Congressional Elections Are Held Every Two Years

Congressional Elections

Congressional elections are held every two years. There are elections for 1/third of the Senate (who sit for six years) and for the entire House of Representatives who all stand for re-election after two years. These are held mid-manner (two years) by way of a president’s time period in office and are known as mid-term elections.

Mid-terms can be used as an indicator of what the electorate suppose about the president’s efficiency and “their results may be of essential importance to the incumbent president.” (Vile)

George Bush had the following situation:

2000 – basic election victory however many questioned the validity of the end result and for a while the electoral system of America was questioned. That the man who won had fewer folks voting for him, meant that statistically, the loser, Al Gore, was a more widespread alternative with the electorate. To start with, Bush had issues with Congress once they would not ratify a few of his cabinet decisions and the first months of his presidency had been troubled.

2002 – mid-term elections – the first to be held after 9/11. With the nation rallying around their president, it could be pure to expect a drift to the Republicans in Congress and this is what happened. The unique circumstances of the elections and America’s particular domestic scenario meant that it can be a brave Congress that put obstacles in the way in which of the Commander-in-Chief.

2004 – national election with all House seats and 1/third of Senate seats up for election. The end result was that Bush now has a Republican managed House and Senate. This isn’t any assure that it will likely be a mere rubber stamp for presidential recommendations but with the nation still at ‘war’ and with foreign policy a dominant issue, it is possible that both Congress and President will work collectively.

The problem of mid-term elections does throw up unusual conditions. In 1997, Clinton had a preferred mandate as president but the Republicans managed the legislative physique of Congress. Does one undermine the opposite or is this case merely the results of democracy and the set-up established by the Founding Fathers who wished to separate the Executive (the president’s workplace) and the Legislative (Congress)?

In 1956, Eisenhower had the identical situation as Clinton and the identical occurred. Both groups worked as companions to ensure that the system was seen to win and be useful to America regardless of Congress being dominated by Democrats and Eisenhower being a Republican.

The above scenario is, in reality, not uncommon as the identical occurred in 1968 and 1972 when the president had to work with a Congress that had a majority in it that was not from his get together. Other situations can occur.

In 1980, Reagan had a robust basic election victory. He was a Republican. There was also a Republican majority within the Senate for the first time since 1954. However the House of Representatives had a Democrat Party majority.

It is not uncommon for a president’s party to lose out in mid-time period elections. Two causes have often been put ahead to explain this :

1. Local issues have a tendency to assemble more significance in mid-time period elections whereas on the whole elections, the voters usually tend to vote for a candidate and for nationwide issues which outweigh any native issues that might have been identified.

2. Political commentators write about “normal disillusionment” with the get together of the president in power. The identical argument is put forward in Britain when the federal government does badly at a by-election : “it happens on a regular basis however when the general election comes.

The mid-time period elections can put the president in a really troublesome position. Does he help his party’sCongressmen who might undergo at the polls on account of local points ? If he doesn’t, then the morale of the party as a whole is perhaps negatively affected. If he does, then he is perhaps associated with failure if his party’s candidates lose and this might seriously injury the president’s own prestige i.e. supporting a ‘loser’.

The president also faces another type of downside. If, as a Democrat president, he actively campaigns for his get together and candidates and they lose, he must work with a Republican Congress and he will be unable to guarantee Congressional support for his insurance policies which may make his final two years a ‘lame duck’ presidency and condemn his social gathering to the political wilderness for some years. This could be especially true if the mid-term campaigning had been adverse and unpleasant.

Another complicating factor is that among the president’s greatest critics close to presidential insurance policies could be from his own social gathering. Would he be eager to see them re-elected to boost party strength or would he desire to see them lose their seat which may weaken his personal place both in Congress and in the general public perception of his political energy? Does the president marketing campaign for these who have supported him and not for these who have been a thorn in his aspect ? What occurs if he helps some candidates and people candidates do not win ?

The mid-terms present a president with a troublesome balancing act. He can use the chance to attempt to rid his get together of those that haven’t supported him but he could additionally see those he has supported lose and the results for him could possibly be dire. The 1998 mid-time period elections were different.

No different president had confronted such a public investigation into his personal life.

Logic recommended that Clinton would do badly. He already had a Republican-dominated Congress and his issues with regards to Monica Lewinsky and the Starr inquiry could have had a devastating affect on the Democrats. That the other occurred is almost actually unique to those elections. No different president had confronted such a public investigation into his personal life. The indications appeared to point out that there was public condemnation of Clinton’s actions however as they weren’t of political importance or didn’t have an effect on national safety, they weren’t for the general public domain. It would appear that the Republicans totally overplayed their hand and the voters reacted accordingly.

That Clinton got here out of the scandal reasonably intact politically (his score level was 63% after the showing of ‘the’ video which many presidents would have been very content with during a mid-term election) was probably the result of the Republican’s failure to take advantage of the scenario which price Newt Gingrich his position and the manipulation of expectation by the Democrats who leaked that Clinton would come out very badly from the video and that the world would hold its breath when, the truth is, Clinton got here out calm, professional and so forth. and gave the impression that he was the man in cost. It’s unlikely that such a state of affairs will occur once more in American politics so the background to the 1998 mid-terms is sort of certain to be distinctive.

Research indicates that there isn’t a apparent hyperlink between the president’s name and Congressional elections. In 1952, the Republican Eisenhower obtained 56% of the votes in the final election. He was a former army commander who could declare to be one of the world’s most famous males of that time having lead the Allied forces at D-Day 1944. In 1952, the Republicans also gained each the Senate and House elections so the Republicans stood supreme politically in that year.

In 1954, the Democrats received a majority in the mid-term elections and controlled Congress. Yet within the 1956 normal election, Eisenhower was re-elected with a bigger share vote – 58%. But Congress remained dominated by the Democrats. Therefore it’s protected to conclude that the identify of Eisenhower counted for little in the Congressional elections held at the same time as the presidential election.

Another challenge that performs a component in Congressional elections is the so-referred to as “coat tail effect”. This is the place either the president or his get together ‘hangs’ on to the opposite if one appears stronger and subsequently an excellent lever throughout an election. In 1952, the Republican Party clearly ‘hung’ on to the coat tail of Eisenhower and the Republican Party benefited in Congress. In 1960, the Democrat Party was well-liked and its presidential nominee, Kennedy, probably was not as standard as political analysts thought within the wave of sympathy after his loss of life. It is possible that he was elected because of voter help for the Democrats and that he ‘clung’ onto their coat tails. Could his lack of overwhelming reputation have price the Democrats seats in the Congress?

It is possible that the Republicans in Congress may benefit from this ‘coat-tail impact’ in November 2002 as many Americans could nicely rally around their president and his occasion. The approval ratings for President Bush stay excessive and his party may benefit accordingly.

Leave a Reply