evaluate the view that US elections do not ensure accountability

Question 1

LoA

Answer 1

do not ensure effective accountability

Question 2

para 1 theme

Answer 2

participation in elections

Question 3

para 2 theme

Answer 3

lack of competitions in the house

Question 4

para 3 theme

Answer 4

nature of elections and the role of money

Question 5

para 1 - participation in elections

Answer 5

• Turnout is often power e.g. fewer than 40% voted in the 2014 mid terms. This means that politicians are only accountable to a select few of the population, and the overall view of the country Is not represented
  
  • Turnout is unrepresentative - often white, male and wealthy. This means that once again there is an imbalance in the way of election outcomes.
    Substantial obstacles to voting exist e.g. having to register to vote and voter ID laws. These laws are once again created in a way which makes it difficult for ethnic minorities to vote, again producing an imbalance turnout and overall result

Question 6

para 1 - however

Answer 6

• The frequency and number of elections allows politicians to be held accountable. House elections every 2 years, senate elections every 6 and presidential elections every 4 years.
  
  • Recent turnouts have been healthy e.g. 68% eligible voters in 2020, 49% eligible voters in 2018 mid-terms (highest for 100 years).
    Measures such as early voting and postal votes introduced to enhance turnout. They have enabled those who had not previously been able to vote to vote. There was a record 65.6 million postal votes cast in 2020.

Question 7

para 1 - rebuttal

Answer 7

• Turnout is comparatively much lower than the rest of western nations. Countries like Germany and England are consistently in the 60 and 70% range, which is something America can barely come close to.
  Furthermore, the frequency of elections has somewhat undermined accountability and representation, as it has meant that politicians have been too focused on meeting the needs of rich individuals rather than the general population

Question 8

para 2 - lack of competition in the house

Answer 8

• Gerrymandering leads to safe seats and a guaranteed victory, which of course means there is no accountability. It is not unheard of for reps to serve their whole life in their district. For example, John Dingell served as the representative for a district in Michigan for nearly 60 years.
  Incumbency can lead to the electorate not voting. Incumbency is at around 98% for elections, meaning that the likelihood that a rep can be held to account is incredibly unlikely. It is so strong in fact that John Lewis was returned to Congress unopposed, as no one else ran against him for his seat in Georgia

Question 9

para 2 - however

Answer 9

• In California redistricting is carried out by a neutral body which avoids gerrymandering, and is something that could easily be implemented across the US
  Furthermore it is not unheard of for incumbents to lose. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez beat an incumbent to win her seat in 2018. Furthermore, Bill Nelson lost his senate seat in 2018 along with 5 others

Question 10

para 2 - rebuttal

Answer 10

• This point is negligible as it is so unlikely for an incumbent to be defeated. This means that accountability is not possible given the strength of incumbency advantage in the USA
  Furthermore, reform to gerrymandering is unlikely, as the democrats only want it removed when it is being carried out by the Republicans, and vice versa, and so is unlikely to ever be reformed

Question 11

para 3 - nature of elections and the role of money

Answer 11

• The Electoral College means some votes are more important than others e.g. Wyoming is overrepresented compared to California. The number of electoral college per amount of people is different in different states, and it means different states are more important to campaign in.
  
  • The fact is that the winner of the popular vote can lose the electoral college, which obviously is bad for accountability, as the decision made by the population is not always respected. Hilary Clinton won 3 million more seats than Trump.
  • Candidates are more accountable to donors than the electorate. A large proportion of the money donated in the 2020 election came from 5 of the donors, with individuals like Michael Bloomberg donating around $2 billion.
    Super PACs allow candidates to ‘buy victory’. The ability of the president to spend more money than their opponent is incredibly important, so tailoring to the needs of these super PACs is crucial

Question 12

para 3 - however

Answer 12

• The loser of the popular vote has only won the electoral college twice in the 20th and 21st century (2000 and 2016). It is very rare that this will happen, meaning that the majority of the time, the wishes of the electorate are delivered.
  
  • The long campaign is excellent, with the many stages of the campaign meaning that the public has a multitude of opportunities in which they can hold the candidates to account. It is also important in ensuring that there is the education of the public of the campaign, which once again aids accountability
    The biggest spenders don’t always win the election,. Clinton outspent Trump in 2016 and yet still lost the election, suggesting the importance of money may be somewhat overstated

Question 13

para 3 - rebuttal

Answer 13

• The fact that there is the potential for the loser of the popular vote to win undermines accountability and democracy as a whole.
  
  • Furthermore, more often than not the biggest spender wins the election, Obama outspent both Romney and McCain.
    The campaign has simply become a spectacle for which both candidates can hurl insults and try and slander their opponents and has done little to educate the public