Incumbents enjoy several advantages over challengers—which, combined, explain (at least in part) why incumbents enjoy such high reelection rates. Name recognition is exactly what it sounds like—even though your average citizen often is not involved in politics, she can still generally remember her Senator’s name (or at least recognize the name) when voting. This is an advantage because if a voter knows nothing at ALL about the election or the candidate, she’s more likely to vote for the candidate she’s at least heard of before. “War chest” financing involves candidate taking in money from, say, every election cycle. Even though a candidate may solicit donations, there’s no guarantee that the candidate will use all of the money donated to him (perhaps the challenger is so weak there’s no need to spend quite as much money this year). Thus, the candidate can sit on the money he doesn’t use, and build a so-called “war chest.” In the event that a credible challenger comes along, the incumbent has reserves so that he can massively outspend the challenger. Finally, members of Congress do not have to pay for postage (the “franking” privilege), thus they can send out solicitations for free, whereas other candidates must pay.

One must not identify with a political party in order to be eligible to vote. Many voters choose not to affiliate themselves with any political party, and instead just vote based on the candidates running in each election.

When it comes to determining voter turnout, several prominent demographic factors can help predict the likelihood of a citizen’s absence or arrival at the polling place on Election Day. Among these key influences are the citizen’s age, gender, and educational level. Older people are much more likely to vote, while younger citizens are less frequently registered and vote much less often. As for gender, in today’s society women show up to vote at a slightly higher rate than their male counterparts. Education also plays a vital role – those citizens with higher-than-average educational qualifications have a much higher rate of voter turnout than those citizens who are less educationally connected.

In the early history of the American republic, the Founders believed that white male property owners had the proper stake in society to vote. The structure and content of the early voting laws in the United States reflect this view.

The general public only “directly” elects representative to the Senate and to the House. Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President and approved by Congress. The President and Vice-President are voted for by the general public, but in an election the public is actually voting for electors who, through the electoral college, vote for the President and Vice-President. They key word of the question is "directly."

The Presidential election of 1876 had the highest percentage of the population turning out to vote in United States history, narrowly beating the pre-Civil War election of 1860. It was an election marked by a stark regional divide between the Republican North and the Democratic South (although New York voted Democratic). When there is stark regional differences voter turnout is generally higher, and during the pre-Civil War and immediate post-Civil War era of American politics, voter turnout was the highest it has ever been—around eighty percent.

The voter described in this problem is most likely to vote for a Republican candidate. That is not to say that he would never vote for a Democrat (or any of the other listed parties), it’s simply asking you to pick the most likely/best answer. Because the voter in question is white, male, and a college graduate, he is more likely than not going to vote for the Republican Party. In other words, race, gender, and education all tend to be reliable indicators of political choice (i.e. whites tend to be more republican than minorities, men more than women, and college graduates more so than, say, a PhD who, interestingly enough, tend to be more liberal)).

As a purely factual matter, younger voters are less likely to vote than are older voters. This is due to a variety of factors—some of them intertwined with other socioeconomic factors that increase voting. Older people, for example, tend to be more educated than an 18 year old (one of the obvious reasons being that, with some exceptions, it’s not possible to be a college graduate at 18) and more educated people vote more often than non-educated people. Additionally, older people are more keyed-in to issues such as Social Security as any change will directly affect them, whereas any change in social security is unlikely to have a direct effect on an 18 year old.

As with name brands at the grocery store, name recognition is an important advantage for incumbents. They are already known, while the challenger must get his/her name out there to the general public.

The Presidential election of 1968 was the last election in which a third-party candidate from outside the Democrat-Republican bloc was able to carry at least one state in an election. The independent candidate, George Wallace, won five Southern states by campaigning in favor of the continuation of segregation. The election is also considered an important realignment election, as much of the New Deal bloc of voters migrated towards Richard Nixon’s promise to “restore law and order.”