Family members from a dynasty have more opportunities and stronger networks. According to New Geography contributor David Mark, this is a "built-in" advantage, as it makes it more difficult for opponents who may not have as much money and influential networks to support campaigns. In addition, for lobbyists and community organizations affiliated to dynasties, funding and support for their causes can come easily.
In her article "Elections Test Power of Political Dynasties," Kathy Kiely compares the history of family legacies in the US government to political dynasties. Kiely writes that, according to New York Assemblyman Adam Clayton Powell IV, a candidate from such a family dynasty can sometimes be forced to work harder to prove himself and his family's name; the voters will always compare family members and will expect the candidate to work hard to maintain a certain legacy. This can be advantageous for the voters if the legacy was good and helped their communities to prosper.
Voters usually prefer to go with the brand name that they are familiar with. Those who do not belong to a known family can have a hard time winning votes and getting into political office. According to "Culture Briefings," published by the Geotravel Research Center, family members and close relatives have easier access to a somewhat closed-in political club. They also have greater access to business if the family name is popular and familiar with voters.
In the history of some countries, it might be argued that political dynasties have brought a relative degree of stability. As reviewed in the online magazine "Foreign Affairs," author Kenneth Lieberthal has argued that the dynastic Communist party in China has maintained a strong hold on the country's political discontent, thus preventing rivalries from turning to countrywide conflict.