Welcome

Introduction

The United States of America is a truly remarkable country with a fascinating and frustrating system of governance. America may well be unique in the world as a nation that stands for a cause, for what its people expect from their politicians and is for many patriots the last great hope for mankind. It is quite simply the most important political system on Earth, and should therefore be of interest to anyone with any interest in politics and power.

American politics is subject to an ever-changing whirlwind of events, and that is what makes it so absorbing and stimulating as an arena of study. However, there is thankfully much that is constant from one aspect of inquiry to another. The aim of this blog is to assist those embarking upon a journey towards a deeper understanding of politics in the United States, and to arrive at their own informed conclusion. 

Overview of elections

Any understanding of American politics should begin with an examination of the electoral system. In doing so, it is important to recognize the intentions of the founding fathers, the impact of money within the political process and the distinction between theory and practice. We must examine each of these carefully as they are central towards a comprehensive analysis of elections in the United States. Let us therefore begin with the founding fathers of our nation, as this seems a befitting place to start any proper understanding of American politics.

Whilst the framers were fearful of democracy (which they associated with “mob rule”), they sought to create a new Republic which would serve as a beacon of hope for all mankind. As a consequence, the system they bequeathed upon the American people contains a mix of both shrewd skepticism and new world optimism. The electoral system, as with many other facets of American governance; holds a realistic view of how power is wielded by flawed human beings. However, it also reflects an appreciation of the opportunity to learn from the mistakes of the old world.

Money casts a very lengthy shadow indeed over American elections. In order to run for office, politicians need to raise a staggering amount of cash. Ted Turner (the founder of CNN) once said that “money is how we keep score in America.” Although he was not referring to politics, his comment alludes very clearly to the political world. In order to become a credible candidate in the states, it is necessary to raise a sufficiently large war-chest. Candidates need to win what political commentators dub the money primary (an imprecise term … though no less revealing for it!) in order to have any real chance of victory. It has been said, perhaps with some justification; that politicians should appear in public with the names of their sponsors in the manner of a racing driver. At least the public would have a clearer idea of who supplies the greenbacks and what special interests said politicians are beholden to!

The final theme that runs through this opening section is the discord between theory and practice. We are taught from an early age that America is a shining example of democracy, and that we are an exceptional country. America is presented to us as the land of the free with a lengthy history of constitutionally-recognized rights and liberties. Alas, the reality is far from rosy. In truth, America carries with it a considerable democratic deficit. Whilst the United States of America is democratic in a theoretical sense, it falls well short of that ideal in practice. This observation may well identify something intrinsic about the nature of democracy itself. Perhaps all political systems inevitably fail to achieve their worthy intentions?

                Arguably the most serious flaw within the American system is the ability of money to distort the political process. America has been called a ‘dollarocracy;’ and with good reason too. Whilst there is nothing inherently undemocratic in this, the ever-present need for ever-increasing levels of money places donors in a very influential position. As such, donors can exert direct influence upon decision-makers. Politicians may also spend an excessive amount of time chasing donors to the detriment of their representative function. According to one estimate, congressmen spend around 25% to 50% of their time raising funds. Inevitably, the needs of the people may well be side-lined to meet the demands of those at the very top.

                Another aspect of the democratic deficit concerns the role of insider pressure groups. Insider groups representing powerful sections of society (such as Wall Street and the military) can exert an excessive level of influence over elected representatives. Rather than perform their representative function, members of Congress invariably serve the interests of dominant interest groups housed on K Street. Perhaps the clearest illustration of this point alludes to the iron triangle. Consisting of interest groups, congressional committees and the federal bureaucracy; an iron triangle acts in a secretive manner and can reach decisions that are contrary to the wider notion of democracy.

                In terms of electoral representation, one must consider the role of gerrymandering. This is a means by which constituency boundaries are drawn with the sole purpose of determining the result. Such boundaries may thereby hold little relevance to obvious geographical boundaries (as in the case of North Carolina’s twelfth congressional district which links small scattered towns). In virtually all states, constituency boundaries are drawn by political appointees as opposed to an independent body. As a consequence, they may be subject to the influence of powerful figures behind the scenes.

Historically, gerrymandering is widely associated with undemocratic regimes throughout the world. At its very worst, the incumbent is virtually guaranteed victory based on assumptions concerning voting behavior and the distribution of constituents. It is a cozy stitch-up that suits the vested interests of the status quo. However, it could perhaps be justified on the basis of majority-minority districts. Majority-minority districts were first employed in the 1992 House elections, and after a series of legal challenges during the mid-1990s; they look set to remain a feature of congressional elections. Students should note that this does not necessarily require a majority of an ethnic minority, merely a significant number to reside within that constituency.

                From the opposing angle, it could be argued that the US relies too heavily upon the democratic method. The emphasis upon staggered elections and a separation of powers to avoid the abuse of power probably makes the country harder to govern in an effective manner. The quasi-permanent electoral campaign might also lead to members becoming too responsive to the needs of the electorate as opposed to what might be in the long-term interests of the country. A related point concerns the use of direct democracy in several states. Once again, this may sound highly democratic but the consequences could well be negative. There is no better illustration than California, where an over-reliance upon direct democracy is a real problem. Making tough decisions in the golden state becomes virtually impossible in a system balanced so heavily in favor of people power. Controversial but necessary decisions are routinely avoided in order to ensure politicians are re-elected. The founding fathers would surely have never approved of Californian excess.

Armed with these three observations, it is now possible to comprehend the common themes that run through our understanding of American elections. Given the obvious importance of the post, it seems appropriate to begin with the contest to become leader of the country. In the US, the contest effectively begins the precise moment after the previous presidential election. This search becomes all the more heated when the incumbent is not running in the next election (as was the case in 2008 and will also be the case in 2016).