The Role Of Political Politics On Political Elections

Monetary value has had significant influence in determining the outcome of elections. The input and strategies put forward by different forces determine the organizational scheme and the ability to grab most of the seats. Although money has been linked to corrupt deals in many countries, with leaders amassing power through corrupt and underhand methods, especially in Africa, this is not the case of the same monetary influence witnessed in America. The conventions of the U.S.A raise a lot of money in preparation for campaigns and elections to constitute a good number of representatives. The paper, therefore, looks at the effect of money in the recently concluded elections of the Congress, giving a deeper view of the 113th and 114th Congress election of the two major conventions.

There are various factors that determine the cost of an election to an individual candidate. One of the factor is the amount a candidate fundraises (Essig, Chris). Fundraising depends on the person’s wealth, his party willingness to spend and so on. The second factor is how much a candidate spends (Essig, Chris). There are various fields where a candidate must spend to get a vote in an election such as campaign cost, travel

Those candidates whose races are limited to smaller districts and electorates find it easy to run the cost-per-vote tap swiftly. It therefore means that money is not always a determinant of the vote results. A candidate would spend a lot of money and still be beaten by the one who spent relatively lower. 2 In a number of cases, a candidate who enters a general election competition with the right party affiliation for a given district or a better name recognition is highly likely to low amount of money on campaigns.

Over the years, political scientists have expressed their disapproval of American elections. They have openly stated that presidential elections do not matter. The reason being, is that they believe the outcome of elections is a result of forces outside of the campaigner’s influence. For example, the state of the economy, partisan loyalties, and normative, communicative, and symbolic roles are all disconnected from the influence of the campaigner. The latter mentioned aspects (anthropological), according to political scientists, receive little attention from scholars, but their impacts are very substantial. They restore confidence in governing institutions, result in an upsurge in mutual feelings, and give the citizenry hope of a better governing body after elections

Jacobson (1990) focused on campaign spending, finding that the more money a candidate spends, the more likely they are to be elected due to increased voter knowledge of the candidate. In order to spend more money, however, candidates must earn more. According to Snyder (1990), individuals (as well as corporations and committees) are willing to invest in a campaign through contributions because they expect some sort of return for their money (i.e. a successful term in office that acts and produces legislation in accordance with the goals and political ideals of the contributors). One must question, then, the criteria these contributors use to determine which candidates are most likely to win in an election because the probability of winning an election is an unobservable concept (Snyder

It is widely known that to run for president you must have money, and lots of it; which is why, campaign spending has become a hot topic of debate lately. Campaign spending has gone through the roof within the past three presidential elections, in 2012 campaign spending hit an all-time high at nearly $2 billion, raised by president Obama. Beginning in 2004 exponential increases in campaign spending began, the question is now raised where does it all go? Campaign spending goes to an assortment of things, but in recent years more sending has gone towards media expenses, especially as social media, with the younger generation, has taken off. Media spending on adds and other media expenses have also increased. Another question arises is where this money comes from, traditionally large corporations or employees who support the candidates donate large sums of money. In the election of 2008 specifically, presidential candidate Obama rebuked this idea, and used the strategy that if every individual gave a little money then it would be more beneficial than if few gave large amount of money, which was successful. He also emphasized this idea by setting a limit on the amount one person could donate. As to strategies that many candidates use they focus on states with the higher electoral vote, states which are more competitive, and places and states in which they are more competitive in. For

The amount of times a candidate campaigns in a state could have an impact on the voters. Campaigns built on mobilizing and rallying up certain areas will in turn have an impact on who votes. While states are a good place to start analyzing who votes they cannot fully show who votes when it comes to general elections.

Marquette University’s Assistant Professor of Law, Richard Esenberg, is doubtful of the effectiveness of a project that will restructure campaign finance. He foresees the near impossibility of the passage of a bill, along with many drawbacks in similar attempts to miraculously restore democracy to American citizens. Although this is a greatly debated and doubtful topic, there is still hope in the power of the people. While there may be instances where wealthy donors provide a better democratic election, in a land of the people; the majority of the voting population should control the few politicians that run the government.

It would only make sense that half of this class is on political parties and the other half would be about interest groups. They are both inherently different and fundamentally similar at the same time. Both work to sway the pendulum of public policy in the direction they believe in (Alexander, 2015). The main difference is that political parties attempt to gain political office, where interest groups are not in that business. Interest groups are in a sense a key part of a pluralistic society. They allow for everyday people to lobby and petition government. While it is true that we have interest groups in existence today, it has not always been that way. Up until the 1960’s, the power of politics was in the hands of the parties (Cigler, 2015). Many factors, such as television, a more educated electorate, etc, contributed to the creation of a power vacuum in the 1960’s. Interest groups swiftly and aggressively took the role that had formerly been that of the parties. As we have seen this power shift, so have we seen an explosion in the number of organized interests. In 1900, there were 200 registered groups in Washington D.C. Today there are 15,000. It is reasonable to be both intrigued and horrified by the concept of these groups. On one side, they are like anybody else who cares about the direction of the country. On the other, they are unelected, unrepresentative impactors of the system I must live in. While I am not trying to say they are a god send or evil, my point is

It is interesting to read about the process, terms, and important events that makeup all aspects of today’s campaign financing. While many are experts in the field of campaign financing, it is fascinating for someone like myself who does not have an in depth understanding of this vital electoral activity to also learn of its many defects. An activity that is supposed to ultimately be the means that politicians use to transmit their message to the public, in addition to being a way of enhancing democracy by allowing voters to become inform of all candidates is shown to have the opposite effect due to its funding. These assigned readings allow individuals to grasp on to the complexity and inefficiency of campaign financing.

As its not very easy to win an election, people spend huge amount of money to just to have candidates vote. But it doesn’t work all the time, for example, election which was held between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, amount of money spend by Donald trump was half of the money which was spend by Hillary. So, it all depends on how much fund raises in the campaign, how much does it cost to have a candidate vote and significantly how many votes they get in the ratio of spending money. It not only depends on the fund but also depends on person who stands on election, if he or she is well known person who is likes by the mass of people then the chances of

In the American version of a democratic system, a handful of extremely wealthy individuals and large corporations control the political system. By "funding" or bribing the candidates, they directly influence the election and nominations of presidents, governors, senators and congress members. The money is used for campaign staff, door to door voting operations, and television advertising. The continued influence of the wealthy violates the basic principle of democratic political equality.This cynical political campaign has become part of the democratic system that the politicians are not even required to justify their action. Even though a truly democratic system is too perfect to exist, a corrupted political system destroys the hope for a system that has the public's interest in mind.

Campaign finance issues are complicated in the United States by the fact that the funding sources of the Republican and Democratic parties differ so sharply. As a result, any reforms intended to affect one kind of funding are likely to adversely and disproportionately affect one of the two parties. Furthermore, while most issues on which elected officials decide concern benefits for constituents. Campaign finance reform involves changing an institution that benefits those who make the legislative choices. Today this is an issue of popular debate, which there are many varying proposals and even more varying opinions.

Voting and Politics are topics that cause controversy amongst Americans. Moreover, many people do not express his or her right to vote because they feel like their vote will not matter. Additionally, many individuals just look for the republican or democratic candidate and conduct little research as to the candidate’s political views. I, however, look for three important aspects before voting for an individual; His or her stance of education, the environment, and whether I feel they are genuine in their promises.

This is important because as a democratic society everyone should have an equal opportunity to be a part of our government. The outcomes of elections are certainly not set in stone, but we can tell from opinion polls and early voting polls who is the likely candidate to win. If we see that a candidate that is winning in the polls has a lot of financial support behind him then we can assume that he has the greater chance of winning.