This paper consists of four interconnected essays and short-answer responses examining core features of the American political system. Topics include the checks-and-balances structure of the three-branch federal government, the function and controversies of the Electoral College, competing scholarly interpretations of American democracy by Tocqueville, Rogers Smith, and Sean Wilentz, and the tension between democratic ideals and capitalist inequality as analyzed through Robert Dahl's five commitments. The paper concludes that while American democracy has evolved significantly, systemic biases favoring the wealthy and powerful remain a persistent challenge to genuine political equality.
The paper demonstrates effective use of comparative analysis — particularly in the Tocqueville vs. Smith essay — by placing two contrasting scholarly frameworks side by side to expose the limitations of Tocqueville's idealized account of early American equality. The student uses direct quotations strategically to ground claims in primary and secondary source material before offering their own evaluative commentary.
The paper is organized into four distinct essays followed by two sets of short-answer responses. Essay one covers the legislative-executive-judicial structure; essay two addresses elections and the Electoral College; essay three compares Tocqueville with Smith and Wilentz on democratic origins; and essay four examines capitalism's role in perpetuating inequality within the democratic system. The short-answer sections serve as a synthesis layer that ties all four essays together thematically.
The American government has had a long-standing checks-and-balances efficiency within its three-branch system. Because of the separate governing powers within the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the United States, American law has been approved after many rounds of revision and discussion. It is commendable that the legislative branch takes into account the representation of both the "state" and the "people." This is not to say, of course, that the government system of the United States is utterly perfect; the executive branch certainly holds somewhat more power within the government than one might prefer.
One major positive effect of the law-passing process is the representation built into those laws. Long before the House-and-Senate solution of Congress, there was always the problem of representation among the populations of the respective states. State borders vary in land mass and population — how does one reconcile a heavily populated state such as California with a small state like Rhode Island? A significant difference in representation exists within the House of legislative government. To address this, a divided Congress — split between the House of Representatives and the Senate — came into being. The reasoning behind this is that "if two separate groups must both approve every proposed law, there would be little danger of Congress passing laws hurriedly or carelessly" (America.gov, 2008). The House provides population-based representation for each state, ranging from a minimum of one representative for the smallest states to as many as 52 for California. The Senate, on the other hand, represents the state as a unit, with exactly two appointed representatives per state. Both chambers have separate legislative powers, and each can block the other until further compromise is reached.
This structure is especially significant in understanding how laws move through the three branches. The legislative branch perhaps achieves the best balance of governmental power, and even within its own jurisdiction it does not exceed its authority, given that the judicial and executive branches are also active participants. Bills passed by the legislature must still be reviewed by the executive administration and are subject to judicial review by the judicial branch. The Supreme Court is checked by the Senate, and the Senate is checked by the House (America.gov, 2008).
It is in the executive branch that power appears somewhat skewed. While the presidency must answer for the actions of past administrations and the policies passed by its predecessors, too much responsibility and authority is concentrated in the office of the President of the United States. For example, the President has the ability to veto bills at his discretion (LexisNexis, 1996), assign regulations unchecked by Congress, and propose legislation deemed necessary (America.gov, 2008). This raises the question of how much these actions serve the current administration's interests versus the degree to which they benefit the general population. Furthermore, the breadth of presidential responsibilities can delay proper action; Obama's health reform bill is a prime example of the president's use of executive power and his struggle against a slow-moving bureaucratic administration (PBS, 2010).
Overall, the American government's system provides a fair degree of representation for the citizens of the United States. While the constant checking and rechecking of actions across the three branches tends to slow the passage of laws and acts, this is not without reason. An extensively reviewed and debated bill means that each branch has had a proper say in the matter and that a genuine compromise has been reached.
Democratic elections occur every few years, and when they do, the nature of the voting process and the role of the Electoral College tend to confound voters nationwide. While the population is indeed able to vote for its designated presidential candidate, concerns persist about relying purely on the popular vote. The Electoral College exists, in part, to address the apparent closeness of votes in a direct popular system.
There are two types of elections: primary and general (America.gov, 2008). Primary elections are held before general elections and serve mainly to determine which party candidates will advance to the general election. A recent example is the 2008 election, in which the Democratic primary determined the party's presidential candidate — the leading contenders being Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Having won the Democratic primary, Obama advanced to the general presidential election. In some states, election ballots also include public policy questions for voter approval or disapproval (America.gov, 2008). In the official presidential election, electoral votes ultimately determine who becomes the next President of the United States.
Where does the Electoral College fit into this process? It is a common misconception that Americans directly elect the president through majority popular vote. While a direct popular vote would be simple and straightforward, several complications arise. Each candidate typically stands behind a platform defined by his or her party, and these platforms address highly debated topics that vary from state to state. Popular vote totals can indicate a frontrunner but may not yield a clear winner when elections are close. A state's population size also creates disparities in how platforms affect the voting process.
To manage the voting process more effectively, presidential elections are decided not through popular vote alone but through the votes of electors in the Electoral College. These elected officials — assigned to a particular state — typically vote for the candidate who won the majority vote in their respective states (CRS, 2003). To win the election, a candidate must secure an absolute majority from a total of 538 electors. While Electoral College officials are not legally required to vote for their states' majority-vote winner, those who do not are typically labeled "faithless electors" (CRS, 2003). Problems can arise when an elector enters the process with a predetermined preference for a candidate. Conflicts of interest occasionally surface, as illustrated in the documentary Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election, in which contested ballots jeopardized popular vote counts and allowed elected officials to cast their electoral votes and decide the outcome (Perez, 2002).
For the most part, because Electoral College officials stand to represent the votes of their respective states, they act as proxies for the people of those states. The Electoral College is therefore a necessary part of the democratic process. Conflicts of interest do arise occasionally, but such instances are rare. Elected officials typically honor the wishes of the populace, and the government generally functions as intended — for the most part.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.