Evaluate the view that the most significant problem with the US electoral system is the failure to reform campaign finance.

In a question such as this, your first task is to consider what constitutes a significant problem. What do you want from an election? We might imagine that most people would want a free and fair election, one in which democracy prevails and the candidate chosen by the majority of people is elected and an election is which all votes are counted equally. With this criteria in mind you need to now question whether the problem of spending in US elections is doing the most damage. Let’s look at some of the problems in US elections and determine which is doing most harm.

Campaign Finance Reform – American elections are expensive, really expensive. It has been estimated that the 2024 US elections cost almost $16billion. For context, the 2019 UK election cost just £150million.  Spending is a problem in US elections because the candidates with the most money tend to perform better. This was true of the most expensive Senate race in 2024, in which the Republican Ted Cruz spent $104million against his opponent, Collin Allred’s $92million and duly won re-election. The need for Campaign Finance Reform has grown even more desperate since the Citizens United v. FEC decision (2010). The Citizens United case saw the Supreme Court declare that corporations and unions should have no restrictions placed on what they could spend during elections, though they were still prohibited from directly co-ordinating with candidates. Since then, Super PACs have gained prominence in the US. Super PACs are political action committees that can receive and spend unlimited sums of money during election campaigns. However, because Super PACs cannot directly co-ordinate with candidates there has been a rise in negative advertising in which ads are targeted against the opposing candidate rather than in favour of another. This is hugely damaging for America’s faith in its elections. Moreover, in 2020, most of the money spent in US elections was donated by a very small group of wealthy individuals. In fact, $1.4billion in the 2020 election (1/5^th of all spending) was donated by just 2,635 people. As such the rise in campaign spending is giving a disproportionate voice to the richest Americas, drowning out the poorest and diluting their interests.

However, money isn’t everything in US elections. For a start, the candidate with the most money doesn’t always win the election. In 2024, Kamala Harris raised considerably more money than Donald Trump and lost. The same was true in 2016, when Hillary Clinton raised and spent significantly more than Donald Trump, who won the Presidency. Moreover, in most elections, both candidates raise such large sums of money that they tend to cancel one another one. However, Presidential elections tend to be an anomaly. The electorate is already familiar with the candidates at Presidential level and therefore spending more on advertisements is less important. As races get smaller, such as in the House of Representatives or at a state level, then increased spending has a much larger impact. Given that so much of this money is donated by a very small percentage of the wealthiest Americans, the lack of campaign finance regulations is leading to elections serving the rich ahead of the country as a whole.

The Electoral College – The Electoral College is problematic because it means that the winner of the popular vote does not always win the election and assume the Presidency. The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College because they feared that in a time when there was no TV or radio news, the electorate would be unfamiliar with candidates running for the Presidency and simply vote for their local candidate, an occurrence which would lead to candidates from the biggest states winning the Presidency. This is no longer the case and as such there is a strong argument to suggest that the Electoral College has outstayed its welcome. It does however help to make the smaller states somewhat more important in elections and this is no bad thing.

In 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but because she lost a number of swing states by small margins, she lost the Electoral College/

Nonetheless, in reality, the winner of the popular vote has only failed to win the Presidency on 5 occasions since 1787 therefore suggesting that the electoral college is doing far less damage than is often claimed. However, given that the winner of the popular vote has lost the Electoral College in 2 of the last 7 elections it might be argued that there is a worrying trend beginning to emerge and as such we should seriously consider replacing the Electoral College. An even greater issue with the Electoral College is that the winner takes all system puts too much emphasis on swing states so that they get disproportionate levels of attention during an election. In 2024 there were just 7 swing states and these garnered the highest spending and visits from two candidates. As such, many other states are locked out of the process given that their vote is already seen as secure.  A better system might be that used in Maine and Nebraska which employ more proportional systems rather then a winner takes all approach. Is the issue of the Electoral College more problematic than the need for Campaign Finance Reform? Probably. The fact that the Electoral College produces the wrong result and distorts the election so that votes in some states are worth more than in others is harmful to democracy. Campaign Finance looks ugly but in reality, the spending is done on both sides and simply cancels one another out. The Electoral College however does not create a level playing field and is therefore much more harmful to democracy.

Incumbency – An incumbent is an individual who currently holds office, for example, a President or a member of Congress running for re-election. A significant problem with the US electoral system is that so many incumbents win re-election. In fact, since 1796 69% of Presidents running for re-election have won. Rates of re-election in Congress are even higher, with incumbent members of the House of Representatives averaging a 90% re-election rate. In 2024, just 11 incumbent House members were defeated and only 3 incumbent Senators lost their seats. This is significant problem because:

• The same faces and therefore the same ideas remain. There is little new thinking.
• Members of Congress are less responsive to their constituents because they are less likely to be replaced by them

Incumbents tend to win for a variety of reasons. Perhaps the most important is that they have a considerable advantage in raising money over their challengers. The Centre for Responsive Politics have found that in 2020, House incumbents out raised their challengers more than six-fold. Therefore, it might be argued that incumbency is less of a problem than the failure to reform campaign finance. If limits were placed on how much money a candidate for election could receive and spend then challengers would have a greater chance of success. High incumbency rates in the house of representatives could also be solved by ending the practice of gerrymandering which is enabling representatives to pick their electorate rather then the other way around.

Gerrymandering – Gerrymandering is the practice by which the boundaries of each Congressional district is re-drawn to favour the party in power. Perhaps the best example of gerrymandering was seen in Pennsylvania’s 7th district where by the boundaries were drawn by Republican legislators to ensure that as many Democrat voters as possible could be squeezed in one single district. Gerrymandering can only be practiced in the House and is therefore less of an issue at national level. Nevertheless, gerrymandering looks dreadful. It allows Representatives to choose their electorate rather then the other way around. Moreover, the practice of gerrymandering is disproportionately helping the Republican party leading to them winning a majority in the House with a minority of the vote. In the last decade, Republicans were able to draw 191 (44%) of the districts that were used in the 2024 election. Democrats however, were only about to draw 75 districts whilst the rest were drawn by commissions or divided state legislators. Gerrymandering is therefore a problem because it is leading to many more wasted votes and perhaps driving people towards not voting in elections. However, given that it only effects the House and we are not totally sure whether it has any meaningful impact upon the final results in districts we can surmise that, though a problem, it is perhaps not as in need of a fix as Campaign Finance.

Incumbency – An incumbent is an individual who currently holds office, for example, a President or a member of Congress running for re-election. A significant problem with the US electoral system is that so many incumbents win re-election. In fact, since 1796 69% of Presidents running for re-election have won. Rates of re-election in Congress are even higher, with incumbent members of the House of Representatives averaging a 90% re-election rate. In 2024, just 11 incumbent House members were defeated and only 3 incumbent Senators lost their seats. This is significant problem because:

• The same faces and therefore the same ideas remain. There is little new thinking.
• Members of Congress are less responsive to their constituents because they are less likely to be replaced by them

Incumbents tend to win for a variety of reasons. Perhaps the most important is that they have a considerable advantage in raising money over their challengers. The Centre for Responsive Politics have found that in 2020, House incumbents out raised their challengers more than six-fold. Therefore, it might be argued that incumbency is less of a problem than the failure to reform campaign finance. If limits were placed on how much money a candidate for election could receive and spend then challengers would have a greater chance of success. High incumbency rates in the house of representatives could also be solved by ending the practice of gerrymandering which is enabling representatives to pick their electorate rather then the other way around.

Gerrymandering – Gerrymandering is the practice by which the boundaries of each Congressional district is re-drawn to favour the party in power. Perhaps the best example of gerrymandering was seen in Pennsylvania’s 7th district where by the boundaries were drawn by Republican legislators to ensure that as many Democrat voters as possible could be squeezed in one single district. Gerrymandering can only be practiced in the House and is therefore less of an issue at national level. Nevertheless, gerrymandering looks dreadful. It allows Representatives to choose their electorate rather then the other way around. Moreover, the practice of gerrymandering is disproportionately helping the Republican party leading to them winning a majority in the House with a minority of the vote. In the last decade, Republicans were able to draw 191 (44%) of the districts that were used in the 2024 election. Democrats however, were only about to draw 75 districts whilst the rest were drawn by commissions or divided state legislators. Gerrymandering is therefore a problem because it is leading to many more wasted votes and perhaps driving people towards not voting in elections. However, given that it only effects the House and we are not totally sure whether it has any meaningful impact upon the final results in districts we can surmise that, though a problem, it is perhaps not as in need of a fix as Campaign Finance.

Pennsylvania’s 7th District was gerrymandered to such a degree that by 2013 it was miles away from what we would expect a district to resemble. The boundaries have now changed again to something somewhat more sensible.

Voter Registration

A final problem for American elections to get to grip with is the deliberate attempts to make it more difficult to vote. The Constitution does not say who has the right to vote and as such the states have consistently made it more difficult for people to vote, predominantly because they fear an increased electorate will vote them out of office. Voter registration is particularly bad for minority communities and this problem was made worse by the Shelby County v Holder (2013) decision in which the Supreme Court said that key elements of the 1965 Voting Rights Act were outdated and no longer needed to be adhered to. As a result, many southern states, once limited by the Voting Rights Act, have made it harder and harder for minorities to vote by increasing ID laws or removing polling stations. Given the removal of many polling stations in urban areas, black and Latino voters will wait 40% longer to vote and are therefore less likely to do so.

Turnout in the US has actually been increasing in recent years. Perhaps voter turnout is not as much of an issue as we might otherwise believe.

Nonetheless, it is unclear how far improved voter registration would improve turnout. Following the passage of the voting rights act, turnout at the 1968 election was just 60%. This number then dropped to around 50% in the 1980s and 1990s and has now returned to just shy of 60% in 2024. Therefore, the inclination of states to make voting more difficult has not really had much of an impact upon voting. Perhaps Americans disenchantment with the voting process is linked to the huge spending that takes place and the rise in negative campaigning that has grown alongside the emergence of Super PACs. Therefore, though voter registration is clearly a problem in the USA, it is far less of a problem than the need for Campaign Finance Reform.