Presidential Candidates: Gerrymandering, Political Polarization and Filibuster
Rising inequality is a serious issue for today’s society, relying on the great value of factors that play a key row in the shifts of inequality that determine whether the outcome would be positive of negative. In addition, the US political system has faced numerous issues in regard to minimizing inequality. The majority of reasons is the rising polarization between Democrats and Republicans, corresponding for lower marginal taxes for the wealthier, home ownership decline, and less government provision. Immigration and poor people’s lack of interest to vote to leave wealthier people more dependent on voting. People become less attracted in seeking social insurance from the government, such as medical care, subsidies, and pensions. The rich use their wealth to support political elections and employment for both politicians and bureaucrats. Gerrymandering, political polarization, and filibustering create gridlocks, contributing to increased difficulty in keeping up with incoming changes.
Polarization between the two parties’ presidential candidates might be influenced by voters who strive to widen the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Such methods involve the persuasion of other people to vote, donating or working for a particular party, and doing various promotions, including stickers or buttons. According to Westfall, Boven, Chambers, & Judd “the more people perceive the parties and candidates as polarized, the more likely they are to engage in political action”. Consequently, this would lead to the deregulation of industries, and wealthier people would receive lower marginal taxes and less provisional support of government transfers.
The high turnout from the poor is a result from the prolonged time and energy needed to vote, minimizing the probability of voting. The costs affect people with restricted education, which decreases the incentive for political and public issues interest. People who have access to higher education live in states with high tolerance laws. Moreover, states with low tolerance laws have higher turnout, and households with higher education and income are more dependent on voting.
Low-income households depend on their rich counterparts’ support for coverage of medical expenses. However, wealthier individuals can afford health care, therefore, they are less involved in health insurance groups who tend to help the poor. Moreover, the poor’s sought out help from the government for social security, see a decline due to the fact that health insurance and social security have a negative effect on those with low income.
The rich financially contribute to political elections through campaigns, in the hope to benefit from the running candidates being invested in. Successful candidates supply with benefits the investors who contributed to their triumph. However, candidates who are winning with over 85% have lower acceptance of offered financing. Election contribution has risen significantly as Bonica et al. mentioned in their article “the share of total income received by the top 0.01 percent of households is about 5 percent but that the share of campaign contributions made by the top 0.01 percent of the voting-age population is now over 40% ”. Such a conclusion unveils the high climb of inequality in our society.
Gerrymandering is attributed from the increase of ideological differences between the liberal democrats and conservative republicans by outweighing the moderates. The ideological shift of the parties influences a simultaneous shift in gridlocking. One of the most fatal risks is gridlock, having the potential to shut down the federal government. Furthermore, Congress members have tremendous influence over the risk, by avoiding ideological primary challenges, and voting for policies that “voters in more competitive districts would no longer countenance”. Gerrymandering could cause alienation “by reducing the impact that voters can have on elections, weakens incentives for legislators to satisfy constituents, and weakens political parties by allowing them to field less qualified candidates.”. Advanced computer software allows mapmakers to calculate any changes in their plans. Subsequently, voting trends could be observed to protect campaign outcomes. Gridlock and gerrymandering have an immense detrimental side effect in Congress, prompt to the potential fall of the government.
In conclusion, the constant debate between democrats and republicans seems to be an ongoing loop about political ideology. They are more focused on competing with each other rather than focusing their attention and efforts towards the inequality issue our society is facing today. This matter is colossal, and it would take an extreme amount of time and effort to minimize it to a low degree. Politicians could find a suitable approach for its decrease. Alterations can greatly impact the outcome, such as, finding a middle ground for tax amount, benefiting taxpayers with less income. Contrary to, if taxes are high this could contribute to protests or serious riots as in France in 2018 due to tax increase. Redistribution of welfare should equally be distributed among workers without the negative effect of bankruptcy in business industries. Perhaps government subsidies can help small businesses in an increase in total welfare. As mentioned, the poor population and immigrants suffer from limited education, deteriorating their concern for politics and most importantly voting. The government could invest in building more learning facilities. Economic growth can be developed if the rich do not invest massive amounts of money in order to receive benefits from political candidates following their win. Investing campaigns can assist small businesses to expand following growing income and welfare, however, most people have different agendas on how they spend their wealth. It depends on how people value the economy and how beneficial it can be.
- Bonica, A., McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., Rosenthal, H. (2013). Why hasn’t Democracy slowed rising inequality? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(3), 103-124.
- Westfall, J., van Boven, L., Chambers, J. R., Jud, C. M. (2015). Perceiving Political Polarization in the United States: Party Identity Strength and Attitude Extremity Exacerbate the Perceived Partisan Divide. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 145-158.
- Rosenstone, S. J., Wolfinger, R. E. (1978). The effect of registration laws on voter turnout. The American Political Science Review, 72(1), 22-45.
- Snyder, J. M., Jr. (1990). Campaign Contributions as Investments: The U.S. House of Representatives, 1980-1986. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1195-1227.
- Catanese, N. S. (2014). Gerrymandered Gridlock: Addressing the Hazardous Impact of Partisan Redistricting. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy, 28(9), 323-351.
- Peer-review form 3: Draft version of the essay B. Guðjónsson