The right to cast a meaningful vote, equal in value to other votes, is a fundamental tenet US elections. Despite the 1964 Supreme Court decision formally establishing the one person, one vote principle as a legal requirement of elections, our democracy consistently falls short of it. With mechanisms including the winner-take-all format in the Electoral College, disproportioned geographic allocation of senators, extreme partisan gerrymandering in the House of Representatives, and first-past-the-post elections, many voters experience severe vote dilution. <br/><br/>In order to legitimize our democratic structures, American elections should be reformed so every person’s vote has equal weight, ensuring that the election outcomes reflect the will of the people. Altering the current election structure to include more proportional structures including rank choice voting and population-based representation, will result in a democracy more compatible with the one person, one vote principle.

This paper conducts an exploration of the election policy reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic within the United States. While living through and voting during the real-time events which took place during the COVID-19 Pandemic of 2020, it soon became evident that there was not enough experience from earlier election emergencies to properly ensure against voter disenfranchisement. Given the scope of the global pandemic and the speed with which policymakers had to act, there was very little time to properly prepare. There was also great contention regarding the legitimacy of election methods proposed to alleviate in-person election concerns, such as mail-in voting. The political battle between those who believed COVID-19 to be a grave concern against those who did not consider COVID-19 to be a legitimate threat towards their livelihoods also affected policymaking decisions. Policymakers were forced into a corner, as they experienced criticism for not enough government action, as well as disapproval on the actual regulation that came to pass. This paper therefore aims to understand what factors led to the decisions which shaped the election policy which occurred as a reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic during the election year of 2020. This analysis is conducted by considering the following: prior election emergency policy; the development of reactive election policy in March, proactive policy established for the August and November elections; and a review of voter disenfranchisement which occurred due to COVID-19.

Relationship marketing is a framework in which marketers aim to build two-way bonds with their customers, with the result of long-term benefits to both parties. The rise of social media and the prominence of digital marketing in general, including targeted ads, commercial websites, and email campaigns, has increased the potential for brands and organizations to build such relationships with current and potential customers over time. In the realm of politics, digital marketing has been brought to the mainstream throughout the last decade and its prominence in presidential campaigns has increased ever since, closing the gap in communication between voters, organizations, and candidates. This thesis is an exploration of the effect digital marketing had on Arizona State University students’ perceptions of the presidential candidates and political organizations targeting them during the 2020 election season. The ASU Young Democrats, ASU College Republicans, ASU Undergraduate Student Government, and the 2020 Trump and Biden campaigns were studied through three methods: an analysis of each organization’s marketing tactics through the lens of relationship marketing, interviews with each ASU subject, and a survey of 328 students. The conclusion offers recommendations to each subject based on hypotheses formulated from the analyses and discusses the interrelationship that subjects’ relationship marketing strengths and weaknesses had with students’ views of each organization relative to their desired perceptions.