<p>Single member districts, plurality wins, and long campaigns are the perfect recipe for money politics.</p>
<p>And it’s not changing anytime soon. Ride the wave, surfers.</p>
<p>If the economy goes into a recession, the Republicans shouldn’t even bother running.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UriA702, I’m in complete agreement! And I share your frustration regarding the mainstream population who insist on burying their heads in the sand.</p>
<p>This has nothing to do with head-in-the-sand ignorance. It has to do with a tacit understanding that our system, by design, gives us money politics.</p>
<p>For congressional elections, the money in politics is far less significant than gerrymandering in affecting outcomes.</p>
<p>And, by the way, what does this mean? “I am just saying that how many elections nowadays are based on candidates opinions on society’s issues, as opposed to a popularity contest, who can raise the most money and bash the other.”</p>
<p>Isn’t “popularity” the same as public support? </p>
<p>And in the presidential races, an increasing amount comes from small donations raised on the internet or at candidate events. </p>
<p>And actually most people vote for candidates because they agree with them, not because they don’t like the other candidate. This is shown by decades of research by political scientists.</p>
<p>momfromme,</p>
<p>The relevant work on congressional elections suggests that while gerrymandering has led to significantly higher-than-average incumbency rates (this can be observed in Japan as well), single-member districts breed money politics and pork-based legislation.</p>
<p>Our legislative elections are far more money-based than those in, say, proportional systems. If you’re interested at all in the topic, I can refer you to some good work on how district magnitude and electoral systems affect the input of money.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely correct. “Protest votes” materialize, but they rarely represent the majority of voters.</p>
<p>I know the literature, but comparisons to pr can’t explain change over time within the US (since, obviously, the electoral system has stayed smp).</p>
<p>Besides there are LOTS of other differences than electoral systems that explain the amount of money in politics in the US versus others. Differences in the length of election campaigns (and short elections tend to occur when the date of the election is not fixed far in advance, as in parliamentary systems) is another important variation.</p>
<p>Lengths in campaigns matter, but Japan is an example of extremely short campaigns with SMD and money politics (though the path dependency of the prior SNTV-MMD system is important to consider.)</p>
<p>I agree that there are a lot of confounding variables, but SMD with FPTP leads to pork and money politics. It’s not the ONLY reason, but it’s certainly the most important, in my opinion.</p>
<p>Money Politics does not equate to sneaky lucrative contributions. Sure with the type of campaigns we run money politics is inevitable, but many politicians use this avenue as means of turning on public interest to cash in lucrative contributions or simply to “shut em up.”</p>
<p>This has been an interesting discussion, although I think I’m realizing that I don’t know if people are using a common definition of “money politics.”</p>
<p>I don’t think even the political scientists have defined it, per se, but I tend to think of pork barrel and large spending on campaigns.</p>