Voter Participation

A further argument that compliments the idea that money increasingly dominates the US electoral process and is the main factor in contributing to a candidate’s success is Congress’ attempts to try and limit its influence. The Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act 2002 set limits on campaign finance but was effectively struck down in Citizens United 2010. Congress isn’t trying to set limits on the amount of events a candidate runs but rather the expenditure limits. This suggests that money increasingly dominates the US electoral process and is the main factor in contributing to a candidate’s success because Congress trying to limit indicates its influence and dominance. In the UK, there is a strict campaign finance rule, which also compliments the idea that it is a dominant factor.

Voter turnout is the rate by which people vote in elections. The simplest way to calculate a given election's turnout rate is to compare the actual number of voters with the voting-age population. “Voter turnout in the United States is among the worlds’ lowest.” (E.S. 371) The graph below taken from an article written for the Huffington Post in 2012, illustrates how poor United States voter turnout has been as compared to other industrialized nations. Our voter turnout

In the 2016 election cycle, over 1.4 billion dollars was given to presidential candidates (Federal Election Commission 2016a). This is more than any other presidential election cycle in history (Price 2016). Another billion dollars was given to U.S. House of Representatives candidates, and about 600 million dollars was given to U.S. Senate candidates (Federal Election Commission 2016b). The majority of this money went to funding the candidates’ campaigns. This money controlled whose ads voter’s saw on television and which candidates were able to afford to travel the country campaigning for votes. In many cases, the candidate with the most money available won their election. Most campaigns are financed in large part by a small number

The Democratic and Republican presidential nominees for 1999 raised an astounding 126 million to finance their campaigns in the primaries (Godfrey). The U.S. national political parties raised a record 107.2 million dollars in soft money contributions in 1999 (Campaign Finance Reform). During the 1995-96 elections, public citizens estimated that an astounding 150 million dollars was spent on "phony" issue ads designed to support or oppose congressional and presidential candidates (Campaign Finance Reform). This outrageous influx of money into congressional and presidential campaigns has placed a blanket of corruption and injustice over our nation’s elections. With the rise of campaign corruption, many

One main issue raised by presidential hopefuls revolves around campaign money received by candidates, donated by multi-million dollar corporations. Although it remains illegal for these corporations to directly donate large sums of money to political campaigns and political parties, the fear that political and judicial figures in the American political systems are being bought out by these affluent corporations still worries an inordinate amount of people in the United States. In 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. FEC whether these wealthy companies had the constitutional right to air advertisements they paid for using company expenditures. Similar to Supreme Court cases within the past half-century, the case suggests that

     Candidates running for office should depend less on government funding and turn towards the public for their support. Rather then concerning ourselves with prohibiting the use of soft money we should control the amount of taxpayers' dollars that are being spent. How can we claim that the use of soft money goes against Democracy when we allow our government to fund

It is unsensible to believe that even the upper crest of the US financially can keep up with a corporation. Therefore receiving donations from corporations is the candidate's main goal, while ignoring the many small donors that truly represent America’s views. While there is no solid proof of corporations influencing candidates decisions thee have been sketchy moment in which corporations money influencing candidates decisions have been suspected. In 2000 when Bush was running for president an energy company based in Houston, Enron donated a substantial amount of money to Bush. They donated 2.5 million making them the highest donating energy company and the 36th highest corporate donator. After Bush was elected he passed 6 bills extremely beneficial for Enron that multiplied their revenue by nearly three times. In all Corporations donating limitless to candidates forces a candidate to pass bills beneficial for their donors and not the majority of people. This needs to stop or the purity of America’s political system goes down the

Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines democracy "as a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by the people" (www.merriam-webster.com). But the one big problem is that "We the people" are not exercising their "supreme power" to determine the U.S. government. Less than half of the eligible electorate showed up at the polls for the 1996 U.S. presidential election. While lower turnout has marred previous presidential elections, 1996's voter turnout dipped below 50 percent for the first time in more than 30 years. It appears that the people's increasing cynicism about politicians that they lie to get elected and the perception that people have no respect or confidence in the

America is a country founded on dreams and ambition. If one has the proper knowledge and training for it, they can become whatever their heart desires. However as our country has developed, we see that this is not the case anymore. We have become an incredibly expensive and money driven society. If one aspires to be president, or even a governor, then they better be fairly rich or know some wealthy people. A political campaign for the presidency “has cost between 450 million to 1 billion dollars since 2000 (Gilson).” It doesn’t seem particularly fair that money is such a monstrous factor that determines who the people see running for office. Political campaigns should be reformed in order to make the political field more open to candidates

Presidential candidates are picked by an electoral college which is represented by the popular vote in that state. Many times candidates might have a popular vote, but lack the electoral college needed to win an election. Within in the past few years voting turn out has been horrible. Many times in reports and studies, it shows that the younger generation and minorities do not have high turn outs for voter participation. In this article, “If Anyone Ever Tells You Your Vote Doesn't Matter, Show Them This” by Sean McElwee points out that this information in fact is true. Younger people do not participate in voting because they believe that their vote has no effect in presidential elections. The thing that stood out the most was how young people

If I were to run for office and wanted to increase voter’s participation, I would clean my dirty laundry first and put everything out on the table in order to gain my voters trust and interact more with the public. I would reach out through the social media. Henceforth, 44 percent of American voters received information about the election in 2016 through social media. Technology has made it possible to contact billions of Americans with a touch of a button. The campaign would start running ads early in the elections on TV channels that has the most viewers. My ads would be positives about the campaign and the issues I stand for. The campaign would be about honor and truth and not be swayed from my values, so I can receive a vote. I would also

Voter turnout, as well as election results, depend upon and are effected by several different factors. Everything from family status to beliefs about abortion can determine how a person will vote. In my presentation, however, I focused on three aspects that effect voter turnout and elections. I found, in my research, that a voter's age, sex and party identification greatly factor into how a person will cast his or her vote.

Several factors contributed to these conditions. Just when women gained the right to vote, voter participation declined nationally. Fewer men and women attuned to national political issues which, increasingly, were defined by special-interest groups and lobbies. As Carrie Chapman Catt pointed out, winning the vote reformers lost the single unifying cause that appealed to a broad constituency of women. The amalgam of the other reform causes tended to splinter the women’s right movement, because smaller communities of women were investing their energies across a larger field of completing programs.

Voting turnout is very important in order for the candidate that is the most popular to win. If a specific community turnout rate is lower than other neighborhoods, officials who are elected would pay less attention and make few changes to benefit. Voting has a powerful impact on the government and policies. Citizens issues can be heard if they vote, and do focus on policies and political problems. We need to elect individuals that will impact our lives in a greatly matter and will listen to what the citizens of the country need. By choosing, who we want to elect shows that our voice does matter and that we do have a say in our government. In the state of Connecticut, there are 2,178,168 residents registered to vote however the overall

In addition to nomination issues, there are campaign fund issues. As described by Paul Steinhauser and Robert Yoon’s article, “Cost to Win Congressional Election Skyrockets,” for CNN, the cost to win congressional elections is rising steeply. Steinhauser and Yoon explain that on average it costs $1.6 million to win a House seat, which, after accounting for inflation, is 344% more than in 1986. Steinhauser and Yoon also emphasize that in the House of Representatives, incumbents outspend their challengers by an average ratio of $3 for every $1 the challenger spends. Senate incumbents on average outspend their challengers by $3.5 million. The authors also explain that in 2012 outside groups spent $457 million on congressional elections. An outside group could be a group or individual, for example a PAC (Political Action Committee) or a wealthy individual. Ashley Parker relates her article, “Outside Money Drives a Deluge of Political Ads," in The New York Times to the influx in spending by outside groups. She explains that political spending for advertising is increasing rapidly compared to past elections. Parker also emphasizes that outside groups buy more advertisement time than the candidates themselves. She concludes her article by emphasizing that soon enough political advertisements are going to start airing on TV right after November elections, this is some two years before the next vote.