Paper 3 USA · Elections and campaign finance

US elections and campaign finance · Notes

Sub-topic lookup view of the topic.

About these notes. This is the sub-topic lookup version. For the full narrative lesson, use the Walk-through. For active recall, use the MCQ Quiz. To practise the judgement, use the judgement grid.

Likely exam angles. Is the US electoral system democratic, and does money decide outcomes? Weigh legitimacy, participation and the role of money, and judge whether the system serves voters or donors.

1. The Electoral College

The President is chosen not directly but through the Electoral College - the framers' indirect election running inside a modern party system.

It can elect the popular-vote loser - and has twice since 2000 (2000 and 2016). The legitimacy cost is structural: every cycle is fought knowing the popular vote may not decide.
Swing states dominate. Campaigning and money concentrate in a handful of contested states; safe-state turnout is depressed because the outcome is known in advance.
Reform is near-impossible. Abolition needs a constitutional amendment the small states it advantages will never ratify. The realistic workaround is the interstate compact (states agreeing to award electors to the national popular-vote winner).

The first thing to weigh. The College is the framers' design question, the legitimacy question and the reform question in one institution - lead with the popular-vote-loser record, then use the amendment barrier for the reform point.

2. Primaries and caucuses

Primaries hand candidate selection to ordinary voters on a scale no other democracy attempts - the smoke-filled room is genuinely gone.

Participation: millions take part in selection itself - but primary electorates are the most motivated partisans, skewing selection toward the loudest voices.
Money has limits: long seasons reward early money and name recognition, but Bloomberg's 2020 run is the limit case - over $1 billion bought a single delegate (American Samoa). Money buys presence, not a poorly-positioned candidacy.
Parties weakened: primaries stripped parties of their core power - choosing their own candidates - leaving candidate-centred machines.

The polarisation link. Safe seats plus partisan primary electorates mean the primary, not the general election, decides most members of Congress - the bridge between the elections topic and the Congress topic.

3. Campaign finance and Citizens United

Citizens United v FEC (2010) held that independent political spending by corporations and unions is protected speech under the First Amendment.

It created Super PACs (unlimited independent spending) and dark-money groups (undisclosed donors).
Federal election spending roughly tripled - from around $5 billion in 2008 to about $15.9 billion in 2024.
In 2024 around 70% of Super PAC money came from fewer than 100 individuals - donor participation, not voter participation.

But money is not decisive. The record 2024 cycle still came down to a few swing states, and the better-funded candidate lost them. Bloomberg 2020 makes the same point. Money is necessary but not sufficient.

4. Gerrymandering and incumbency

Gerrymandering: drawing district boundaries for partisan advantage, producing safe seats where the general election is a foregone conclusion.
Incumbency advantage: sitting members win re-election at very high rates, helped by name recognition, fundraising and favourable districts.
The consequence: with most seats safe, the contest that matters is the primary, which the most partisan voters dominate - deepening polarisation and weakening accountability to the centre.

5. Is the system democratic, and does money decide?

The case the system is flawed

The Electoral College can install the popular-vote loser and depresses safe-state turnout.
Citizens United let money flood in; a tiny donor class funds most independent spending.
Gerrymandering and safe seats mean most outcomes are decided before polling day.

The case it still works

Primaries give voters candidate selection no other democracy offers.
Money is necessary but not sufficient - Bloomberg 2020 and the 2024 swing-state results show the better-funded side can lose.
Turnout rose sharply in 2020, and reform energy (interstate compact, redistricting commissions) is real at state level.

The judgement. Money shapes who can compete but does not by itself decide; structure (the Electoral College, swing states) and partisanship decide more. The system is participatory at the primary stage but distorted by the College, money and gerrymandering.

6. Exam method

Separate "money buys access" from "money buys victory". The strongest line is that money is necessary but not sufficient.
Use the named evidence: popular-vote losers 2000 and 2016, Bloomberg 2020, the $5bn-to-$15.9bn rise, the under-100-donor figure for 2024.
Tie elections to Congress through safe seats and primary electorates - the polarisation link earns synoptic credit.
Reach a clear judgement on whether the system serves voters or donors rather than listing features.

📜 Walk-throughThe full narrative lesson on the College, primaries, finance and gerrymandering. 🧠 MCQ quiz15 questions across the topic. 📊 Judgement gridThe Electoral College to gerrymandering against seven essay qualities.