Our political system gives an enormous advanta e to incumbents. $(ou’ve probably heard this assertion before – and the record for the past 50 years in national elections would seem to bear out its truth. l Consider the Democrats’ ability to perpetuate themselves in office and the difficulty challengers within either party have in unseating the person entrenched in office. The Democratic party has controlled both houses of Congress for more than la quarter century. Extend l the examination to 50 years and you’ll find little jvariance in the picture. In only eight of the years since Herbert Hoover became president in 1929 has the Republican Party dominated the two houses. GOP success has been a little better in the executive branch with . Republicans occupying the j White House for 20 of those years. l A Washington columnist ,commented the other day ithat if past trends hold true, over 90 percent of the members of Congress up for reelection this year will be sent back to Washington. How is it that incumbents have a built-in advantage? For one thing, the office of president wields awesome power, and the man in the Oval Office can use that power to his and is party’s own political ds. The current Presiis a prime example. Like the president, members of Congress receive consistent exposure in media coverage – official actions, their comments, interviews, news releases, visits to the home constituency, speeches. They begin a campaign with a name well known. Opponents sometimes start as political unknowns under-funded and with no Washington identification. The incumbent’s performance and voting record, of course, are (and should be) exposed and could make him. vulnerable to public criticism among discerning voters. If the record is good, on the other hand, he will benefit. Congressional staffs, in Washington and in district offices, amount to a political asset for incumbents, and in recent years many senators and congressmen haven’t spared the horses in filling their quotas. Sen. William Proxmire, D-Wis. who delights in calling attention to ridiculous spending programs, chose Congress for his “Golden Fleece” award a year ago. He cited a 270 percent “eruption” of congressional staff and payroll in the past decade. News reports disclosed about that time that the Senate averaged 68 staff members per senator, double the ratio a decade previous. Among the “perks” which the incumbent enjoys and the challenger doesn’t, as syndicated writer Marquis Childs pointed out some time back, are newsletters printed and distributed free of charge, and access to “radio and television facilities in the House Office Building that give the man in office an advantage with stations back home.” The whole issue prompts this question: How long can America’s twoparty system continue to serve a valuable purpose with the imbalance we’ve seen in control of Congress in the past half century? Minority party members can and do speak up in matters of budget, debt, inflation, taxes, defense and other issues. But they are powerless on crucial votes when the majority party sticks together. The Herald is not telling anyone how to vote. The Herald does urge this: Do your home work. Learn and evaluate candidate qualifications. If you don’t know a candidate and how he stands, make it your duty to get acquainted and informed. Tosimply vote on a basis or name recognition or lack of it, is not being objective. No political party has a monopoly on the “good guys.” You as a voter have a responsibility to study, evaluate, and make a careful judgment on who is best qualified to govem In the long run. Americans well might look into the incumbentchallenger balance and the over-all fairness of political races, then advocate reforms, based on the findings.