It's Not Only Money In Politics

Check out this Washington Post map showing 2014 federal elections. The Post does a good job with this interactive tool — so much that it is easy to see how broken US House elections are. Out of 453 seats up for election only a handful are competitive enough to make the sliver of “Key Races” on the red / blue continuum. Many decry money in politics but what about uncompetitive US House races? Remember, the current arrangement of how we elect our representatives to the House is a political decision. It is a matter of a federal and state statutes that are not even 50 years old.

It's not only money in politics. The Post map gives almost all incumbents a 74 percent chance of victory — the bigger issue is the skewed maps favoring one party's voters.

• The underlying partisanship of a district’s voters, rather than campaign spending, is the decisive factor in the vast majority of U.S. House elections.
• ​District partisanship predicted the outcome of 94% of congressional elections in 2012. In the remaining 26 seats, 11 of the winners were outspent, indicating that it was not necessarily money that helped these candidates overcome partisan bias.
•  Only 15 winners (3%) out of 435 overcame an unfavorable district partisanship and outspent their opponent (including outside spending on their behalf). The predictive power of partisanship continues to trump spending in competitive races and races for open seats.
• Republicans spending advantages in competitive and open seat races did not translate into greater electoral success in those seats. In 58 open seat races, only two winners outspent their opposition and won in a district leaning toward the other party.
• Many open seat candidates were able to perform on par with district partisanship despite being outspent by more than 10 to 1. In the 58 open seats, only 13 races had outcomes more than 5% different than what that district’s partisanship projected.

New Rules Are Needed

Money plays an important role in elections even if it is not decisive in determining outcomes. Money influences primaries because candidates need a certain amount of money to be competitive, although the biggest spender may still be defeated. Money may be bolstering district partisanship as the dominant factor in congressional races by reinforcing the partisan identification of voters. Winner-take-all districts create an arms race of sorts, as each major party continuously tries to outspend the other in the few competitive districts.

In a super district using a form of fair representation voting (1), electing between three and five representatives, candidates would not believe that they have to outspend all others in order to win election; ensuring victory would only require support from between 17% and 25% of voters. The power of voters in such a system would mean it would be essentially impossible to prevent both major parties from winning at least one seat in every super district.

Limiting the influence of money in politics, however desirable, will not alter the underlying truth that district partisanship is by far the most important factor in determining election outcomes. It is the use of winner-take-all elections, not money, that leaves most voters without meaningful choices on Election Day.

Krist Novoselic is Chair of FairVote, an election refrom group that compiled the data for this post.

Check out the full FairVote report here.  

1. Proportional representation