2 opinions, 2 replies
Add your opinion:
Preview:
(mouse over or touch to update)
Add your opinion
100
2 votes
Jan 14, 2016

It's not the election rules being rigged that benefit incumbents, it's the complacency of the average citizen. A study was done a while back that asked if a option was put on the ballot to throw everyone in Congress out, would you vote for it. Around 70% of people said yes. When asked if they would be voting for the incumbent on election day, 70% said yes.

Eric Cantor out spent his opponent 200:1 and lost. So it's not money that necessarily benefits the incumbent. Yet Harry Reed lets bills from the House sit on his desk never taking them up, plays with the slander sheild of the Senate floor to make horrid remarks of presidential candidates, and says he "wont' even look" at a bipartisan letter to reform the tax code yet in the same interview says the Republicans are causing a stale mate. He's re-elected.

There needs to be less complacency in the American people. Better primary opponents to both Democrats and Republicans.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
-1
main reply
1 vote,
Jan 14, 2016

In some cases they are rigged by gerrymandering the districts. If the other party is drawing the district maps they have been known to put two incumbents in the same district. They will also move supporters into or out of a district to make it easier or harder to win an election depending on your party label. When our state NC did the redistrict after 2010 the seats went from almost even for each party to Republicans taking veto proof majorities in both State Houses. They concentrated the Democrats in a few districts with 80% and made as many of the Republican districts as possible 60%. So yes the elections can be rigged.

I was going to vote for not rigged until I start to write this. I was thinking of Eric Cantor. It was suggested his district had been redrawn. In the case of Senators which are statewide they are not rigged except that most voters tend to vote for the incumbents if they don't make a fool of themselves.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Jan 14, 2016

Gerrymandering is rigging the election for the party, not specifically the incumbent. The question asks about incumbents. Even if gerrymandering is used to keep an incumbent safe, that doesn't disregard the complacency of the voters to simply vote for the incumbent instead of an primary challenger.

Eric Cantor is a perfect example if he district was redrawn because he was an incumbent taken out in his primary. Primaries is where incumbents need to be taken out for not doing their job.

subscribe
50
2 votes
Jan 14, 2016

Elections are influenced unfairly because of the funding structure for campaign contributions (see Citizens United); however, I don't think they are 'rigged' in a general way....although there are cases that seem questionable, particularly Florida and Ohio.

Widespread election fraud seems unlikely considering how much money is spent on campaigning. If the deal was already sealed, people wouldn't drop so much on advertising.

subscribe
Add your opinion
Challenge someone to answer this topic:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: