Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Campaign Finance Investigation By Tim Flynn IB Discrete Mathematics A1034-031 Word Count: 1452 Table of Contents: Statement of Task..................................................................3 Data..............................................................................4 - 10 3D Graphical Comparison........................................................................11 Box and Whisker Plots......................................................12 - 14 Conclusion............................................................................15 Campaign Finance In America's political realm, a serious debate has arisen in the last few years regarding the skyrocketing increase in campaign finances for elections of various government offices. To illustrate this debate statistically, I have compiled various amounts of data regarding the campaigns for recent federal elections. In contrasting campaign spending from the recent House elections and the subsequent winners, I hope to determine an answer for whether an increased amount of money spent in campaigning does or does not influence the ultimate result. In other words, I hope to answer the question, within the scope of my data, of whether or not more money spent by candidates ensures a victory for the office they seek. Assorted charts and graphs will be presented in connection with the data's measures of central tendency, percentages and various graphical manipulations of the data to aid in determining an answer for the question I have proposed. One must note that the monetary statistics to be presented are not the only factors for campaign success. Variables such as the candidate's personality, background, political affiliation and personal views and goals are taken into account by the voters and may influence their decision. The statistical data for this investigation was drawn exclusively from the Federal Election Committee's (FEC) ...read more.

Middle

$1,374,562 $350,765 ISTOOK, ERNEST J FORSYTHE, JAMES $308,059 $35,469 LUCAS, FRANK D BARBY, PAUL M $423,038 $482,394 WEST VIRGINIA WISE, BOB MORRIS, C GREGORY $344,409 $53,474 Sample Data of Financial Activity in House Campaigns 1997-1998 State Winner Loser Money Spent by Winner Money Spent by Loser ALABAMA EVERETT, R TERRY FONDREN, GERALD JOSE $749,837 $22,164 RILEY, BOB TURNHAM, JOE $1,986,617 $447,903 ADERHOLT, ROBERT BEVILL, DONALD H $1,638,268 $663,746 CRAMER, ROBERT E "BU AUST, GILBERT MONROE $1,166,469 $825,683 SMALLEY, DONNA WESSO BACHUS, SPENCER T II $648,464 $30,146 CONNECTICUT LARSON, JOHN B O'CONNOR, KEVIN J $1,229,154 $402,552 GEJDENSON, SAM KOVAL, GARY M $1,029,870 $131,095 DELAURO, ROSA L REUST, MARTIN $461,688 $22,274 MALONEY, JAMES H NIELSEN, MARK $1,358,053 $940,008 JOHNSON, NANCY LEE KOSKOFF, CHARLOTTE $1,791,391 $552,312 IDAHO CHENOWETH, HELEN P WILLIAMS, DANIEL EVE $1,357,050 $895,522 SIMPSON, MIKE STALLINGS, RICHARD H $921,383 $660,590 KENTUCKY WHITFIELD, EDWARD BARLOW, THOMAS J III $827,994 $144,093 NORTHUP, ANNE MEAGHE GORMAN, F CHRIS $1,856,830 $704,830 LUCAS, KENNETH R WILLIAMS, EDWIN GEX $1,071,269 $882,542 FLETCHER, ERNEST LEE SCORSONE, ERNESTO $1,283,184 $1,030,425 MASSACHUSETTS OLVER, JOHN W MORGAN, GREGORY L $673,863 $32,156 MCGOVERN, JAMES PATR AMORELLO, MATTHEW J $1,313,572 $681,047 TIERNEY, JOHN F TORKILDSEN, PETER G $1,004,401 $883,262 MARKEY, EDWARD JOHN LONG, PATRICIA HARDI $455,311 $6,140 DELAHUNT, WILLIAM D BLEICKEN, ERIC VAUGH $749,771 $7,320 NEW JERSEY ANDREWS, ROBERT E RICHARDS, RONALD L $639,131 $8,925 SAXTON, H JAMES POLANSKY, STEVEN JAY $674,943 $2,740 SMITH, CHRISTOPHER SCHNEIDER, LARRY $429,388 $39,036 ROUKEMA, MARGE SCHNEIDER, MIKE $735,866 $62,525 PALLONE, FRANK JR ...read more.

Conclusion

Obviously the increased amount of spending within this range of values for the winners yielded more successful results for them whereas the losers, who spent less, subsequently did not win their desired office. The importance of increased spending in campaigns is made perhaps more evident by the second set of data regarding the 1998 House elections. Here, the majority of money spent on campaigns by losers was between $31,151 and $672,396 while the majority of money spent in winning campaigns fell between $505,944 and $ 1, 256,169; a staggering difference. Conclusion: Within the scope of this data and it's presentation, its is clear that the more money one spends on his campaign, the more likely it is he will win. However several factors must be taken into account here. The election data collected is only a sample from the total number of House elections from 1996 and 1998 and therefore has a severe influence on the results of this study. Moreover, one must take into account that the fiscal statistics presented are not the only factors for campaign success. Variables such as the candidate's personality, background, political affiliation and personal views and goals are taken into account by the voters and are influences on their decision making. Within statistical or any mathematical investigation there are bound to be various weaknesses and deficiencies by which the investigator would be remiss in not addressing; these limitations aside, its clear in regard to the numbers afore presented, that the more money an individual spends on his campaign, the more likely he his to win his election. 1 ...read more.

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics section.