Throughout an election, there are many factors that influence who wins, and who loses. The main factor that decides who wins and loses, is incumbency. If a candidate is serving in the same office they are running for, they will more than likely be reelected. Many of these factors are determined by what the incumbent does in his/her time in office. Representative Kramer has been a part of some very important legislation in his time in the House of Representatives, such legislation that can both help and hinder his election bid. At the beginning of an election cycle, it is important to outline what are the biggest factors that help incumbents gets reelected. One of the biggest factors in determining re-election is incumbency, as 90% of incumbents …show more content…
Another large factor that determines elections is how well the representative has won over the largest special interest groups that play a heavy role in their district. If the representative has helped pass legislation that benefits those certain interest groups, they will pull a large number of votes in the next election. Pork barreling is also an avenue that incumbents can take to give themselves a point to hang their hat on. Pork barreling is when an incumbent gets obscure favors written into bills that benefit only their district, such as giving $100,000 to a local art museum. By getting this money, the incumbent can show that they care about their district, which can make them seem as the even more appealing candidate to the voters. Despite all of the positives about incumbency, incumbents should worry a little about their actions, and the actions of the legislature. The incumbent is always held responsible for the state of the government and the nation as a whole at the time of the election, so this is the main advantage a challenger has against an incumbent. A prime example of this backfiring is when President Obama …show more content…
His main piece of legislation that he sponsored was a bill that appropriates funds to build a memorial to commemorate those who have served in the Navy from his district. This is a thoughtful piece of legislation, as his district is home to the Naval Station Great Lakes, which hosts the United States Navy only boot camp. This facility trains 38,000 recruits each year, and 5% of the district has served in the military. He also voted in favor of H.R. 20, The Veterans Housing Act, which afforded housing to veterans once they return from serving our country in the military. This bill is key to allow veterans to reintegrate themselves into everyday life, without having to worry about finding housing when they return from fighting overseas. Representative Kramer also voted in favor of creating a Veterans Week, so our veterans can be honored nationally for more than just one day. As you can see, Representative Kramer has been involved in passing many different bills that improve conditions and help honor our veterans. This is key as a larger portion than average in his district is comprised of veterans. He also voted against some key pieces of legislation, such as a Military Rules of Engagement Act that granted unlimited green cards, work visas, and student visas to anyone that wants to enter this country. Another piece of legislation that Representative Kramer helped vote down was a federal income
The excerpt “Congress: The Electoral Connection” written by David Mayhew centers around the fundamental arguments that discusses how members of congress are self-interested for reelection. Mayhew further elaborates on his idea by discussing the electoral activities that congress members devote their time into and resource from, which are advertising, credit-claiming, and position taking. Mayhew’s excerpt further examines the framework in how congress operates which contributes to the explanation of how and why congress partakes in the certain electoral activities.
As industrialization caused cites to grow in leaps and bounds, political bosses started to take power. As the 19th Century came to a close, almost every sizable city had a political boss, or at least had one rising to power. Tons of immigrants from every part of the world began to pour into the major cities. Cities have had diversity in the past, but the huge diversity of the American cities was unique.
It is not uncommon to find members of Congress who have genuine goals of spearheading, designing or even just supporting good public policy. It would be harsh to say that every member of Congress is against good policy. However what is difficult for members of Congress is deciding what is more important, the wishes of their constituents or national policy. Although it is rare, members of Congress vote against the popular opinion of his or her district in order to make what would be considered good policy in the national interest. This hinders their chance of re-election but is necessary for America. In very rare cases members of Congress have gone against the wishes of their constituents for moral reasons like in the aftermath of 9/11. When voting on the 2002 Iraq War Resolution, I am certain that the last thing of the minds of members of Congress was re-election. A very conservative House of Representatives member Jimmy Duncan said ‘‘when I pushed that button to vote against the war back in 2002, I thought I might be ending my political career.” In times of crisis members of Congress have decide between what is right, not what their constituents believe is right. Another goal other than re-election that members of Congress have is their own future. For many, being a members of The House of Representatives is a mere stepping stone in their career on the way to better things. Therefore for some members of Congress, re-election does not worry them and gives them the freedom to act in an environment striped of the constant pressure of re-election. However, considering that most of the members of The House Of Representatives goals lie within the Senate or high executive positions, re-election is still on their mind, all be it in the form of a different
In his article, “Homestyle,” Richard Fenno seeks to answer one question: How does an elected representative's view of his/her district affect his or her political behavior? To answer this question, Fenno identifies what a Member of Congress’s
Another well respected man in Boston. He is a local Whig and is also a member of the “Observers” Club.
"Elections, especially of representatives and counselors, should be annual, there not being in the whole circle of the sciences a maxim more infallible than this, 'where annual elections end, there slavery begins.' These great men . . . should be [chosen] once a year — Like bubbles on the sea of matter bourn, they rise, they break, and to the sea return. This will teach them the great political virtues of humility, patience, and moderation, without which every man in power becomes a ravenous beast of prey." —John Adams
He was the one who asked Congress to pass a law that would make Native Americans move west or follow state laws. After the act was passed, he embarked on enforcing the new law. He thinks this is just and liberal. Also, that it would let Native Americans keep their way of life. He is such a big supporter that he ignored the Supreme Court’s advice.
Mr. Smith was appointed to be a Senator on a whim. He was the leader of the Boy Rangers with no political experience. He was principled with a clear view on right and wrong. Mr. Smith took his ideals as far as risking his career when he did not compromise in order to maintain his beliefs. In addition, special interest groups did not impact Mr. Smith's decisions. He was untouched by the corruption that he learned existed in the legislature. Yet upon discovering it, he did not change himself. Mr. Smith did not place any emphasis on re-election and did not care if people thought negatively about him as long as he remained with his values.
Such result is inevitable when there are both external and internal factors wrestling and, at the same time, supporting each other in every political match happening in Congress. External factors created the necessary condition in which internal changes could be and were discussed in the House and Senate. However, internal changes, in turn, have shaped and amplified the impacts that external factors created. Together, these intertwined factors have brought about their own changes to how Congress makes law.
When the United States was founded, the theme behind the new government was to establish an efficient system without doling out too much power to any one person. The Founders intended to prevent a rebirth of tyranny, which they had just escaped by breaking away from England. However, when members of Congress such as Tom Foley, who served as a Representative from 1964 through 1995, and Jack Brooks, who served as a Representative from 1952 through 1994, remain in the legislative system for over forty years, it is evident that tyranny has not necessarily been eradicated from the United States (Vance, 1994, p. 429). Term limits are a necessity to uphold the Founders’ intentions, to prevent unfair advantages given to incumbents, and to allow a multitude of additional benefits.
Congressional terms have no limits. Controversy exists between those who think the terms should be limited and those who believe that terms should remain unlimited. The group that wants to limit the terms argues that the change will promote fresh ideas and reduce the possibility of decisions being made for self-interest. Those who oppose term limits believe that we would sacrifice both the stability and experience held by veteran politicians. They also point out that our election process allows the voter to limit terms, at their discretion. While experience and stability are important considerations, congressional terms should be limited to a maximum of two.
Norman Ornstein is regarded as one of our nation's foremost experts on Congress. Mr. Ornstein received a Ph.D.. from the University of Michigan, he writes for the NewYork Times, USA Today, Washington Post, and he has a regular column in Roll Call newspaper called 'Congress Inside Out';. Mr. Ornstein is also an election analyst for CBS and appears frequently on television shows including the Today Show, Nightline and the Mac Neil/Lehre News Hour where he has been a consultant and contributor for
Every ten years after a census, politicians redraw the district boundaries that determine the house and state legislature. The problem with this system is that the same politicians who redraw the district boundaries are the ones who are being elected by the
Presidential Influence in Congress." American Journal of Political Science 29.2 (1985): 183-96. JSTOR. Web. 19 May 2014.
During the November 2000 presidential elections, two children tried to make daddy proud. First there was Albert Gore Jr. – the son of a powerful and respected senator of Tennessee – who was no stranger to politics and privilege. As a child he attended the prestigious St. Alban’s School and while growing up, it was common to see then Vice President Richard Nixon as a guest at the family dinner table. Then there was George W. Bush – a third-generation politician, with his grandfather a former senator, his brother the governor of Florida, and his father being former president. The November 2000 presidential elections would become the battle of dynastic supremacy. Whose silver spoon was shiniest? In the end, Bush’s spoon was voted most polished (at least by the electoral standards, certainly not by the popular) and was given the presidential seat. The election had many Americans frustrated, echoing columnist Lars-Erik Nelson’s protest, “Bush’s spectacular career rebuts the notion that America has become a meritocracy, in which we are all born equal and then judged upon our intelligence, talent, creativity, and aggressiveness” (qtd. in Maass 10).