Democracy & the Electoral College

Democracy & the Electoral College The true definition of democracy is subject to debate and can be infinitely broad or narrow. As we look to assess the state of democracy in America, it makes sense to begin with a broad definition, to determine whether some of the more basic requirements have been met. In explaining the U.S.

government's view of democracy, the State Department presents a popular quote from Abraham Lincoln that states that democracy is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" (Defining Democracy, No Date). However, when we analyze Lincoln's broad definition we can see that American democracy itself falls outside of the parameters. Specifically, the Electoral College and the two-party monopoly in America have prevented an ideal democracy from being realized in the United States.

The existence of the Electoral College, by which America's presidents are elected, stands in stark contrast with the notion of democracy as being "of the people, by the people and for the people." In fact, the creation of the Electoral College was, in some ways, designed to impede democracy.

The National Archives and Records Administration, which oversees the Electoral College, points out that the Electoral College was originally created by the founding fathers as a compromise between having the president elected by Congress, versus electing the president by popular vote (What is the Electoral College, No Date). Put simply, it was a compromise designed to appease a faction that did not want the public to select the president. In fact, the Electoral College sometimes does act counter to the popular will.

For example, in the 2000 presidential contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore, Bush won the Electoral College and the presidency, even though Gore won the popular vote. In fact, presidents John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes and Benjamin Harrison were all elected despite losing the popular vote (News Q&A, 1995). All of these were close contests, but a contest does not even have to be close in order for the Electoral College to work against the will of the people.

Consider, for example, two states, both with 1 million people and with 10 electoral votes apiece. In the first state, Candidate A wins by two votes - 500,001 to 499,999. In the second state, Candidate B. wins by a tally of 1 million votes to zero. In the Electoral College, both candidates are now tied with 10 votes apiece. However, according to popular vote, Candidate B. has 1,499,999 votes (roughly 75% of the vote) compared to 500,001 for Candidate A.

Naturally, this is an extreme example, but it demonstrates well the significant problems with the Electoral College when it comes to promoting democracy. The Electoral College also creates an atmosphere that votes are wasted on the national level. For example, consider that you were a supporter of conservative Bob Dole in his 1996 presidential bid. However, because you lived in Massachusetts, a very liberal-voting state, you knew that Bill Clinton was going to win the state and, because the popular vote does not count nationally, your vote would be meaningless.

Not only is this discouraging, but it is quite foreseeable that it could suppress voter turnout. Put simply, the Electoral College works against the democratic process and it was designed to do that. It was created to prevent the public from selecting a president through popular voting, and it has worked counter to the public will on multiple occasions. Political parties One might wonder whether the American public, described as the melting pot of the world, can really be defined by a two-party political monopoly.

Is a government that is almost entirely comprised of Republicans and Democrats really a government "of the people"? The public itself has shown hard evidence that it can not be summed up by these political labels. The fact is, people vote outside of their party regularly. Consider the Reagan Democrats or the Clinton Republicans, who crossed party lines to support presidential candidates. Gov.

George Pataki, a Republican, has been repeatedly re-elected in New York, one of America's most liberal states, and Michael Bloomberg has twice been elected mayor of New York City, one of the country's most liberal cities. These types of scenarios play out at the national, state and local levels across the country. But such anomalies would be impossible if people completely identified ideologically with their own political parties, which would seemingly preclude voting for another party.

If many people are not ideologically committed to their political parties, why do they register as members of those parties at all? The answer is that the financial power of the Republican and Democratic parties give them a stranglehold on the American elections process. For example, it has been estimated that for the 2006 Congressional midterm elections, the Republican and Democratic parties will spend approximately $2.6 billion (U.S. Midterm Election, 2006). Obviously, no other party in the United States could compete with that level of spending.

In the end, American voters are forced to identify with one of the two major parties because it is their only way - through primary voting - to have any say at all in who runs for office. Identifying with a fringe, third-party candidate, who typically has no chance of winning, can take the voter right out of the main political contest.

So, one may argue that the two-party monopoly in American politics keeps American democracy from being "of the people" or "by the people," as Americans can be forced to identify with political parties whose ideologies those Americans may not really espouse. America is a diverse nation, but the political choices put before voters are limited. Conclusion America takes great pride in the democratic ideals under which it was founded and operates. However, certain inadequacies within the American political.