Presidential elections are exciting because they seem to shake up the political landscape immediately. But the full impact of any one contest may not be apparent for many months or even years. These delayed reactions would not surprise the Framers of the Constitution. The Constitution is often ambiguous or vague on the scope of national powers and individual rights, but it is very specific on the structural framework of national elections. The combination of electoral differences between the branches and their overlapping policy powers virtually guarantee that regardless of the perceived “mandate,” presidents cannot govern unilaterally. By analyzing presidential elections as just one component of this dynamic separation of powers system, we get a new perspective on the Constitution’s powerful role in daily political life.

Jasmine Farrier grew up in Brooklyn, New York, and developed her interest in political science as an undergraduate at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. In 2002, Farrier joined the Dept. of Political Science at the University of Louisville. Her current research includes a new book project on inter-branch lawsuits, separation of powers, and constitutional law.