Electoral College and Presidential Elections - Essay Example

Lesson 12: Electoral College and Presidential Elections As a preliminary matter, it is important to point out the fact that the electoral system isnot a system whereby voters elect a president or a vice-president directly; quite the contrary, the voters cast their votes for electors whom, in turn, vote for presidential and vice-presidential candidates. This indirect voting method is complicated by the fact that states create and implement their own laws with respect to how electors are to be allocated or dedicated to certain candidates. For instance, one state may enforce a sort of winner-takes-all approach to electoral votes whereas another state may allocate the electoral votes pro rata depending on the votes cast by the state citizens. The federal elections envision an electoral or indirect approach to elections but the states are free to decide the precise formula by which its own electoral votes are counted. The Electoral College has been the subject of much debate and criticism; such criticism tends to derive from the fact that a presidential candidate can win the popular vote and still fail to win because of the nuances of the Electoral College. Such criticism is hardly abstract as George W. Bush defeated Al Gore in just this way. Not only can the Electoral College operate to deny the popular vote, but it can also render certain states increasingly important and other states increasingly trivial or irrelevant as far as presidential elections are concerned. Large swing states with winner-take-all electoral laws, for instance, receive more attention and more personal time than other states. Under this electoral system, Florida becomes more important than California, Ohio more important than New York, and Pennsylvania more important than Texas. What ought to be a national election, reflecting a broad spectrum of national interests and concerns, instead becomes a carefully calculated race to secure electoral votes at the expense of popular votes and large swing states at the expense of smaller states. It might be cynical to suggest that such a system thwarts notions of popular democracy, and yet it seems difficult to reconcile the consequences of an Electoral College with notions of one-person-one vote. To be sure, one person does not really equate to one vote under this system and the particular value to be assigned to a vote depends on the state’s underlying approach to the allocation of electoral votes as well as to whether the voter resides in a large swing state, a large non-swing state, or a smaller state. The ideals of popular democracy, and the value of an individual vote, would appear to fall short when applied pursuant to the electoral system. Lesson 13: Congressional Reapportionment Generally speaking, Congressional Reapportionment is the process by which the United States Congress’s total seats are divided among the states and other relevant political sub-organizations. This is accomplished every ten years, in accordance with population data gathered through the national census, by redividing the number of Congressional seats in a given legislative body to reflect increases or decreases in population. This can be extraordinarily important, as noted by the New York Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment, because, “For example, the 435 seats in Congress must be allocated to reflect a states proportion of the national population. Unfortunately, the Census Bureau reports that New Yorks population grew by 5.5 percent between 1990 and 2000, while the national population grew by 13.2 percent. As a result, the state will lose 2 seats in Congress” (2008). It can be seen, therefore, that population matters and that Congressional seats are dependent to some extant on demographic patterns and shifts. Taking New York as an example, this may result not only in decreased tax revenues as a result of a declining population but a corresponding decrease in political representation or political power as well. Population booms may follow economic booms, such as the Silicon Valley high technology boom not so many years ago, and this process of readjusting or reapportioning political representation is designed to reflect these types of changing demographic realities. There are some problems, such as undercounts as a result of undocumented people or workers, but in theory the reapportionment concept is rather ingenious as it accounts for population shifts in order to allocate political representation at the Congressional level. Lesson 14: Congressional Constituencies Although there may be some overlap in terms of constituency representation, it would not be accurate to state that a member of the House of Representatives represents exactly the same constituency as a member of the Senate from the same state. This is because a member of the House of Representatives represents a district within a state whereas a member of the Senate represents the entire state. The implications, in terms of the constituency or constituencies in the case of senators, are highly relevant. A member of the House of Representatives, for instance, is primarily a product of his or her district. Rather than being elected by the state at large they are elected by a particular group of people. The racial, religious, and socio-economic make-up of that district may differ from the state as a whole. This means that members of the House of Representatives are expected by people and businesses in their local districts to reflect local values and to promote and protect local businesses. Farms may be important in certain parts of California whereas defense industries or civil rights may be more important in other California districts. Therefore, it is hardly unusual to see members of the House of Representatives from the same state whom seek to emphasize different issues or to protect certain demographic groups such as the elderly in parts of Florida or African Americans in Detroit or Washington D.C. Senators, on the other hand, have to balance many more issues and groups because they are responsible to a broader constituency. A senator from California, such as Diane Feinstein, must balance demands from farmers in central California, from entrepreneurs in the Silicon Valley, and from immigrants all throughout the state. In short, members of the House of Representatives tend to represent narrower interests whereas members of the Senate tend to represent a number of broader constituencies. This may explain why members of the House of Representatives are seen as promoting issues more aggressively while members of the Senate are viewed as conservative because of the need to harmonize sometimes conflicting demands from their state-wide constituencies. Lesson 15: Pre-2002 Campaign Financial Reform Problems Politicians and the public have long called for the meaningful control and regulation of financial donations and support in public elections. The notion that money corrupts politics, that lobbyists and donors benefit positively from disproportionate representation and benefits, is hardly novel; despite these beliefs, however, prior to 2002, meaningful campaign finance reform was plagued by many obstacles. 2002 served as a watershed because of the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain-Feingold Act). So why did it take so long for a campaign reform law to passed? There were actually several problems. First, there were bipartisan disputes about who would be affected. The Democrats sought to regulate businesses most severely while the Republicans sought to regulate labor unions and government unions most severely. Thus, there were fierce disputes about the scope of potential regulation and the coverage. These disputes were marked by filibusters to prevent votes and threats of or actual Presidential vetoes in order to posture for more bargaining power. Second, there were legal concerns about the constitutionality of some parts of the proposed legislation. Because the issue involved the right to support political candidates there were concerns that some parts of the law proposed by Congress would exceed its authority under the Constitution. Finally, some interest groups and politicians simply did not want such reform or they wanted reform so long is it did not affect them too personally. Lesson 16: Constitutionality of War Powers Act Congress attempted to assert its power by issuing a resolution whereby the President, the leader of the executive branch, would thereafter be required to comply with certain conditions if armed forces were to be sent overseas. Either the United States of America would have to be under attack or under a threat of serious injury or the President would be compelled to seek Congressional authorization within sixty days of committing the armed forces. This was a serious challenge to executive power and many presidents have characterized it as constitutional overreaching by the legislative branch. The constitutional issue is extraordinarily difficult to resolve because the President serves as the Commander in Chief while the Congress has the power to declare war. Still, it seems as if Congress ought to have the power to declare war or to otherwise engage in initiating acts while the President is responsible for executing those acts. To allow the President to both declare and to execute a war would constitute almost all of the war powers conceivable. It is true that Congress controls the purse strings, but once a war has been declared and prosecuted by the executive it is very difficult to control or to stop. Iraq is a prime example. In my view, the War Powers Act ought to be constitutional because the declaration powers are reserved to the legislative branch and executive powers are still controlled by the President. The separation of powers argument is more persuasive in support of the War Powers Act than against it. Works Cited New York Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment. (August 3, 2008). Available Read More