Evaluate the extent to which the electoral college is a democratic electoral system. PDF

Preview

Summary

Evaluate the extent to which the electoral college is a democratic electoral system. ...

Description

Evaluate the extent to which the electoral college is a democratic electoral system. (30) In the early years of the United States becoming a democracy, the Founding Fathers created the electoral college which has remained intact till today. The purpose of the institution was to essentially act as a mechanism to filter public opinion – as at the time many of the public were uneducated. It is heavily debated whether the electoral college is a democratic system in today’s society. Some argue that it isn’t and should be gotten rid of because: it’s outdated and no longer necessary, there is a chance that the ‘loser wins’ and many argue that it gives small states a disproportionate amount of power. However, this is disputed by some who argue that the electoral college is democratic and performs essential functions. For example, it produces a clear winner, gives protection to smaller states and makes sure the votes of individuals are heard and protected. One reason it can be argued that the electoral college is democratic is because it protects the political rights and representation of smaller states. The Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that small states were not faced with a “tyranny of the majority” by larger and more dominant states as Tocqueville puts it. Due to this, they created the electoral college to make sure all states were given fair representation. The amount of electoral college votes (ECV) a state has is based on the number of congresspersons plus the two senators of the state; thus, it’s a combination of proportional and equal representation and therefore inherently fair and democratic. It not only protects states’ rights but also the value of the vote for individuals from small states. For example, an individual from Wyoming can feel assured that their vote matters as much as someone from a big state like California. This is because California has 63 times the population of Wyoming, but Wyoming still have a fair 3 ECV. Therefore, the electoral college is arguably democratic to some degree because it represents the rights of small states equally and protects them. However, this can be disputed to a large extent. Many politicians from large states argue that small states are not only protected but in fact extremely over-represented. For example, the three smallest states (Wyoming, Vermont and North Dakota) all have one representative for every 200,000 people whereas the three largest states (California, Texas and New York) have only one representative for every 670,000 people. This indicates a clear representative inequality and distorts the value that small states have in electing the president – surely it can’t be fair or democratic for certain individuals’ votes to be more powerful than others. Therefore, it would be wrong to assume that the electoral college is a democratic electoral system as the votes of citizens are not of the same value. On the other hand, one of the essential democratic acts that the electoral college performs is producing a clear winner. The procedure is simple yet effective: whichever candidate gets over 50% of the ECV wins the presidential election. This is particularly useful in giving the elected president a legitimate mandate if they have won by a majority. However, this is still arguably undemocratic as the electoral college allows a candidate with fewer votes to win the presidency. This was the case in 2000 when Bush beat Al Gore with almost half a million less votes. Even in the 2016 election, Clinton gained almost 3 million more votes, but Trump still won the presidency thanks to the electoral college. This is partially due to the fact that 21 states do not place any requirement on electors to vote for the candidate that the state has chosen. This was the case in 2016 when 10 rogue electors voted for different candidates than the ones that won the vote in their state. While some argued that they were simply trying to protect the country and serving the original purpose of the electoral college to act as a filter on public opinion, there

can be no doubt that this notion is highly elitist. Arguably to be considered a representative democracy America should take into account the votes of the regular citizens, not just have the decision made by a small group who are seen as superior. In addition, there’s no constitutional requirement for how electors are given the position – so in some cases the people of the state don’t even get to decide who’s representing their vote, this arguably means there’s virtually no backlash for faithless electors. Thus, it is clear to see that the electoral college is not a democratic election system because it skews the wishes and votes of the public. Despite this, it could still be argued that the electoral college is somewhat democratic as it protects areas with low voter turnouts. Just because someone lives in a district where there is low voter turnout doesn’t mean their vote shouldn’t be heard. By protecting votes of those in low turnout areas, the electoral college is somewhat democratic because it makes sure everyone who wants a significant vote gets one and it prevents people in those areas being discouraged to vote in general. For example, in the 2016 election, Utah and Hawaii had the lowest turnout rates at 57% and 42%, but those who did vote still had the assurance of knowing their votes mattered. However, the extent to which this makes the electoral college democratic is low as it may have the opposite effect for areas with high turnout and safe seats. For example, someone from Texas may not feel their vote counts much because it is a Republican safe state and thus even if they vote otherwise the electoral college result will still be Republican. Therefore, it would be wrong to say that the electoral college is a highly democratic system because it has varying impact depending on the location. So, while one of the claimed benefits of the electoral college is that it prevents a ‘tyranny of the majority’ across the country as a whole, it still consequently creates one on a smaller state level. This is primarily due to the winner takes all system that is used un 48 states which results in a single candidate receiving all the ECV. Only 2 states (Nebraska and Maine) use a proportional allocation and avoid this undemocratic impact. This winner takes all system also produces the issue of swing state distortion – these states in which the voting pattern fluctuates and is unpredictable are arguably given more influence in selecting the president than ‘safe’ states. This is highlighted best by examining campaign finance allocation in presidential elections. For instance, in the 2008 election, the Obama campaign spent around $40 million on advertising in Pennsylvania (a swing state) compared to only $25,000 in Illinois (Obama’s home state in which a victory was certain), even though they both have 21 electors. Consequently, this gives the impression that the votes of individuals in swing states in more valuable than those in safe states which inherently goes against the principle of democratic equality. In conclusion, it is clear to see that although it does have some positive functions, the electoral college overall is not a democratic mechanism. This is primarily because of the unjust influence it gives smaller states and swing states, how it can allow the ‘loser’ to win due to the winner takes all system and the unethical principle of faithless electors. Arguably, the very purpose of the electoral college was to prevent democracy – the Founding Fathers creates it out of a fear of ‘popular sovereignty’. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the electoral college is not democratic and in turn no longer fit for purpose....