Is the Electoral Connection Sufficient to Advance Civil Rights

The “electoral connection” model, which is credited to David Mayhew, who proposed it in 1974, asserts that legislators are mainly driven by the goal of being re-elected. This essay focuses on the question of whether this motivation is sufficient for civil rights progress in the United States, stating that although it can produce meaningful change, it cannot always be relied upon because of its dependence on public opinion, politicization, and institutionality.

Public Opinion and Civil Rights

Public opinion plays a key role in the legislation process since legislators try to please their voters to be reelected. Civil rights progress in the past was a result of changes in perceptions in society. For example, the civil rights movement of the 1960s evolved as the public support for desegregation increased (Mickelson et al., 2021). This prompted legislators to come up with legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Nevertheless, the use of public opinion has its advantages and disadvantages. When civil rights concerns do not have significant backing, as was the case with the equality of homosexuals in the 1970s or 1980s, they tend to have less legislative movement, which shows that the electoral link is not enough to advance civil liberties with or without public support.

Political Polarization

Political polarization in the United States also makes the electoral connection and civil rights more challenging to understand. In extreme conditions of polarization, representatives may care more about party fidelity than the voters’ preferences, resulting in an inability to pass legislation on highly charged issues (Gould, 2021). For instance, recent discussions of police brutality and the Voting Rights Act have been politically polarized, thus making it difficult to achieve major change in legislation. Polarization can also lead to entrenched lawmakers pandering to their party’s base, thus halting civil rights’ progress, as such initiatives require support from both sides of the aisle.

Institutional Constraints

Factors like the American political system and the role of lobbying groups are also hindering factors in the electoral connection for civil rights. The Senate, for instance, has a filibuster rule that means most legislation needs the votes of 60 senators, making it difficult to pass civil rights bills without Republican support. Lobbyism and political contributions to candidates give interest groups strong leverage on legislators, even when public opinion is against civil rights gains. For instance, the roles of groups such as the National Rifle Association have prevented gun control legislation despite public approval showing the ways in which institutional factors can hinder the electoral connection.

Case Studies

By analyzing the historical case, one can draw conclusions about the nature of the electoral relationship in the fight for civil rights. The struggle for the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also came with a lot of struggles through legislative strategies, as well as community pressure. Similarly, the fight for the legalization of gay marriage involved state-by-state battles and shifts in legal culture before the court decision in Obergefell v Hodges in 2015 (Sinning, 2022). These examples demonstrate that while the electoral connection is effective in achieving civil rights, it may require other elements such as social movements, judicial activism, and intentional political oversight.

Conclusion

Thus, the electoral connection has a significant role in the advancement of civil rights in the United States. While the desire to seek re-election can ensure that state legislators are sensitive to the people’s sentiments and the call for change, it is slightly marred by political polarization, institutional influence, and the ebb and flow of citizens’ concern for civil rights issues. Civil rights advancement is thus an intricate, multi-year process that demands public campaigning, legal suits, and deliberate political leadership. These elements cohesively determine the pace and degree of civil rights enhancements, arguing that civil rights progression entails more than the electoral connection.