What can incumbents do that challengers can't?

[shanek]

In another thread, I'm being flamed left and right for having the audacity to point out that incumbents have stacked the deck in their favor as far as elections are concerned. Since I realize I'd just be p!@sing into the wind over there, I thought I'd start a new thread where more open minds can benefit from this information.

Think about that next time you see statistics on how 3/4ths of Congressional incumbents kept their seats, or when you wonder why you can't get your own Senator Doofus out of office.

http://www.ntu.org/taxpayer_issues/ntuf_policy_papers/pp_ntuf_131_2.php3

The Frank - Mailing Challengers to the Wall

The privilege to send mail under a "frank" (whereby a lawmaker's signature serves as postage) is one of the oldest prerogatives of office ever granted to members of a legislative body. The First Continental Congress, borrowing an idea that originated in the British House of Commons in 1660, enacted mailing privileges in 1775. According to the Congressional Research Service, however, "the franking privilege has carried an element of controversy since the earliest days of the Continental Congress. … Misuse was such a problem in the latter part of the nineteenth century that Congress repealed the franking law for one year (1873), and then reenacted it."

[...]

Historically, the most vocal complaints about the frank have come not just from taxpaying citizens, but also from other Congressional candidates. This is because the content of even "official" mailings can portray the incumbent Member in such a favorable light to his or her constituents that political challengers must devote scarce resources of their own toward counter-advertising....As with so many other perks, the more Congress attempted to self-regulate the franking privilege, the more susceptible it became to abuse. By 1969 Congress ceased to rely on the U.S. Postal Service for rulings on what kind of Member mail could be sent under the frank....The Information Age may have made "snail mail" a dated technology for many citizens, but not for Congress. Separate individual postage limits for House Members were lifted in 1999. Offices can now purchase CD-ROM mailing lists customized to virtually any demographic group, meaning that Members need no longer blanket an entire district with mass mailings just to make sure they are reaching their desired audience. The use of glossy color inserts in newspapers, radio airtime, and television programs beamed back to district stations have also served to supplement the frank's outreach potential. In the 1995-96 cycle one enterprising Member, Steve Stockman (R-TX), used $68,800 from his office funds to purchase radio time to supplement the message in his mass mailings.

Constituent Services - An Offer They Can't Refuse

...Prior to World War II, the notion of ever-larger permanent staffs would have seemed ludicrous to most lawmakers. Today, every Member of Congress maintains a cadre of "constituent caseworkers" in Washington and in district offices who help citizens to deal with the very bureaucracy that Congress helped to create. These staffers do everything from assisting retirees with Social Security check problems to arranging for school group tours of the Capitol to resolving disputes with the IRS.

[...]
The Congressional Management Foundation, a private organization dedicated to "helping Members of Congress and their staff better manage their workloads," was equally blunt, but in a more empirical manner, when it surveyed top Capitol Hill aides as to what they thought the "most important factors in solidifying [their] Member's base" were. Heading the list of replies was "constituent services."74

The result, according to political scholars James Bennett & Thomas DiLorenzo, "is a nationwide network … of tax-funded flunkies whose primary job is to subvert the electoral process -- that is, to give incumbents unfair advantages over their already under- financed challengers." In fact, the authors found that often "no effort is made to mask" the naked political purpose -- in one election cycle, 40 percent of lawmakers seeking reelection hired a member of their official personal staff for their campaign.75 The rules of Congress continue to permit this practice.

No survey of reelection perks would be complete without noting the power of the purse. The ability to deliver pork-barrel projects to home districts certainly helps to curry favor among special interest supporters. For example, Congress's largest standing Committee, Transportation and Infrastructure, includes about 1 out of 7 House Members in its ranks. In 1998 the Committee helped to draft the $216 billion "BESTEA" bill, whose $21.3 billion in earmarked projects for roads and mass transportation dwarfed the amount of pork in the last major transportation funding bill passed in 1990.

And that's just a couple of the examples given in the article. The inescapable conclusion is that our "free elections" are no better than those of the banana republics. While incumbents enjoy perks that allow them immense opportunity, challengers see their inroads cut off by "campaign finance reforms."

[jj]

In case you haven't noticed, I've agreed with you over in that thread.

That doesn't forgive your unwarranted, harrassing, conciously defamatory and willfully hurtful false accuastions, though.

[Ed]

Another good reason for term limits,

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Ed
Another good reason for term limits,
There are term limits. Elections. I will never vote to restrict my voting rights.
Even those who used to be in favor of term limits now oppose them. Throwing the baby out with the bath water.
So you have an excellent representative: out they go.
Yes there are good reasons for term limits, but they are outweighed by the bad.
Solve the problems (they can be solved), don't create new ones.
Term limits is a simplistic, short-sighted anti-democratic answer.

[Otther]

SubGenius,

How then do you suggest we get rid of poor representatives when our twoparty system supports even the worst canidates to the end of the earth aslong as there is some chance that they'll be reelected?


Since we've already ditched the idea that we (most people) actually choose people we trust in favour of voting along party lines, I see no reason not to enact term limits.

[DavidJames]

"Term limits is a simplistic, short-sighted anti-democratic answer"

I agree 100%

"How then do you suggest we get rid of poor representatives"

1. Don't vote for them
2. Work for candates you like

Try it, it can actually be as much fun as bitching and whining :)

So who has voted for incumbents simply because they are incumbents.... I'll go out on a limb and say nobody here will say they've done that. I'm guessing it's them, all those people out there somewhere, not the smart ones like here :rolleyes:

[subgenius]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"Term limits is a simplistic, short-sighted anti-democratic answer"

I agree 100%

"How then do you suggest we get rid of poor representatives"

1. Don't vote for them
2. Work for candates you like

Try it, it can actually be as much fun as bitching and whining :)

So who has voted for incumbents simply because they are incumbents.... I'll go out on a limb and say nobody here will say they've done that. I'm guessing it's them, all those people out there somewhere, not the smart ones like here :rolleyes:
Couldn't have said it better.
Gosh, I admire the wisdom of people that agree with me..... or seek my advice.
The power of the vote is incredible. That's why I don't want mine infringed in the least. It's in fact all we have. (Other than guns....but they're very messy.)

[evildave]

Make sure for "security reasons" that dissenting protestors are nowhere nearby, and inaccessible to the press.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/01/04/INGPQ40MB81.DTL

[subgenius]

"designated free-speech zone"
Good thing 1984 was so long ago that no one remembers.

[subgenius]

Pennsylvania District Judge Shirley Rowe Trkula threw out the disorderly conduct charge against Neel, declaring, "I believe this is America. Whatever happened to 'I don't agree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'?"
Yeah, whatever happened to that?

[subgenius]

The feds have offered some bizarre rationales for hog-tying protesters. Secret Service agent Brian Marr explained to National Public Radio, "These individuals may be so involved with trying to shout their support or nonsupport that inadvertently they may walk out into the motorcade route and be injured. And that is really the reason why we set these places up, so we can make sure that they have the right of free speech, but, two, we want to be sure that they are able to go home at the end of the evening and not be injured in any way."
Gosh am I glad they're looking out for me.

[Troll]

Originally posted by subgenius
Pennsylvania District Judge Shirley Rowe Trkula threw out the disorderly conduct charge against Neel, declaring, "I believe this is America. Whatever happened to 'I don't agree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'?"
Yeah, whatever happened to that?

Well after a few deaths people began to protest it like everything else, and wanted to bring home all the people doing it.;)

[Troll]

The problem isn't even really the politicians that are the incumbents. As was mentioned here, change comes from the people and they can vote them out. But, and this is not meant as an offense to the person that asked, someone had to ask what can be done about it before the answer popped up.

It was also asked how many voted for the incumbent simply because they are the incumbent. I'll ask how many did the same simply because of party affiliation? The public needs to educate itself.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by subgenius
The feds have offered some bizarre rationales for hog-tying protesters. Secret Service agent Brian Marr explained to National Public Radio, "These individuals may be so involved with trying to shout their support or nonsupport that inadvertently they may walk out into the motorcade route and be injured. And that is really the reason why we set these places up, so we can make sure that they have the right of free speech, but, two, we want to be sure that they are able to go home at the end of the evening and not be injured in any way."
Gosh am I glad they're looking out for me.

Protesters literally stood and then lied down in front of my car waving their No Blood for Oil sign like I do not fin see it. If I was a bit less attentive to the road I'd have added few more speed bumps to it.

[evildave]

Pull some strings, have people's licenses reviewed, other people "investigated". The usual sort of incidental institutional harrassment that you can't really trace back to its source.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Protesters literally stood and then lied down in front of my car waving their No Blood for Oil sign like I do not fin see it. If I was a bit less attentive to the road I'd have added few more speed bumps to it.
That's not what happened in the incident the judge was referring to. That's the thing about the constitution. Ya don't ban everything. You just arrest the people causing a problem.
The test is clear and present danger.
Amazingly freedom of movement (traffic) is another protected freedom. They were wrong in your case. That doesn't justify restricting speech solely because of its content. I think we all agree on that.
Can I get a witness?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by evildave
Pull some strings, have people's licenses reviewed, other people "investigated". The usual sort of incidental institutional harrassment that you can't really trace back to its source.
Oh man, the machine grinds people up like sausage.
I'll tell the tale one day.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by subgenius

That's not what happened in the incident the judge was referring to. That's the thing about the constitution. Ya don't ban everything. You just arrest the people causing a problem.
The test is clear and present danger.
Amazingly freedom of movement (traffic) is another protected freedom. They were wrong in your case. That doesn't justify restricting speech solely because of its content. I think we all agree on that.
Can I get a witness?

I guess this is why all drugs are legal because only people who cause problem get arrested for possession.

[c0rbin]

What can incumbents do that challengers can't?

Use the post for free?

[Tmy]

I like term limits. The problem wh our system is not how we elect, its how the practicle governing system works. In theory all elected congressmen should have equal power. This is not true. Congress works almost like a union shop. Those who are there longer end up in control of powerful commitees and seats. Our representative govt in reality is controled by a handful of people. Teh others are just puppets.

So you can vote in the greatest guy with the best ideas. But if he doesnt "play ball" with the right leaders, he cant do anything. Its like dealing with the mob.

[Andonyx]

What can incumbents do that challengers can't?

One actual advantage for the constituency of long-term encumbents is their committee positions in the house and senate.

Although this is certainly not reason enough alone to vote for a congressional candidate, a senior position on a high-level committee can translate into huge amounts of real power for a state representative.

One of the most prestigious is the Ways and Means committee, and on it are a long roster of senior representatives:

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/members.asp

As you might imagine rarely does a freshman congressperson make it onto these types of committees and as such a state can risk losing some measure of influence by removing such an entrenched incumbent.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ed
Another good reason for term limits,

I'm ambivalent on term limits. On the one hand, I can certainly see the desire for them; it's just too hard to get incumbents out of office. On the other hand, I'd hate to one day finally get a good politician in office and then not be able to reelect him.

My feeling is, get rid of the anti-freedom, anti-democratic "election reform" (really "incumbent protection") laws first and see what happens. Once you do that, term limits may not even be necessary.

[Ed]

Originally posted by subgenius

There are term limits. Elections. I will never vote to restrict my voting rights.
Even those who used to be in favor of term limits now oppose them. Throwing the baby out with the bath water.
So you have an excellent representative: out they go.
Yes there are good reasons for term limits, but they are outweighed by the bad.
Solve the problems (they can be solved), don't create new ones.
Term limits is a simplistic, short-sighted anti-democratic answer.

You are wrong, effectively. The incumbent has such advantages that you really don't have an election, per se. The stuff that they are doing with profiling coupled with redistricting, coupled with the bully pulpit make elections a joke in terms of new blood.

The idea of a "professional" politition makes me physically ill.

[Ed]

Originally posted by subgenius

There are term limits. Elections. I will never vote to restrict my voting rights.
Even those who used to be in favor of term limits now oppose them. Throwing the baby out with the bath water.
So you have an excellent representative: out they go.
Yes there are good reasons for term limits, but they are outweighed by the bad.
Solve the problems (they can be solved), don't create new ones.
Term limits is a simplistic, short-sighted anti-democratic answer.

Oh, and we do have term limits, for President.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Ed


You are wrong, effectively. The incumbent has such advantages that you really don't have an election, per se. The stuff that they are doing with profiling coupled with redistricting, coupled with the bully pulpit make elections a joke in terms of new blood.

The idea of a "professional" politition makes me physically ill.
Pepto.

[Kodiak]

Anyone besides me in favor of a non-biased government/civics/election competency exam?

[Ed]

Originally posted by subgenius

Pepto.

Keep the Marx Brothers out of this:D

[Cain]

tl;dr

Iowa's districts are recognizable geometric forms drawn by a non-partisan board. There are undoubtedly other institutional advantages for incumbents, but that seems like a step in the right direction.

The U.S. Senate is an insanely undemocratic body but at least the turn-over rate higher than House districts -- the opposite of what the Founders intended. The House was at least an attempt to represent the people (property owning white males in this case), while the Patrician inspired Senate was out of the hands of people -- until Populistis helped organize for a Constitutional Amendment.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Andonyx


One actual advantage for the constituency of long-term encumbents is their committee positions in the house and senate.

Although this is certainly not reason enough alone to vote for a congressional candidate, a senior position on a high-level committee can translate into huge amounts of real power for a state representative.


Actually, most of us vote for Robert C. Byrd because of the pork.

We have way more federal highway money than makes sense, all sorts of other federal deals like the FBI center in Clarksburg. If the dems get back the majority in his tenure there is a chance he may get the whole stinking Capitol moved to Beckley.

One irony is that there are so many highway stretches named after him that nobody notices them anymore, or calls them the Robert C. Byrd highway.

[Otther]

Anyone besides me in favor of a non-biased government/civics/election competency exam? For the voters or the canidates?

[Zep]

I'd just like to repeat an outsider's viewpoint (for the umpteenth time...)

Perhaps there would be more likelihood of change at the ballot box if EVERYONE ELIGIBLE voted, and not just those that could be bothered to register and turn up on the day for whatever reason.

As it stands, come an election, those who have sufficient desire/enticement to turn up and vote will most likely be those who have something to gain in supporting incumbents, or are die-hard party supporters of some inclination. This serves to entrench the existing incumbents even more.

It can be argued that if the remainder who didn't vote actually did that the proportions of votes to various candidates would be roughly the same as those who did vote, i.e. that they would follow the general trends and the result would not be likely to be different.

I would disagree - abstainers have done so for a reason, as a protest against the election itself, a protest at the candidate list, because they couldn't be bothered, whatever. Therefore they are MORE likely, if they DID vote, to make a more radical and non-major-party-aligned choice.

So, considering that the turnout is usually about 50%, here's the other 50% of eligible voters who could potentially make a huge difference to the results. Or maybe not, but no-one will know unless they actually DO vote. Hence my suggestion above.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Otther
For the voters or the canidates?

Candidates are voters too...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Candidates are voters too...

You'd think that...I actually know one Libertarian candidate who was unable to vote for himself.