Home : Politics :

Bob Rusbasan
September 3, 1999

Money Buys Elections

How many times have you heard that claim?  It has been parroted so frequently that it is often stated as a given, something that no reasonable person would debate.  When proof is offered, it is usually in the form of the high correlation between the amount of money that a candidate raises and their success at the polls.

But what does such a correlation prove, really?

But consider this:

Candidates that have a better grasp of the issues, that convey their positions well, and that come across as competent and professional are better able to rally people behind them and obtain their financial support.  A correlation between money raised and success may indicate nothing more sinister than the fact that a candidate was able to excite the electorate both when raising money and getting votes.

And consider this:

Wealthy candidates funding their own campaigns have lost several high-profile elections in the last few years.  Consider Michael Huffington (candidate for the California Senate in 1994), Ross Perot (candidate for President in 1992 and 1996), and Steve Forbes (candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 1996).  Perot probably had the highest impact of the three, but that was more due to his perception as an outsider than his money.

Also consider this:

There is doubtless a great deal of the truth to the claim that money helps one get elected.  But is this an indictment of politicians?  No.  It is an indictment of lazy voters that are too easily swayed by things that do not matter, such as slick ads, slogans, and signs.  If voters took the time to do a little research before voting (or stayed home if they were unable to do so), the effect of money would be reduced significantly.

The Gap between Rich and Poor Keeps Growing

"Despite [insert recent good economic news here], the gap between the richest Americans and the poorest continues to grow."

That's just terrible, isn't it?

Well, maybe.  Then again, maybe not.

Consider this:

The economic classes are commonly divided in the quintiles.  That is, everyone's income is sorted in order, and divided into five equal parts.  When the media says that the gap between rich and poor is growing, they are usually referring to statistics showing the difference between average lowest-quintile income and highest-quintile income has increased.

Let's do a hypothetical example.  Say there is a country with ten citizens.  Citizen one makes one dollar a year, citizen two makes two dollars a year, and so on, all the way up to citizen ten making ten dollars a year:

As we can see, the poorest fifth make an average of $1.50 a year.  The richest fifth make have an average income of $9.50 a year.  The difference between the richest fifth and the poorest fifth is $8.00 a year.

Now let's say everyone in this country, rich and poor, has a tremendous year.  How good?  Well, let's say that they do so well that all of their incomes double.  Wouldn't that be great for them?  Let's see:

As you can see, despite everyone's incoming doubling, the gap between the richest fifth and the poorest grew from $8.00 per year to $16.00 per year.  The gap between rich and poor has doubled!  Truly this is a tragedy!

But a tragedy for whom?  Everybody is doing twice as well as last year.  Who is the victim here?  Who is doing worse?  Nobody!

Does this prove that there are no real problems with the distribution of income in America?  Of course not.  What is does show a "growing gap between rich and poor" may be nothing more than a sign of a growing economy, so it is in itself nothing to get worried about.

And consider this:

When considering "the rich" and "the poor", there seems to be an implicit assumption that everybody stays in their same "slot" in the time periods being compared.  In other words, the lowest fifth ("the poor") are the same group of people, and the same for the highest fifth.  But is this true?

Not necessarily.  After the last census, the media descended with a vengeance on the poorest county in America.  No doubt they had their stories of "those who have been left out of the American dream" almost completely written.  All they needed to go to press were a few anecdotes and maybe a few pictures.

So what did they find in "the poorest county in America"?  A bunch of grad students.  Needless to say, the stories were ruined.  The American public is gullible enough to believe a lot of things, but convincing them that temporarily poor grad students are being "left out of the American dream" is a tall order.

Finally, it is a statistical fact that during the much-maligned Reagan years a person in the lowest quintile at the beginning was more likely to end up in the highest quintile at the end than to still be in the lowest.  Some of "the rich" that were presumably grinding "the poor" down to new lows were actually former members of "the poor" that had done well for themselves.

Front Page | Politics | Humor | Miscellaneous | What's New | Send Feedback

Copyright © 1999 Bob Rusbasan. All rights reserved.