Examination of the U.S. Electoral College: The Pros and the Cons - Term Paper Example

?Examination of the U.S. Electoral College: The Pros and the Cons Created by constitution framers, the U.S. Electoral College is a voting body of electors that selects the American President. Although America makes the boast that as a nation, she leads in the movement of democracy in the Western world, there are blatant irregularities in the democratic process that contradict her claims. Democracy, in and of itself, is defined as the rule “of the people, by the people and for the people” (Sunday 182). In spite of these contradictions, there are the pros and cons of the American Electoral College. A few presidential elections highlight the apparent conflicting nature of the elections and the unique role of the Electoral College in setting up the American President. The Electoral College has different facilities in place that act as pluses and minuses in the system of democracy, both hindering and allowing the people to speak. Investigating the Electoral College and appointing of electors are critical in considering the fairness of American democracy. The Electoral College is made up of the electors pledged to support either Republican or Democratic candidate for President. Every four years, each political party sends up a nominee who runs for candidacy in the Electoral College. This action follows the order of the 12th Amendment that says that, “each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of Electors” (U.S. Constitution). Here, it says that the state guides in the appointment of its electors. In addition, the U.S. Constitution, Article II states that the number of electors is “equal to the whole number of senators and representatives” (U.S. Constitution). This figure represents the number of state representatives plus the number of senators granted to each state (two). The goal of the founding fathers is to take away the right of directly choosing the president from American people seeing that election of the U.S. President is a serious and important act. As a matter of fact, knowing that the average Joe would not understand certain interests and subjects, they put the responsibility of choosing the president on the shoulders of the most respected and scholarly men. The Electoral College can be therefore seen as exclusive and even undemocratic. First of all, electors are chosen by the State, for that reason, the State’s interests would be more involved in government than the people’s. This authority placed within the state excludes the participation of the average American citizen from having a say in who has to vote at the Presidential elections. Since this power to decide is out of reach for the average citizen, this lack of access causes one to doubt in the democratic process. In the book, Why the Electoral College is Bad for America, George Edwards writes that “the state legislators have plenary power over appointing electors and could even refuse to provide for the appointment of any electors if they so chose. Moreover, there is no constitutional right to the public to vote for electors” (Edwards 5). This plenary power belonging to the State is full and absolute. This position only reflects the requirements of the U.S. Constitution laid down by early lawmakers viewing that the people would not be competent to have a say in rule and cancels out any illusion of personal rights to vote for electors. Democratic principles must guide leadership, based on freedom, equality and justice, for fair and equal treatment of members and balanced distribution of power, nevertheless the Electoral College strays from this rule because of regard to a smaller class. This preference takes away democratic power from the people. The bottom line is that electors after having won the right to vote for president can choose to betray their party and the members who elected them. Within the Electoral College, the interests of the minorities are not respected or represented instead, it is the protected interests of a few. Democracy, derived from the word demos, means the people and has at its core the ideal of promoting the welfare of the people. As a result of democracy, the leader is bound to adopt an attitude of tolerance in the face of diversity. The more diverse the organization, the more tolerant the leader to forge unity despite differences. It is only in underlining the common bonds which draw people together can a leader successfully govern and provide good leadership. Also, diversity brings along individual considerations. Although directed by the will of the majority, democracy still entitles minorities or those not belonging to the greater part to enjoy their rights as human beings: their human rights. As such, the leader's power is restrained by the consent of the members and decision-making can never be solely unilateral. Democratic leadership has a telling influence on liberty and equality since it is the duty of leader to protect the members' rights and liberties. Just by its structure and closed process, the Electoral College does not respect minorities or any other that comes up against their own. The Electoral College because of its set-up does not allow individual freedom as democracy often claims to offer. “The Electoral College is inconsistent with the cherished principle of ‘one person; one vote” (Streb 150) Mill also discerns that in order for just process, the individual will cannot and should not be denied to the people. Man is not justified when he silences another, even for an alleged public good. This opinion turns the system of American democracy over its heels. Because of the freedom of thought and conscience that is owed to everyone, there must be a way for those freedoms to be expressed without control by someone else. Democracy should guarantee that everyone has the right both at an individual and collective level to decide. The supposed principle of one person, one vote is based on the rule of respecting each individual’s right to vote in the presidency. Because many people know that the right of an individual is useless in an election a large number chooses to not cast their ballots. This idea decreases in a marked way the voter turnout. The Electoral College is an essential political body is under oath to defend and protect the interests of the American people however, its organization ensures that it does not. In contrast, an oligarchy only represents the interests of a few. It is a threat to good leadership so that an select few belonging to an inner circle are eligible to govern the masses. This model goes against democracy. Why the Electoral College is Bad for America states that, “rather than protecting the interests of states and minorities, the Electoral College weakens incentives for voter participation” (Edwards 119). The lack of representation for minority interests only causes inequalities to continue among lawmakers and in the nation as a whole. Despite the equal rights that every American possesses, it is the elector who really holds the right to vote and the right to representation. Social relations and control in the utilization opportunities and occupation in the public space is controlled by a dominant majority who voice in Congress. Through the Electoral College, America imposes a lawful system that allows prejudices to bloom while refusing other sectors of society the representation that is due. The electoral body has its own interests that are at the forefront in the nation’s agenda and assumes the need “ to protect important interests that would be overlooked or harmed under a system of direct election” (Edwards 92). At the national level, the ‘us and them’ struggle leads to the restraint of one group and the superiority of a another. (Paris 2004) agrees that “exclusionary forms of nationalism also make enemies of excluded groups.” This statement stands true in the electoral race so that the allowance of one select group of people protecting their own interests ends up putting another at a disadvantage.. Inequalities result in dividing the American public along the lines of those who have the rule of thumb and the ruled that are under the false impression of having rights, led by an elite. The Electoral College may be called elitist as well, preferring a small circle of ‘better individuals’ to vote in the race for the presidency. Once there is organized society, there inevitably will be classification of groups with separation into the haves and the have-nots. In a political scenario, the Electoral College still offers preference to a small batch of elites since the birth of the Electoral College is driven by the idea that “the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party” (Kimberling 2). This type of political process emphasizes differences between ‘us’ and ‘them,’ and produces the elitism that gives more favor to one group over the next. According to book, The Electoral College and the Idea of American Democracy, the Electoral College is an “elitist instrumentality” (Diamond 3). This system results in the political exclusivity of elections. The upper crust that customarily enjoys privilege are then electors since they have more access to higher education, more property, more entitlements and thus more political power. On the other hand, the lower society that is not eligible to directly vote for the president would be deprived of this opportunity. As is evidently seen, the principle of one person, one vote’ does not apply to the Electoral College. Another problem with the Electoral College system is betrayal. At any presidential election, “one or more electors might abstain or vote for a candidate other than the one to whom they were committed” (Bennett 95). This betrayal is a betrayal to the people who accepted and voted for the electoral nominee. The corrupt nature of the system is generally known with bribery and blackmailing taking place which damages the integrity of the elections. An elector can give up their identity because of other considerations that can come in the picture. Electors are supposed to stand by their word in the way that they vote at the Electoral College elections but somehow this is not the case. Traitor-like he votes in the way that he sees fit. The worst curse to fall on a politician is going against the people’s choice and as a result offends the very people who supported his entry to Electoral College. The Electoral College does not have the uniformity that should mark the progress of democracy. The book, His Accidency: The Race for the White House.....After the Elections states that “the methods of choosing electors vary from state to state” (Webb 256). Again one is seeing the upper hand of the State legislature in deciding over elections for the electors and the president. The variations in the processes of selecting electors for the Electoral College can endanger the equality and the uniformity that should be a part of the general elections. This is underlined by the fact that “the Electoral College distorts the (presidential) campaign so that candidates ignore many of the large and most small states and devote most of their attention to competitive ones”(Edwards121). This uneven and lopsided handling in the Electoral College again causes questions to enter one’s mind concerning the democratic process and the real rights of the people. However in these considerations there exists a few positives that make the Electoral College a benefit politically speaking to American society. The democratic rule of the majority is can be dangerous; therefore, the Electoral College does a good by rejecting the popular vote. Edwards states that “in reality, the Electoral College deviates from the popular will as expressed in the popular vote” (Edwards 34). As a result, the process of electing the president among the American people is not based on gaining the majority of votes. The documents “Democracy in America,” by Alexis De Tocqueville and “On Liberty” by John Stuart Mill make a study of the tyranny of the majority theory and its role in political ideology in America. Mill in “On Liberty” describes the social and political effects of the tyranny of the majority with his main concern in the power of the general will to stifle those who disagree. The general will is defined as the voice of the people or the wisdom of the masses. (Choby 21). Majority rule is therefore oppressive since it has the potential to ignore conveniently and bully minority opponents who go against the grain. The general elections is actually glaring evidence of the rule of the majority in which the people elect a government based on a popular count. As well, Mill criticizes the majority’s ability to suppress an individual’s say and to subtract individual liberty. He fears that “there ceases to be any social support for non-conformity” (Mill 48). He notes that government obtains its power only because of the public opinion of certain voting individuals. However, the public opinion should not be the standard used to govern a people. Inevitably, the great force of the majority goes against true democracy because the majority influences ideas and conscience according to a popularity competition. The Electoral College’s stance against majority rule (the popular vote) is significant since it eliminates to a certain extent the trickery of some politicians. The Electoral College’s opposition to mass politics is clear cut. This point of view does not give validity to mass politics so that the main objective is not to obtain a consenting majority sides with the politician through mass rallies and propaganda. In mass politics, the individual is swallowed up in the giant process of the majority and this can override a particular decision. Acceptance of the rule of the majority, facilitates a gain in consensus, and ultimately leads to uniformity that can upset the democratic process. At the same time, if general elections are carried about in the way the public sees fit, presidents then would become people who take advantage of the passions and prejudices of the people rather than follow the guidance of wise and educated people who are not influenced by favoritism. Here one sees the conflict between reason and passion. The Electoral College in effect closes any door of opportunity to unreasoning partiality that the masses would definitely have toward their presidential candidate of choice. As a matter of fact, those who created the constitution and the system of the Electoral College were firm supporters of reason. It was during the age of enlightenment that American democracy emerged. During the Age of Reason, the reasoning powers of man, experimental knowledge, science, wisdom and enlightenment are exalted for the progress of mankind. In this age of Reason, man’s liberty and equality are asserted and come to the fore in the French Revolution. Reason ruled that man must investigate and explore to find truth. No traditional beliefs are embraced. No crowd mentality or feelings must damage the electoral process. There are some notable cases where the Electoral College overturns the general will as expressed in the popular vote. For example, in the election of 1824, Andrew Jackson “had some claim to having won a plurality of the popular vote” however the Electoral College ultimately chose John Quincy Adams (Webb 374). In this case, the Electoral College sided against the popular vote. Another case confirms the precedent. In the 1960 U.S Presidential Elections in the race between John F. Kenney and “Kennedy was clearly the Electoral College winner” although Nixon won the popular vote (Edwards 49,50). These two incidents show that the general elections is not really that general. This is a clear difference between the popular vote winner and the ultimate Electoral College winner. One critic complains that “the most obvious defect of the Electoral College is the fact that as we saw in 2000, a national popular vote winner may not win a majority of the electoral vote (Al Gore defeated George W. Bush by more than 537,000 popular votes but lost the electoral vote 271-266” (Streb 150). Although many Americans anticipated Al Gore to win in the presidential elections seeing that they rather him, it is George W. Bush who gets the green light from the electoral college and becomes the next President of the United States. In sum, the Electoral College has many pros and cons because of its make-up and the processes that guide it. With deep roots in history, the Electoral College has preferred one class of citizens and putting down another. It goes against the very rule of democracy by ignoring the masses. On the other hand, these apparent disadvantages can work for the advantage for the American people, since more qualified people are elected to choose the U.S President and prevent majority politics from taking control. Works Cited: Bennett, R.W. Taming the Electoral College, Stanford University Press, California, 2006 Choby, B. Liberty in America, Past, Present and Future: A Prescription for America, Author House Publishing, Indiana, 2010. Diamond, M. The Electoral College and the Idea of Democracy, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington D.C, 1977. . Edwards, G.C. Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America, Yale University Press, New Jersey, 2005. Kimberling, W.C. “The Electoral College,” Federal Election Commission Office of Election Administration Kofmel, Anti-Democratic Thought, Imprint Academics, Virginia, 2008. Mill, J.S. On Liberty and Other Essays, Digireads.com Publishing, 2008. Shaw, D.R. The Race to 270: The Electoral College and the Campaign Strategies of 2000 and 2004. University of Chicago Press, Illinois, 2006. Streb, M.J. Rethinking American Electoral Democracy. Taylor and Francis Publishing Group, New York, 2011. Sunday, E. Comprehensive Textbook on Public Service Examination: An Examination of Rules, Financial Regulations, Law, and General Knowledge, iUniverse Publishing, 2011. Webb, D. His Accidency: The Race for the White House.....After the Election, iUniverse Publishers, Indiana, 2008. Read More