AO1: Presidential and congressional elections have been criticised for being too focused on fund-raising at the expense of policy- particularly with the frequency of House elections AO2: This has led to claims that the winner of US elections are not necessarily the most qualified but the most wealthy or most able to raise money AO3: This therefore prevents many potential candidates from aspiring to the presidency/prevents Congressmen from focusing on their constituents and leads to a focus on the ability to raise money rather than the ability to design and pass policy AO1: The Electoral College has led to criticisms that campaigns focus too much on a small number of key states AO2: As some states tend to be ‘swing states’ with large number of Electoral College votes, campaigns in close elections are too focused on voters and policies that affect those states rather than a national campaign AO3: This means that some voters or issues in key states may have a disproportionate effect on the formation of policy during campaigns AO1: Presidential campaigns have become too long, with the ‘invisible primary’ starting as soon as the results are announced AO2: This can lead to the perception that by the time the actual election takes place that the result is a foregone conclusion, particularly as there is a long nomination process as well AO3: This can lead to voter apathy and a perception that the result is largely decided by party bosses who have nominated the candidates rather than a truly democratic process AO1: Presidential and congressional election systems allow too much focus on the individual rather than parties or policies AO2: This makes the election campaign more about personality rather than policy AO3: The impact of this increases polarisation in US society between the parties, especially with controversial candidates, and can also lead to a disassociation between the voter and political parties, where candidates are perceived as individuals rather than representatives of a party

AO1: Long campaigns and the expense of elections are inevitable in such a large country AO2: Candidates who cannot raise a ‘war chest’ of campaign funds are seen as ‘outsiders’ with little chance of success as they will not be able to conduct a lengthy or truly nationwide campaign with limited funds AO3: It is therefore necessary for candidates to be able to organise large amounts of funding for their campaign, either from personal wealth or other activities in order to be able to compete in the electoral process AO1: The Electoral College successfully produces presidents so does not need to be reformed- there is no real demand for reform AO2: Demands to reform elections largely centre around funding rather than the process itself AO3: Therefore, the process fulfils its ultimate role of producing presidents with popular support that is distributed across the country AO1: Presidential and congressional elections can make use of primaries or caucuses to choose candidates AO2: Primaries encourage participation and give wider choice, while caucuses encourage more knowledgeable selection of candidates AO3: Therefore, enhancing democracy AO1: Congressmen still have to consider the needs of their constituents during their terms of office, as well as the need to raise funding AO2: As Congressmen are still reliant on the ‘folks back home’ for votes, and often for donations to their campaigns AO3: This suggests that the system still allows Congressmen to fulfil their representative functions as they must focus their efforts on policies that help their constituents to use in re- election campaigns