Legitimate Chance at Winning an Election or The Advantages of Incumbency

It has been quite evident that incumbent members have significant leverage over other competitors in campaigns for reelection. They possess such advantages as name recognition, lack of term limits, gerrymandering, and more efficient access to campaign finance. Unfortunately for their opponents, they don’t share the same advantages as them. New candidates have to start from the bottom and work to compete with these incumbent members. Leaving the incumbent members a superior chance of winning reelection. It’s been heavily discussed if these advantages should be reduced to create an even playing field for all candidates. There are many pros and cons regarding the subject. Although whether you agree or disagree it’s indisputable that there is a differential gap between the incumbent member and a regular candidate.

Incumbent members of the U.S Congress enjoy a very substantial advantage over other challengers in campaigns for reelection. These incumbent members have such advantages over their opponents with things like name recognition. Voters will recognize the incumbent’s name through perhaps work they may have done prior while they were in office. It’s plausible these incumbent members have been often seen or written about heavily resulting in a lot of media coverage. Although all publicity isn’t necessarily good publicity. Candidates are recognized nowadays by what’s been broadcasted in the news or social media. Whatever persona they create for themselves either it be good or bad it becomes linked to their image. Their name becomes a brand that people remember and associate with whether this candidate represents their beliefs. Their name follows them throughout the media causing the voters to become privy to what each candidate is about. If these candidates' values resonate with voters they will; advocate for candidates by putting signs in their lawns, going door to door, and persuading young voters to vote. The voters won’t have to find out what the candidates are about because their previous work and character will be remembered.

Not only do these candidates benefit from name recognition but also receive the advantage of having easy access to campaign finances. These congressional campaigns have as of lately become increasingly more costly causing the need for money to be quite vital. These candidates have more access than others to government resources and have more experience fundraising. This is due to the connections they have made over time while serving in the office. Incumbent members have already created laws that have benefited donors. Consequently prompts donors to continue funding these incumbent members' campaigns. Hence donors are going to be more inclined to contribute money to incumbent members rather than some newcomers. The government also steps in granting incumbent members with such privileges as campaigning free through the mail, free postage, and stationery. This is an obvious huge asset for these incumbent members because other challengers don't usually have the same amount of finances to compete. That will then in turn only benefit and enhance their campaign in the long run.

Another perk these incumbent members have is gerrymandering. The House of Representatives has a total of 435 members and the way these seats are apportioned is due to the population of each state. Therefore, every 10 years those in office get to reevaluate their population’s district which is known as redistricting. Redistricting is crucial to gerrymandering. When this redistricting occurs gerrymandering is said to have made an appearance. Gerrymandering is the “drawing of a district boundary in some bizarre or unusual shape to make it easy for the candidate of one to win election in that district.” The goal with gerrymandering is to have the mass of people in the districts support the incumbent member and have the opposers be outnumbered by the redistricting. With gerrymandering, an incumbent member has a better chance of winning reelection. Another way incumbents use gerrymandering to their benefit is “packing”. “Packing” refers to grouping voters by common interests such as race and ethnicity. The voters are then gathered together to reduce their voting impact. This creates an advantage for incumbents when they are popular with a certain type of people. So, by redistricting voters incumbents waste the votes of opponents by mixing them sparsely within the supporter's district.

Incumbent members also profit from the lack of term limits. These incumbent members hold a substantial amount of time in office. If this incumbent member served a fulfilling term and was forced to leave office voters wouldn’t be in a favor of a term limit. Due to their great work, it would make it easier for winning reelection. The time these incumbent members spend in the office allows them to familiarize themselves with how congress operates on a day-to-day basis. By enforcing term limits the new politicians are forced to learn the new tips and tricks resulting in less stuff getting done. All the networking with other government leaders, industry leaders, and the people cease to exist at the end of their term. This lack of term limits helps immensely regarding reelection.

All these advantages leave a person questioning if the way these congress members are elected should be changed to lower these advantages. When looking at it from both sides of the spectrum the notion of reducing these advantages seems like the better of the two. It would create equal footing for the incumbent member and challenger. These incumbent members get the opportunity to already have their names and ideas out there for the voters due to having served in office already. While the new candidates have to scrounge around to get the buzz about them going. Incumbent members have the luxury of being recognized in the eyes of the voters in a way that new candidates don’t. With that, these new candidates have to struggle to raise more money to fund their already so expensive campaigns. It takes a lot of money now to fund a campaign so guaranteeing to fund is pivotal. At the same time incumbent members don’t share the same struggle with all the donors they have contributing to their campaigns. These incumbent members have created various relationships with these donors thus securing a constant contributor. New candidates don’t have the same camaraderie with donors as the incumbent members do so more than often they lose in the election. Thus with the uneven amount of money being given to these new candidates and incumbent members, one stands an unfair chance of winning. Continuing to discuss how unfair it is for these two candidates one can’t help but address gerrymandering. Gerrymandering makes it so the incumbent member can redistrict their supporters to their district since they are already in office. They can easily make it so their supporters outnumber their opponents. Although new candidates obviously don’t hold that same power as the incumbent members do when it comes to gerrymandering and redistricting. This once again gives them a disadvantage that the incumbent member doesn’t have to come across. The new candidate has even less of a chance of winning against an incumbent member when regarding their lack of terms. Incumbent members will serve a fair large amount of time in office and then they are more than likely to win reelection. The new candidates have a lower chance of winning a seat against an incumbent who serves so long and then decides that they’re still going to run for reelection. Both the incumbent member and new candidate should have an even playing field. This way they have an equal opportunity to win.

Each of these candidates has something to offer this country but one is given a seat more often than the other. Yes, it’s great to have a congress member who has quite more experience than say a new candidate. However, all that time in office can make an incumbent member less concerned with the public’s opinion and needs. It’s beneficial to have new fresh ideas and input from time to time. New members of congress could do just that. A win shouldn’t be based on who got the most money, most media coverage, or who has more seniority. If somebody wants to run for congress they should have a legitimate chance at winning an election.