Brookhim 1

Saman Brookhim
Professor Fox
Writing 102-91
5 April 2012
Are Elections In the United States Fair?
Compared to any other democracy in the world the United States has the lowest voter
turnout (Wilson, 175). To the average voter, the election process is seen as a direct way to voice
their opinions and get pertinent legislation passed for their benefit. Similarly, allows
representatives and other elected officials to carry out the will of the people but to the non-voters
it can be seen as a corrupt process that only carries out the will of moneyed interests. The
conclusion about the corrupt nature of elections is not without merit and causes skepticism in the
process of electing officials. The process of electing our representatives is not representative of
the population as a result of the ability to gerrymander districts, privileges and advantages only
available to officials already in office including earmarks and the franking privilege, and the
amount of money they are able to collect, especially from interest groups and political action
committees.
Gerrymandering has negatively affected the ability of voters to elect politicians that more
closely align themselves with the constituencys point of view. According to Herb Jackson of
McClatchy - Tribune Business News, Behind closed doors, political insiders draw districts to
accentuate the dominant party's grip on power, minimize the minority party's influence, and
punish lawmakers who are at odds with the Legislature's top dogs. Herb Jackson claims
gerrymandering negatively affects votes because it inherently creates districts that are not
representative of the population of that district. Gerrymandering is the process by which the
political party in power draws the lines of each district to enhance the reelection rates of their
political party or elected officials of their political party that are already in office (Magleby, et al,
681). This political tool has been used by incumbents as recently as last year when a

Brookhim 2

congressman from Chicago, Illinois redrew a congressional district so that they could maintain
a contiguous area of homogenous constituents (Lucido). The congressmen, apparently, had no
other option that to traverse the interstate to accommodate a representative district.

The euphemism used to refer to the position that is created using this tool is called safe seat,
referring to the fact that the officeholders dont have to fight to retain their seats. Although in
theory gerrymandering could make the districts further representative of the inhabitants, the term
has historically always has always had a negative connotation to it as a result of its misuse by
incumbent politicians. As a result the elections do not accurately represent the voters intentions,
which negatively affect the view of election process.
The use of gerrymandering also leads to malapportionment and majority-minority
redistricting, which are dubious strategies in which the people who draw the district lines use to
disenfranchise a certain group of people. Malapportionment is defined as having legislative
districts with unequal populations and majority-minority districts were districts created to
include a majority of minority voters (Magleby, et al, 681,687). These strategies were originally
intended to disenfranchise black voters by putting a near majority of them in one district but

Brookhim 3

making sure they never had the majority, but over the years have been used by many politicians
to systematically disenfranchise voters in their districts that did not vote for them. By using this
strategy, the votes to elect representatives of their choice to the House of Representatives became
useless. A politician would create a district with a high percentage of voters (but than 50 percent)
that did not vote in his favor but a higher percentage of voters that did vote in his favor. In this
way the percentage of voters that did not vote in his favor would never be able to succeed and
therefore the politician would never be voted out of office. The Supreme Courts Shaw v. Reno
stated that in order for race to be used there must be a compelling interest that is served
(Magleby, et al, 687). Instead of a ban on this gross corruption of our political system, the
strategy was ruled constitutional so long as race is not the main factor in redistricting. It is
apparent that this tactic was so prominently used that a Supreme Court case was required to end
its abuse. I argue that the use of this tactic undermine the ability of voters to express their beliefs
and therefore caused elections to be unfair.
Other than the ability to gerrymander, officials in the House of Representatives have
more unfair advantages including party affiliation and the economic condition when that
individual was in office. According to George F Will, a writer for the Washington Post stated It
is frequently said but infrequently true that Americans vote their pocketbooks -- that economic
conditions determine their votes. It is nearly impossible for politicians to compete for seats in
office if the economy is doing well. Voters are extremely hesitant to vote against the politicians
in office that they believe had a hand in keeping or improving the state of the economy. The
coattail effect also has similar affects on voting habits. As stated in Government by the People
the boost that candidates may get in an election because of the popularity of candidates above
them on the ballot, especially the president. Similar to the economic boost that candidates may
receive, the party boost can also yield similar results, especially when the President is of the

Brookhim 4

same party. These boosts also establish that elections contain some unfair advantages for the
incumbent politicians and therefore the results are not representative of the population.
Elected officials have the ability to provide funds to their respective districts to get
positive name recognition, which challenging politicians can not provide. Earmarks are funds
for special spending projects that are set aside on behalf of individual members of Congress for
their constituents (Magleby, et al, 325). These funds are usually amendments to legislation that
is already circulating through the chambers of Congress and therefore could not be established
by any competing politician. This ability to bring money to a state greatly enhances a candidates
reputation with his constituents. This is one example where the incumbent politician can better
the economic condition within the district, which voters use as a benchmark when they go to the
polls to vote. Since this process is not available to the challenging politicians it makes it
extremely difficult for them to get elected.
Another unfair advantage that all members of Congress, both Representatives and
Senators, receive is the franking privilege, which is the ability to send official mail to
constituents without postage. Congress provides perks, or material support, that comes with the
job, including the franking privilege which allows free mailing to constituents and local media,
a paid staff for Washington and district offices, and distribution of government publications
(Elections to the U. S. Senate). A major component of winning an election is the ability to
reach out the constituency and prove that you are the right person for the position. Therefore, the
ability to send mailings out the hundreds of the thousands of voters in your district without any
cost is of great advantage to the incumbent. Challengers have to first find the funds to be able to
send mailings and even then they probably wont come close to being able to send as many
mailings as the incumbent. I argue that this privilege is of great disadvantage to the challenging
politician and its affects on the election inhibit the results from being representative of the voters.

Brookhim 5

Not only is there a personal monetary incentive while holding a position in office but
there is also an incentive from interest groups with the aid of political action committees that are
not available to challengers. Interest groups are defined as a collection of people who share a
common interest or attitude and seek to influence government for specific ends (Magleby, et al,
144). Political action committees are defined as the arm of an interest group that is legally
entitled to raise funds on a voluntary basis from members, stockholders, or employees to
contribute funds to candidates or political parties (Magleby, et al, 161). Even though these
institutions were seen as necessary to be able to fund the expensive campaign tactics and
practices, the Federal Election Committee along with the guidance of the Supreme Court has
increasingly tightened campaign finance laws that otherwise gave unlimited funds to politicians
in office which interest groups and political action committees thought of as a better investment
because it would be easier to get them elected and they already have the experience necessary to
benefit the groups that invested in them.
One of the several tactics used by incumbents to raise money was soft money. Soft
moneys were contributions given to a state or local party for party-building purposes
(Magleby, et al, 264). Since this type of funding was not regulated or prohibited by the Federal
Election Committee, candidates felt free to fundraise exorbitant amounts of soft moneys and use
them however they pleased as long. As they called it soft money the federal government had no
limitations in place on how it was used. When the Federal Election Committee finally caught on
to the corruption they passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which officially banned soft
money. I argue that because the funds are mostly given to incumbent voters, it makes it
impossible for challengers to raise the funds necessary to compete with the incumbents and
causes the results of the election to be unrepresentative of the population.

Brookhim 6

In the era of technology the cost of running websites and engaging potential voters on
television has increased the cost of running an effective political campaign. This rising cost
further decreases the ability of the challengers to focus on the issues associated with their
campaign, and fraternize with potential voters at lectures and other political events because they
spend more time raising money. The bottom line is that candidates with more money are more
likely to win. What incumbents like doing is raise a great deal of campaign cash first to scare
off serious opposition and, once they have no opposition, to use the money to funnel to other
candidates in their own party, said Craig Holman, a campaign finance lobbyist with Public
Citizen, That helps them climb the ladder of leadership (Herb). The bottom line for any
incumbent is that they can increase much more money than challengers as a result of their
advantages and therefore make it nearly impossible for challengers to compete. The ability to
effectively advertise and persuade the registered voters to vote in your favor takes a great deal of
money and the incumbents almost always come out on top as a result.
The affects of these unfair advantages and privileges are apparent in research done on
elections. According to George F. Will of the Washington Post, and John N. Friedman and
Richard T. Holden of The Journal of Politics respectively, the reelection rates in both the House
of Representatives and the Senate are extremely high.

Brookhim 7

It was discussed in the Journal of Politics that In each of the four Congressional
elections up to 2004, more than 97.9% of incumbents who ran again were reelected. Indeed,
there has been a noticeable upward trend in incumbent reelection rates over the last half
century (Friedman, et al). This is proof that the election process is geared towards reelecting
officials in office and keeping challengers from the positions they have worked so hard for.
In part, the corruption in the political process has dissuaded more individuals from voting
and therefore lowered our voter turnout to what it is today. Politicians have the ability
gerrymander districts to increase the influence of certain voters and decrease the influence of
others that are opposed. Politicians that are in office have unfair privileges such as the ability to
provide earmarks for their constituency, the franking privilege and inherent advantages including
party affiliation and economic condition. On the other hand, challengers to these politicians do not
have any of these advantages, which make it extremely difficult to get elected. Therefore as a
result of all these disadvantages to combatant politicians, I have proven that the elections of
politicians in the United States are not representative of the population.
Works Cited Page

Brookhim 8

"EDITORIAL: Give public more say over redistricting." McClatchy - Tribune Business News
11 December 2010 ABI/INFORM Dateline, ProQuest. Web. 25 Mar. 2012.
"Elections to the U.S. Senate." Encyclopedia of the American Legislative System: Studies of the
Principal Structures, Processes, and Policies of Congress and the State Legislatures Since
the Colonial Era. Ed. Joel H. Silbey. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1994. Gale U.S.
History In Context. Web. 25 Mar. 2012.
Friedman, John N., and Richard T. Holden. "The Rising Incumbent Reelection Rate: What's
Gerrymandering Got to Do With It?*." The Journal of Politics 71.02 (2009): 593-611. Print.
25 Mar. 2012.
Hamm, K., and R. Hogan. "Campaign Finance Laws and Candidacy Decisions in State
Legislative Elections." Political Research Quarterly 61.3 (2008): 458-467. Research
Library, ProQuest. Web. 25 Mar. 2012.
Herb, Jackson. "Campaign funds spent on parties, gifts - and a bit of voter outreach." McClatchy
- Tribune Business News 4 January 2009 ABI/INFORM Dateline, ProQuest. Web. 25 Mar.
2012.
Latimer, Christopher. "Utilizing the Internet as a Campaign Tool: The Relationship Between
Incumbency, Political Party Affiliation, Election Outcomes, and the Quality of Campaign
Web Sites in the United States." Journal of Information Technology & Politics 4.3 (2008):
81-95. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, Vol. 4(3) 2007. The Haworth Press,
Apr. 2007. Web. 25 Mar. 2012.
Magleby, David B., Regina Swopes, Mary Barnes, and Noah Zerbe. Government by the People.
22nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2008. Print. 25 Mar. 2012.
"Statement of Ralph Nader on Supreme Court Decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission." PR Newswire 21 January 2010 ABI/INFORM Dateline, ProQuest. Web. 25
Mar. 2012.
Will, George F. "Keeping Score on Tuesday: [FINAL Edition]." The Washington Post 5
Nov. 2006, ProQuest National Newspapers Premier, ProQuest. Web. 25 Mar. 2012.

Brookhim 9

Wilson, James Q. American Government: Brief Version. 10th ed. Boston: Wadsworth/Cengage
Learning, 2012. 175. Print.