Install

Get the latest updates as we post them — right on your browser

. Last Updated: 07/27/2016

Not Model Houses

On November 7, U.S. voters will go to the polls to elect all 435 members of their House of Representatives and one-third of their senators. If Americans believe that these midterm elections represent a model of democracy for the rest of the world, they should think again.

Despite an unpopular war and some indiscreet e-mails from a Republican congressman, the Democrats' hopes of winning a majority in either house face a very undemocratic obstacle: the overwhelming power of incumbency in the United States. During the past 50 years, more than 95 percent of congressmen who have stood for re-election have won. In 2004 only five incumbent congressmen were defeated; in 2002, the total was four.

There are two main reasons challengers find the odds stacked against them. The first is the need to raise enormous amounts of campaign funding and the second is the politically motivated redrawing of voting district boundaries. Average spending per candidate in the 2004 election exceeded $1 million for House seats and $7 million for the Senate. Popular candidates can raise and spend much more: New York Senator Hillary Clinton has already spent $25 million in this year's campaign.

An unfortunate financial dynamic is at work. Because incumbents win elections, business and political donors who seek influence give more to them and, with bigger war chests, they get re-elected. In the House, incumbents on average receive five times more in contributions than challengers. In the Senate, the multiple is closer to nine times.

Much of this money goes to advertising. The Campaign Media Analysis Group has estimated that campaign spending on advertising this year is up 150 percent compared with the last midterm elections and that television advertising already exceeded $311 million by mid-August. No wonder television networks give so little airtime to those arguing for spending limits or election reform.

The other big hurdle is the incumbents' control over redistricting. In most state legislatures, the majority party is able to redraw congressional district boundaries, thereby providing safe seats for its members in Congress and forcing minority incumbents to fight each other for the rest. "We know democracy is not promoted if we end up with partisan politicians selecting their constituents rather than the other way around," said one congressman thus deprived of his seat.

U.S. voters understand the redistricting game and many choose not to vote at all, since the outcome is so often predetermined. According to data from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, voter turnout for midterm congressional elections is consistently below 40 percent. Nearly one-third of the electorate does not even register to vote, a worse record than in Iraq.

What can be done? If the United States wants to regain legitimacy in advocating democratic reform around the world, it needs to put its own house in order. Three simple reforms would help.

First, set term limits for senators and congressmen. This would ensure that contested elections without incumbents happen more often. It might also encourage "citizen-politicians" from all walks of life to replace the current class of widely disparaged professional politicians. The president is limited to two terms (eight years). Senators should also be limited to two terms (12 years) and congressmen to four terms (eight years).

Second, apply nationwide the redistricting procedure used in the state of Iowa. There, a Legislative Service Bureau, directed by a bipartisan appointee, uses non-political guidelines to recommend boundary changes based on the new national census data once per decade. If its recommendations are turned down by the legislature, the matter goes to the state Supreme Court. This process has worked well for 25 years and is generally praised for producing competitive districts where election debates are substantive and participatory.

John Tanner, a Democratic representative from Tennessee, has proposed a "Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act," which would mandate independent commissions similar to Iowa's in each state. Tanner's bill has attracted 47 co-sponsors, but only two are Republicans and the bill is unlikely to go anywhere while the Republicans are the majority party in the House.

Third, broadcasters should be required to provide free airtime during the final weeks of a general election campaign, but only to those candidates who accept public funding with its accompanying limits on spending. This would greatly relieve the pressure to raise money and it would encourage more candidates to sign up for public campaign funding. In Britain, where the BBC has long provided equal and free airtime to parties for political broadcasts during the campaign period, viewer figures have been high.

We believe that U.S democracy needs reform if it is to serve as an example to others. Term limits, non-political redistricting and free airtime in exchange for limits on campaign spending would break the unholy trinity of money, media and politics that has corroded the American model and tarnished its reputation abroad.

DeAnne Julius is chairman of Chatham House, a London-based think-tank. John Gault is on the associate faculty of the Geneva Centre for Security Policy. This comment was published in the Financial Times.