively sta-ble,

especially between the Depression era and the 1970s.

However, since the 1972 and 1974 elections, the

political history of these seats has diverged considerably.

Jesse Helms was elected in 1972, has served since 1973,

and may seek yet another term in 2002. Meanwhile, the

other seat has had six different occupants since “ Senator

Sam” retired in 1974: Robert Morgan ( D), John Porter

East ( R), Jim Broyhill ( R), Terry Sanford ( D), Lauch

Faircloth ( R), and John Edwards ( D).

Despite the relative stability of Helms’ seat and

the great instability of the Edwards revolving door seat, it

is the campaign costs for Helms’ seat that have been by

far the higher of the two ( see “ Cost of US Senate Elec-tions”

table on page 7). The five Helms races have cost

candidates a total of $ 92 million ( in 2000 dollar equiva-lents)

compared to the total of $ 48 million for the five

revolving door races. A single race for the Helms seat has

averaged ( in 2000 dollar equivalents), $ 18.4 million,

while a single race for the revolving door seat has aver-aged

$ 9.7 million ( in 2000 dollar equivalents). Some

analysts argue that the Helms seat is stable precisely be-cause

the Senator has been able to raise and spend so

much money in his campaigns, while there are many rea-sons

for the instability in the revolving door seat.

Converting Campaign Expendi-tures

to May 2000$ Equivalents

Campaign expenditures were converted into May

2000 dollar equivalents in order to compare across

years and control for inflation.

May 2000 dollar equivalents were created from the

Consumer Price Index- Urban, using 1982- 84 as

the base years [= 1.000]. The May 2000 CPI- U in-dex

value was 1.713. To determine each year’s

2000$ value, that year’s CPI- U was divided by the

May 2000 1.713 value. The 1968 CPI- U was .349

on the 1982- 84 base; this divided by the 1.713 May

2000 CPI- U equaled .204. Other years are:

1972 = .418 [. 244] 1974 = .493 [. 288]

1976 = .569 [. 332] 1978 = .652 [. 381]

1980 = .824 [. 481] 1984 = 1.039 [. 607]

1986 = 1.096 [. 640] 1988 = 1.183 [. 691]

1990 = 1.307 [. 763] 1992 = 1.403 [. 819]

1996 = 1.569 [. 920] 1998 = 1.630 [. 952]

North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 7

We will have to wait and see whether Helms seeks

to extend his hold in 2002. If he doesn’t run, will the

campaign expenditures be considerably less in that race?

And in 2004, will Edwards be able to break the three-decade

jinx of the revolving door by being reelected? ♦

Cost of US Senate Elections: 1972- 1998

Campaign Expenditures per Election Year

Total Spending Total Spending Total # of Cost per Vote

Year Reported ( in 2000$ Equivalent) Votes Cast ( in $ 2000)

1972 $ 1,124,339 $ 4,607,947 1,472,541 $ 3.13

1974 $ 1,166,728 $ 4,051,139 1,011,393 $ 4.01

1978 $ 8,387,293 $ 22,013,892 1,135,814 $ 19.38

1980 $ 2,124,084 $ 4,415,975 1,785,717 $ 2.47

1984 $ 26,379,483 $ 43,458,785 2,227,256 $ 19.51

1986 $ 9,356,753 $ 14,619,926 1,591,330 $ 9.19

1990 $ 25,572,829 $ 33,516,158 2,069,904 $ 16.19

1992 $ 5,438,482 $ 6,640,393 2,577,891 $ 2.58

1996 $ 22,582,246 $ 24,545,919 2,556,456 $ 9.60

1998 $ 17,707,153 $ 18,599,950 2,012,143 $ 9.24

Total $ 176,470,084 18,440,445 $ 9.58

Type of Election

Contested Primary?

Year Status Dem. Rep. Margin of Victory Dem $ Rep $

1972 Open Seat YY Y + 8 R 43.0% 57.0%

1974 Open Seat Y Y + 26 D 67.0 33.0

1978 Incumbent YY N + 10 R 3.1 96.9

1980 Incumbent N N + 1 R 44.6 55.4

1984 Incumbent Y Y + 4 R 35.9 64.1

1986 Appointee Y Y + 4 D 44.7 55.4

1990 Incumbent YY Y + 6 R 30.5 69.5

1992 Incumbent N Y + 4 R 45.7 54.3

1996 Incumbent Y N + 7 R 35.4 64.6

1998 Incumbent Y N + 4 D 47.1 52.9

Note: Two “ total spending” figures are listed for each year: “ Total Spending Reported” is the total of the actual

amounts reported by all candidates; “ Total Spending in 2000$” is the reported amount converted to May 2000

dollar equivalents to control for the effect of inflation. ( See box on page 6 for details on conversion method.)

Appointee = incumbent had been appointed to the seat, and was now seeking election in his own right

Contested Primary? Listed by party; Y = yes; YY = second primary

Sources: Almanac of American Politics, 1974- 2000; NC State Board of Elections

North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 8

Helms/ Hunt Political Money

Thad Beyle ( UNC- CH Political Science)

Over the last three decades, two major political

figures have dominated our state’s politics: Senator Jesse

Helms and Governor Jim Hunt. According to the analysis

in the table below, their initial elections have turned out

to be their least expensive races. Helms spent “ only” $ 2.7

million in his 1972 win and Hunt spent “ only” $ 5 million

in his 1976 win ( in 2000 dollar equivalents). Since those

elections, the cost of winning their elections has in-creased

considerably, especially for Helms.

Not only have they continued to win their elec-tions,

they were involved in the “ Great 1984 Train

Wreck” when they did battle over who would hold

Helms’ U. S. Senate seat come 1985. The 1984 race was a

train wreck in that these two political figures were on the

same track moving at high speed toward each other. Once

Hunt won reelection in 1980 and would be leaving office

in 1985, it was fairly apparent that if he was to go further

in the state’s politics, that U. S. Senate seat was the op-tion.

And an expensive train wreck it was, with the can-didates

spending ( in 2000 dollar equivalents), $ 43.5 mil-lion,

making it probably the most expensive statewide

political race in North Carolina history. To hold on to the

seat, Helms outspent Hunt by a 1.8 to 1 ratio ( in 2000

dollar equivalents, that would be $ 27.9 million to $ 15.6

million).

But Helms has consistently spent more money on

his campaigns than has Hunt. The former spent $ 92 mil-lion

in his five U. S. Senate races compared to the $ 45.6

million Hunt has spent on his four gubernatorial and one

senatorial races— a 2 to 1 ratio. And this was even true in

their 1996 reelection races, where ( in 2000 dollar

equivalents), Helms outspent Hunt $ 16.9 million to $ 9.9

million, or a 1.7 to 1 ratio. ♦

Campaign Spending by Jesse Helms and Jim Hunt

Total Spending Total Spending Total # of Cost per Vote

Year Reported ( in 2000$ Equivalent) Votes Cast ( in 2000$)

Jesse Helms

1972 $ 654,246 $ 2,681,366 795,248 $ 3.37

1978 $ 8,123,205 $ 21,320,748 619,151 $ 34.44

1984 $ 16,917,559 $ 27,870,772 1,156,768 $ 24.09

1990 $ 17,761,579 $ 23,278,609 1,088,331 $ 21.39

1996 $ 14,589,266 $ 16,870,103 1,345,833 $ 12.54

Total $ 92,021,598 5,005,331 $ 18.38

Average per election $ 18,404,319 1,001,006 $ 18.38

Jim Hunt

1976 $ 1,665,913 $ 5,017,810 1,081,293 $ 4.64

1980 $ 3,199,316 $ 6,651,385 1,143,145 $ 5.82

1984* $ 9,461,924 $ 15,588,013 1,070,488 $ 14.56

1992 $ 6,978,623 $ 8,520,907 1,368,246 $ 6.22

1996 $ 9,063,854 $ 9,852,015 1,436,638 $ 7.01

Total $ 45,630,130 6,099,810 $ 7.48

Average per election $ 9,126,026 1,219,962 $ 7.48

Note: Two “ total spending” figures are listed for each year: “ Total Spending Reported” is the actual amount

reported; “ Total Spending in 2000$” is the reported amount converted to May 2000 dollar equivalents to control

for the effect of inflation. ( See box on page 6 for details on conversion method.)

1984* Hunt’s US Senate race. All Helms’ races were for the US Senate.

Sources: Almanac of American Politics, 1974- 2000; NC State Board of Elections

North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 9

A State Lottery for NC?

Thad Beyle ( Note: A version of this article appeared

in the June 2, 2000 issue of the Chapel Hill News).

This past spring, the two leading Democratic can-didates

for governor agreed on one major issue: that

North Carolina should establish a state lottery and use the

proceeds for education. Mike Easley and Dennis Wicker

disagreed on exactly what part of education should re-ceive

these funds, but many observers were surprised at

their insistence that the state get into the lottery business.

Why should the lottery suddenly become a major

issue in this year’s gubernatorial race? There are several

reasons: money, media, policy, and politics.

♦ Money: adjoining states have lotteries and they have

been attracting North Carolina money to them. Why

shouldn’t we get a lottery so we keep those funds

here in our state? And we do need more revenues for

the state budget, especially in education.

♦ Media: not only do we see TV programs like Who

Wants to Be a Millionaire? flourishing, but there is

close coverage of people who win major lotteries

across the country. Who wouldn’t be enticed by

pictures of happy new millionaires holding oversized

checks with their winnings?

♦ Policy: Georgia has successfully used lottery receipts

to subsidize college education through its Hope

Scholarships, making the state a bright beacon for

what a well conceived lottery can achieve to help

education within a state. More Georgians are going

on to college and are staying in the state.

♦ Politics: the 1998 gubernatorial elections in Alabama

and South Carolina saw two incumbent anti- gaming

Republican governors unseated by Democratic

challengers who advocated a state lottery. If the is-sue

can win elections, use it.

Of course there are reasons not to get into the lot-tery

business. These include serious religious objections

over the lottery as a moral issue. Others worry about a

lottery encouraging citizens to gamble, creating false

hopes of winning a lot of money, and assisting them in

becoming gambling addicts. Others see a lottery as a not

so hidden tax, and a very regressive tax at that.

What are the prospects of North Carolina adopting

a state lottery? The first step is to get a lottery- supporting

candidate elected as governor. Without a governor in the

lead, a state lottery is dead in the water in this state. The

next step is to get the newly elected legislature to agree

with the new governor’s lottery proposal and put the

proposition out to the public for a referendum vote. State

legislative candidates can expect some serious questions

this year about their stance on a possible state lottery.

How would North Carolinians vote on this propo-sition?

They would support it, according to the series of

seven Carolina Polls taken between 1983 and 1999 which

asked respondents about a state lottery ( see “ Trends in

Lottery Support” table, below). Support has generally

ranged from a 2 to 1 positive ratio to a 4 to 1 positive

ratio, depending on how the question was worded. The

recent fall 1999 Carolina Poll found a 62% support to

31% oppose ratio ( see “ Populations Likely to Support or

Oppose” table, next page).

Of interest here is which populations are most

likely to support or oppose a state lottery. The sub-groups

most likely to support a state lottery included re-spondents

ages 18 to 24 years old, respondents who

never attend church or attend church infrequently, re-spondents

who have never married, respondents in the

coastal region of the state, and respondents at the lowest

end of the income scale. The sub- groups most likely to

oppose a state lottery were respondents who attend

church at least once a week, respondents age 65 or older,

respondents in the mountain region, and respondents at

the highest end of the income scale. The key differences

here revolve around age, income, and religion.

But as samples of adult North Carolinians, these

polls can be misleading come election day. How would a

sample of registered voters differ? More importantly,

Trends in Lottery Support: 1983- 99

Poll Date Question* % Positive % Negative

April 1983 a 59 G 28 B

October 1989 b 66 S 25 O

October 1990 b 61 S 24 O

March 1994 c 72 Y 21 N

March 1997 b 61 S 30 O

March 1998 d 69 F 16 O

October 1999 b 62 S 31 O

* Question wording and response options:

a " Do you think a state lottery would be a good

idea or a bad idea?" G = good, B = bad

b " Do you support or oppose a state lottery for

North Carolina?" S = support, O = oppose

c " Do you think North Carolina lawmakers should

consider starting a lottery to help our schools?"

Y = yes, N = no

d " Some people favor a state lottery to raise reve-nue

for the NC educational system. Other people

oppose a lottery on moral or economic grounds.”

F = favor, O = oppose ( Split sample; see note in

“ Populations Likely to Support or Oppose a NC

Lottery” table, page 10)

Sources: Various years of the Carolina Poll

( http:// www. irss. unc. edu/ irss/ researchdesservices/

researchdeslinks/ cpollreports. htm).

North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 10

how would a poll of “ likely voters” differ? My guess is

that the lottery issue is much tighter than it first appears

once we get down to people who would actually have the

interest and take the time to vote. And with the issues and

perspectives involved, it would be a very tough cam-paign.

One last point on how even those in politics can

misread public sentiment from election results. Newly

elected Alabama Governor Don Siegelman took immedi-ate

steps to implement his pro lottery stance. It passed the

state legislature and then went out to the voters for their

concurrence. They didn’t concur, defeating the proposal

with a 55% “ no” vote! This was the same electorate that

had elected the pro state lottery Siegelman only a year

earlier by 58%. What happened? In retrospect, the media

and other analysts now believe what happened in that

election was the voters were more interested in evicting

incumbent Governor Fob James than in getting a state

lottery. So, read those public opinion polls and the votes

in the poll booth very carefully. ♦

Presidential Voting and NC Voters

Christine A. Kelleher and Thad Beyle

( UNC- CH Political Science)

In its February 21, 2000 issue, USA Today re-leased

a ranking of the best to worst U. S. presidents. All

forty- one men who ever held the office were ranked ac-cording

to the quality of their performance by a survey of

fifty- eight presidential historians ( see “ USA Today’s

Presidential Rankings versus NC’s Voting History” table

on page 12). While it is interesting to explore where all

of the different presidents fall in a national historical

framework, an equally interesting question explores how

the voters in North Carolina measured up in voting for

our presidents. Did they support those at the top of the

ranking more than those further down the rankings? Or is

there no distinct pattern of North Carolina voters being

able to discern the potential quality of performance?

The top presidents, ranked in order from one to

ten, were Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt,

George Washington, Theodore Roosevelt, Harry S.

Truman, Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson, John F.

Kennedy, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Lyndon B. John-son.

There is a clear twentieth century bias in the top ten

ranking, with only three— Lincoln, Washington, and Jef-ferson—

nineteenth century mentions. The top presidents’

service in office generally coincided with major events in

the history of our country: the Revolutionary War, the

creation of the new Union, the Civil War, World War I,

the Great Depression, World War II, the Cold War, and

the Civil Rights era.

The ten top presidents ran in nineteen presidential

elections, winning eighteen of them nationally. They won

a majority of North Carolina’s Electoral College ( EC) 1

votes in twelve ( 63%) of these races. The seven excep-tions

are of interest. Two exceptions were tied to the fact

that North Carolina was not in the Union when the elec-tion

occurred. In 1789 ( George Washington’s first elec-tion),

North Carolina had not yet ratified the Constitu-tion,

having led the fight to have a Bill of Rights attached

before ratifying it. In 1864 ( Lincoln’s second election),

North Carolina was part of the Confederacy, having se-ceded

from the Union. Another exception was in 1860

( Lincoln’s first election), when the Civil War loomed on

the horizon. Two other exceptions were tied to Teddy

Roosevelt, who in 1904 was an “ accidental President”

seeking to win the office in his own right and who in

1912 was a former president trying to regain the office as

the candidate of the Progressive Party. The final two ex-ceptions

were the two Eisenhower elections in the 1950s.

While Ike didn’t carry North Carolina, his two presiden-tial

campaigns had much to do in helping Republicans

become a greater force in the state.

Populations Likely to Support or

Oppose a NC Lottery: Oct 1999

Sub- Groups More Likely to Favor a Lottery

( total sample) 62%

18- 24 years old 81

Never attend church 80

Attend church less than once a month 77

Never married 76

Attend church 1- 3 times a month 72

Live in coastal region 70

Earn less than $ 10,000 per year 69

Sub- Groups More Likely to Oppose a Lottery

( total sample) 31%

Attend church at least once a week 47

65 years or older 45

Live in mountain region 41

Republican 37

Earn $ 80,000 or more a year 37

Note: Question wording was: " Some people favor a

state lottery to raise revenue for the NC educational

system. Other people oppose a lottery on moral or

economic grounds. Do you strongly favor, favor, op-pose,

or strongly oppose a state lottery with the reve-nue

used to support education?" The sample was

split for this question, with half the respondents asked

the question as worded as above and half asked the

question with sentences 1 and 2 reversed. The re-sponses

were not appreciably different and the re-sults

were merged for presentation here. Also, the

“ strongly favor” and “ favor” responses were com-bined,

as were the “ oppose” and “ strongly oppose”

responses.

Source: Fall 1999 Carolina Poll, October 23- 30,

1999, 717 adult NC residents.

North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 11

Presidential Elections in NC

First, let’s look at the fifty- three presidential elec-tions

North Carolina held between 1789 and 1996. Over-all,

in the fifty- one presidential elections in which the

state’s EC votes counted, the winner nationally also won

in the state thirty- four times ( 67%). But there have been

four rather distinct patterns over the two centuries in the

results of these elections in North Carolina.

♦ In the eighteen presidential elections in the pre- Civil

War period, the state’s EC vote went to the winning

candidate fourteen times ( 78%). The only presidents

not winning the state’s EC votes during this period

were John Adams ( 1796), John Quincy Adams

( 1824) and James Polk ( 1844). The other election

was the 1789 noted above.

♦ In the ten presidential elections between 1860 and

1900, there was considerable deviation between the

vote in the nation and the vote in the state, as the

Civil War and its aftermath were being felt. Only

four presidents won the state’s EC vote in this pe-riod:

Ulysses S. Grant ( 1868 and 1872) and Grover

Cleveland ( 1884 and 1892). This was a 44% winning

rate, discounting the 1864 election noted above.

♦ In the seventeen presidential elections between the

McKinley election of 1900 and the Johnson election

of 1964, the state was safely Democratic. The only

Republican presidential candidate to carry the state

was Herbert Hoover in 1928. Many of the state’s

Democratic voters just couldn’t buy the Democratic

candidate, New York Governor Al Smith, a Catholic

and a Prohibition- Era “ wet.” The state’s EC vote

went to the winner in ten of these contests, a 59%

winning rate.

♦ In the eight presidential elections since 1968, North

Carolinians’ votes went to the Republican candidate

in all but the 1976 Jimmy Carter victory. North

Carolina’s vote went to the winner in seven of these

eight elections ( 88%).

How Individual Presidents Have Fared in NC

Now, we turn to see how individual presidents

have fared in presidential elections in NC. In this discus-sion,

“ presidents” are individuals who either won the

presidency, ran for reelection, or sought to regain the

office. Election attempts prior to their initial presidential

win ( e. g., Nixon in 1960) are not included. ( See “ Total

Number of Presidential Elections” table, below.)

♦ These forty- one presidents were involved in sixty-three

separate presidential elections and won fifty-three

of them nationally ( 84%). They won the state’s

EC vote in thirty- six of the sixty- three races ( 57%).

♦ The top twenty presidents in the rankings were in-volved

in more presidential elections ( 38) than those

in the bottom half ( 25), a 1.5 to 1 ratio. Part of this

disparity is tied to those presidents in the lower half

who either died in their first and only term ( Garfield,

Harding, W. H. Harrison, Taylor), or as vice presi-dents

succeeded to the presidency and only served

out that term following the death of the elected

president ( Arthur, Filmore, Ford, A. Johnson, Tyler).

♦ The twenty presidents in the top half of the rankings

won thirty- four of their thirty- eight races nationally

( 89%), and won North Carolina’s EC vote in twenty-five

of these races ( 66%).

♦ The twenty- one presidents in the bottom half of the

rankings won nineteen of their twenty- five races na-tionally

( 76%) and won North Carolina’s EC vote in

eleven of these races ( 44%).

♦ Nineteen presidents won every one of their elections

in North Carolina: Buchanan, Bush ( 2 races),

Cleveland ( 3 races), Grant ( 2), W. H. Harrison, Jack-son

( 2), Jefferson ( 2), L. Johnson, Kennedy, Madi-son

( 2), Monroe ( 2), Nixon ( 2), Pierce, Reagan ( 2),

F. Roosevelt ( 4), Taylor, Truman, Washington, Wil-son

( 2)

Total Number of Presidential Elections

USA Today Won- US Lost- US Total #

Quartile Ranking Total W- NC L- NC Total W- NC L- NC of Elections

# 1 through # 10 18 12 4 [ 2]* 1 0 1 19

# 11 through # 20 16 11 5 3 2 1 19

# 21 through # 30 11 5 6 4 0 4 15

# 31 through # 41 8 6 2 2 0 2 10

Total 53 34 17 10 2 8 63

Note: Table includes all presidential elections in which a president was elected, an incumbent president sought

another term, or a former president sought to return to the White House.

Won/ Lost- US: Total = national elections won/ lost; W- NC = NC elections won; L- NC = NC elections lost

* Two elections occurred when NC was not part of the Union ( Washington’s in 1789 and Lincoln’s in 1864).

North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 12

USA Today’s Presidential Rankings versus NC’s Voting History

NC Outcome NC Outcome

Rank President Year Won? Vote % Rank President Year Won? Vote %

1 Abraham Lincoln W 1860 N 3% 21 Bill Clinton W 1992 N 43%

W 1864* Not in Union W 1996 N 44%

2 Franklin Roosevelt W 1932 Y 70% 22 Jimmy Carter W 1976 Y 55%

W 1936 Y 73% 1980 N 47%

W 1940 Y 74% 23 Gerald Ford 1974* VP

W 1944 Y 67% 1976 N 44%

3 George Washington W 1789* Not in Union 24 William H. Taft W 1908 N46%

W 1792 Y 12/ 12 EC 1912* N 12%

4 Theodore Roosevelt 1900* VP 25 Richard M. Nixon W 1968* Y 40%

W 1904 N 40% W 1972 Y 70%

1912 N 28% 26 Rutherford Hayes W 1876 N 46%

5 Harry Truman 1944* VP 27 Calvin Coolidge 1920* VP

W 1948 Y 58% W 1924 N 40%

6 Woodrow Wilson W 1912 Y 59% 28 Zachary Taylor W 1848 Y55%

W 1916 Y 58% 29 James Garfield W 1880 N 48%

7 Thomas Jefferson W 1800 Y 58% 30 Martin Van Buren W 1836 Y 53%

W 1804 Y 14/ 14 EC 1840 N 42%

8 John Kennedy W 1960 Y 52% 31 Benjamin Harrison W 1888 N 48%

9 Dwight Eisenhower W 1952 N 46% 1892 N 36%

W 1956 N 49% 32 Chester Arthur 1880* VP

10 Lyndon Johnson 1960* VP 33 Ulysses S. Grant W 1868 Y 53%

W 1964 Y 56% W 1872 Y57%

11 Ronald Reagan W 1980 Y 49% 34 Herbert Hoover W 1928 Y 55%

W 1984 Y 61% 1932 N 29%

12 James Polk W 1844 N 48% 35 Millard Filmore 1852* VP

13 Andrew Jackson W 1828 Y 73% 36 John Tyler 1840* VP

W 1832 Y 85% 37 William H. Harrison W 1840 Y58%

14 James Monroe W 1816 Y 97% 38 Warren Harding W 1920 N43%

W 1820 Y 96% 39 Franklin Pierce W 1852 Y 50.4%

15 William McKinley W 1896 N 47% 40 Andrew Johnson 1865* VP

W 1900 N 46% 41 James Buchanan W 1856* Y 57%

16 John Adams W 1796 N 1/ 24 EC

17 Grover Cleveland W 1884 Y 53%

1888 Y 52%

W 1892 Y 48%

18 James Madison W 1808 Y 48%

W 1812 Y 15/ 15 EC

19 John Q. Adams W 1824 N 36%

1828 N 27%

20 George Bush W 1988 Y 58%

1992 Y 44%

Rank = USA Today ranking ( See “ Presidential Voting” article, page 10)

Year: W = won national election for president

NC Outcome: Won in NC? = Yes/ No; Vote % = % of the NC popular vote ( for elections prior to 1816, the # of

Electoral College votes won out of # possible are listed in lieu of actual returns).

VP = vice- president, succeeded after death of president

* = See the “ Notes for Presidential Rankings Table” ( page 13) for details on particular years.

Sources: Seth B. Hinshaw, North Carolina Election Returns 1790- 1866: Covering the Races for President,

Governor and US House ( Stockport, OH: S. B. Hinshaw, 1992); John L. Chaney, Jr., ed., North Carolina Gov-ernment,

1585- 1974, ( Raleigh: Secretary of State's Office, 1975); CQ's Guide to US Elections, ( Washington,

D. C. CQ Press, 1975), and Venessa Goodman and Jack Betts, Growth of a Two- Party System in North Caro-lina

( Raleigh: North Carolina Center for Public Policy Research, 1987).

North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 13

♦ Fifteen presidents never won any of their twenty- two

races in North Carolina: J. Adams, J. Q. Adams ( 2

races), Clinton ( 2), Coolidge, Eisenhower ( 2), Ford,

Garfield, Harding, B. Harrison, Hayes, Lincoln,

McKinley ( 2), Polk, T. Roosevelt ( 2), Taft ( 2).

Summary

The panel of fifty- eight presidential historians

voted last winter on who they thought were the country’s

best and worst presidents. North Carolina voters and

electors have been casting their votes on presidents for

over the past two centuries. There are parallels and de-viations

between these two sets of votes. Not only is it

the president’s job performance while in office that has

counted in these votes, but the times in which they

served: wars, good times and bad times, terms shortened

by death, and being an “ accidental president” serving out

the terms of those who died or left office.

A general conclusion might be that North Carolina

voters are both leaders and followers. They have fol-lowed

national trends as well as deviated from them. Re-gardless

of their political positions, however, they have

undoubtedly demonstrated that their voice is an important

one, revealing much about the nature and course of both

North Carolina as a state as well as the more general no-tions

surrounding American history and tradition.

1Regarding North Carolina’s treatment of Electoral

College ( EC) votes, presidential electors were chosen by the

state legislature in 1792; in the 1796 to 1808 elections, electors

were selected in districts by popular vote; in 1812, electors

were selected by the state legislature; and since 1816, electors

have been selected by statewide popular vote. ♦

Notes for Presidential Rankings Table ( page 12)

1789 NC did not vote, since it had not yet ratified the U. S. Constitution.

1840 John Tyler ran as William Henry Harrison’s vice president in 1840 and succeeded to the presidency

when Harrison died one month after the inauguration. Both major parties spurned any bid by Tyler to

be nominated as their presidential candidate in 1844.

1852 Millard Filmore ran as Zachary Taylor’ vice president in 1848 and succeeded to the presidency follow-ing

Taylor’s death in 1850. Filmore lost his bid for the Whig nomination for president in 1852.

1856 James Buchanan did not seek reelection in 1860, nor would either wing of his splintered party have

considered him as a candidate.

1864 NC did not vote, since it had seceded from the Union.

1865 Andrew Johnson ran as Abraham Lincoln’s vice president in 1864 and succeeded to the presidency

following Lincoln’s assassination in April 1865. Johnson survived an impeachment attempt in 1868, but

the Democratic Party selected New York Governor Horatio Seymour as its candidate.

1880 Chester Arthur ran as James Garfield’s vice president in 1880 and succeeded to the presidency

following Garfield’s assassination in 1881. Declining health prevented Arthur from running in 1884.

1900 Theodore Roosevelt ran as William McKinley’s vice president in 1900 and succeeded to the presidency

following McKinley’s assassination in 1901.

1912 Woodrow Wilson beat Taft and Theodore Roosevelt

1920 Calvin Coolidge ran as Warren Harding’s vice president in 1920 and succeeded to the presidency

following Harding’s death in 1923.

1944 Harry Truman ran as Franklin Roosevelt’s vice president in 1944 and succeeded to the presidency

following Roosevelt’s death in 1945.

1960 Lyndon Johnson ran as John Kennedy’s vice president in 1960 and succeeded to the presidency

following Kennedy’s assassination in 1963.

1968 Nixon defeated Hubert Humphrey ( who received 29% of NC vote) and George Wallace ( 31%).

1974 Gerald Ford was appointed vice president by Richard Nixon after Spiro Agnew resigned in October

1973. Ford succeeded to the presidency following Nixon’s resignation in August 1974.

North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 14

NC DataNet’s New Home

Ferrel Guillory ( UNC- CH Program on Media,

Southern Politics and Public Life,

School of Journalism and Mass Communications)

The Program on Southern Politics, Media and

Public Life seeks to enhance the public service mission

of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill by

serving as a vehicle for the university to assert its schol-arly

strength and civic tradition in the region. Its princi-pal

goals are to create on campus a common- ground

meeting place for civic, business, journalistic and politi-cal

leaders and to enrich research and learning opportu-nities

for faculty and students.

It is in keeping with the program’s efforts to make

the work of scholars and their students more accessible

that the program has become the publishing home of

North Carolina DataNet. This is a quarterly newsletter of

government and political data, edited by UNC- CH Politi-cal

Science Professor Thad Beyle, and published, until

now, by the Odom Institute for Research in Social Sci-ence

( IRSS). As a result of recent administrative changes,

the Odum Institute can no longer publish North Carolina

DataNet. Because of the value of this publication— as an

outlet for faculty research and student projects— the Pro-gram

on Southern Politics, Media and Public Life agreed

to become its new publisher. The newsletter’s audience

includes faculty in political science and the humanities,

state legislators, journalists, opinion leaders, and others

with an interest in politics in this state.

In addition to publishing North Carolina DataNet,

the Program on Southern Politics, Media and Public Life

has the following line- up of projects:

Executive Seminars for State Legislators

This project, conducted in collaboration with the

UNC- CH Program on the Humanities and Human Val-ues,

gives lawmakers, with a special emphasis on

emerging leaders, an opportunity to read, think, and talk

about big issues of our time. The second seminar in this

series is scheduled for November 12- 15, 2000, in Chapel

Hill. The first seminar last year attracted eighteen state

legislators from seven states. Presenters included former

Governor William Winter of Mississippi, former Gover-nor

James Holshouser of North Carolina, historians John

Hope Franklin and William Leuchtenburg, UNC- CH

Public Health Dean William Roper, UNC- CH Education

Dean Madeleine Grumet, and former UNC System Presi-dent

William Friday.

Southern Journalists Roundtables

Once a semester, the program gathers a roundtable

of columnists, editorial writers, and state capital corre-spondents,

along with UNC faculty and graduate stu-dents,

to consider emerging and enduring issues in the

Southern states. The fifth roundtable will take place fol-lowing

the 2000 general election.

Election 2000 Project

The Program on Southern Politics, Media and

Public Life joined as a “ state partner’’ to the Alliance for

Better Campaigns, a Pew- funded organization working to

expand candidate- centered discourse on television. The

program has two roles: a) to encourage television stations

in North Carolina to devote five minutes a day to cam-paign

coverage in the thirty days prior to an election, as

recommended by the federal Advisory Commission on

the Public Interest Obligations of Digital Broadcasters;

and b) to monitor TV coverage of the gubernatorial race

in North Carolina. Jim Goodmon, the chief executive of

Capitol Broadcasting Co., who served on the Advisory

Commission, took the lead among state broadcasters in

offering two- minute messages from major- party candi-dates

for governor three times a day for the thirty days

prior to the May 2 primaries on four of its TV stations,

including WRAL- TV. In addition, WBTV- TV in Char-lotte

aired a nightly report on primary campaigns

throughout the month of April.

Campaign 2000 Commentary

The program has joined with WUNC- FM radio in

an effort to bolster the station’s attention to and com-mentary

on this year’s election campaigns. I will be a

regular commentator for the station during its local seg-ments

in the Friday afternoon All Things Considered time

period. ♦

NC DataNet

Odum Institute for Research in Social Science

CB# 3355

University of North Carolina

Chapel Hill NC 27599- 3355