Although it is often argued that the basis of the US election process is “fair”, I will use Fish’s idea of arguments, and that we all agree with what is proposed based on what was proposed by our founding fathers that it is completely fair and logical. We agree with what is put in place, solely because of their status in history. My Research, therefore, addresses the following question: How fair is the process of election in America really?
From the outside looking into the political system of the United States one would think to believe that when voting for the President of the United States the candidate who receives the most votes will then become the president. This is just not the case, to become the President of the United States you are competing for electoral college votes. The electoral college is put in place to defend the representation of smaller states with lesser populations. For every set amount of people, states get an electoral college vote, hence the more population a state has the greater amount of electoral votes they receive. So states like California, Texas, New York, and Florida, represent the majority of votes a presidential candidate receives. These states are the ones that are highly targeted when elections come down to the wire. So when looking at elections, candidates put the majority if not all of their money and time in campaigning and ads to these states with the most power in the electoral college. States are often misrepresented or overrepresented when looking at the electoral votes each state receives. Another thing about the electoral college is that even if a candidate receives the popular vote in that state does not even mean that they receive the electoral vote. In the phrase “every vote counts”, well does it? Can the argument be made that votes only really count in some states? The majority of the population can vote for one candidate, and the electoral college could give the vote to another person running for president. Throughout history presidential candidates have won elections without winning the popular vote. The majority of Americans can vote for a candidate, and the candidate with the least popular vote can end up winning just because they got more electoral votes. This can be crazy to think when you think of what a democracy is and that the majority wins always. It could almost be viewed as being corrupt, more than half of Americans could vote for a candidate and the opposing candidate can become president. This is the reason why the status of the electoral college is such a topic that people think it should be abolished and that the United States should adopt the popular vote solely to elect the president and vice president of the United States. The only time this argument surfaced is when controversial candidates are elected. For example in 2016, Donald Trump was elected over Hillary Clinton when she had taken the popular vote. The electoral college topic was then argued to be outdated and an archaic aspect of our frameworks in our country. The reason for this controversy with the validity of the electoral college was just the pure hate for the candidate Donald Trump.
The reasoning behind the creation of the electoral college is the root of the fear of the a state becoming too powerful, or in other words they never wanted anything remotely close to the tyranny of England. Without their being the electoral college, then States like California, New York, Texas, Florida would decide the fate of every election because they are significantly more populated than the majority of all other states in the US. Smaller states would ultimately have no say in any presidential candidate. Not only would they control the outcome of the presidential election, but with say in who is elected and the party that they are affiliated with. Meaning that democrats or republicans could control and pass their ideals instead of their being more of a fight to get opposing viewpoints. The main thing when trying to explain why we have the electoral college in place is the US is not a democracy entirely. The US is a republic, not a solely pure democracy. A republic is a form of government in which the people elect individuals to represent them in government. This is the reason why the electoral college is put in place. The cons to a direct democracy in the eyes of the founding fathers was that there was a lack of any checks and balances of social or institutional entities. Meaning the majority of people could lead to social or political unrest, and could split the country making the country open to the possibility of instability through factionalism based on the impulsiveness and unawareness of the majority of the common population. Because of this, the framers of the constitution viewed direct democracy being too easily succumbed to tyranny or any other form of totalitarianism. The republic was drawn to offer more protection than to cause unrest and instability in the country, meaning that the majority does not always have the benefit of the country as a whole in mind. Republicanism highlights the prosperity of the majority and minority, and protects the minority in the event of unfair majority rulings to ensure that the freedoms and liberties of Americans are not infringed upon. For better understanding Bernard Dobski stated, “the limitless passion for equality—the root cause for seeking direct democracy—undermines respect for all of those social, familial, civic, and religious institutions that separate individuals from one another, establish hierarchies, dictate codes of behavior, and, most importantly, help us preserve our liberties”. They will enforce a single, universal view of justice on a republican order founded on the recognition that the democratic class became more than merely the majority of its people by fostering greater equality. Our republic is based on the recognition that no one segment of the society has a justice monopoly(Dobski). Based on the idea that our republic has some aspects of democracy by popular consensus as well as does not restrain the majority to the whole of political culture and society. The health and well being of political culture and society is the main strive of republicanism than to be of benefit to the majority. Citizens today often link and associate democracy and republicanism together, because the distinction between the two have not been clearly clarified in our set political institutions. The infatuation with the principle of direct democracy in the eyes of America is going against as Dobski explains it, “egalitarian principle to the family, education, social and religious life, and finally to the norms, practices, and institutions that define who we are as a republic”. The individuals that are for the abolishment of the electoral system forget the crucial part to the republic that has allowed the US to flourish since the 18th century. The term democracy even is not brought up in any of the framework documents of the United States yet republic is. The whole foundation of our country is that we elect representatives to hear the needs and wants of the people and then they represent their wants and needs to pass legislation to protect and better the community and overall the country.
So if the electoral college was put into place to protect against states with lower populations being overshadowed and overpowered by the tyranny of the majority. With this fear of what the power of pure democracy and the power of what the majority can accomplish against the minority: What is the drive for the abolishment of a system that is meant to protect the minorities that could be underrepresented? Well historically the electoral college votes have aligned with the popular vote, but for instance in 2000 and 2016 the candidate to lose the election has been the one to capture the popular vote and still lose the election. In all cases, Democrats lost, which is the reason to question the validity of the electoral college and a call to adjust the system. Democrats are calling for reform to change, but only a constitutional amendment can alter or cancel all together. To do this would be near impossible. In an attempt to restrict the right of the majority to wield power over the minority, the framers rendered the procedure very difficult to do so. Meaning the process of changing an amendment of the constitution is very difficult and time consuming. Even with this difficulty, Democrats are promoting NPVC (National Popular Vote Compact). This act is to require the electoral college votes go to the candidate with the popular vote. Only a small fraction of states have passed the NPVC, and all of them are Democratic voting states. The basis of the constitution and our government has rocketed our county to the top in the world. Is undermining the basic model of our representative government, in the best interest of the country or is it in the best interest of the democratic party of which the ones who dissent with the current operation of the electoral college. Is this a ploy so that the democratic party can get rid of the only check and balance in place that limits their power in government. The majority of democratic states outweigh the more republican states, which would ultimately allow the democratic party to take control of the executive branch and push the policies that benefit their platform. The matter being proposed is from the side of people who did not get their way in an election or the candidate just did not campaign strategically. Especially in today’s time where racial relations and social justice issues are at a boiling point in regards to the current president Donald Trump. Based on the Democratic party having lots of hate and disapprovement for the current president does this validate the proposal of an amendment to the constitution that would abolish the electoral college or just force states to follow the popular vote. The founders drew this so that it is not favorable to any side majority or minority it takes into account of both. The electoral college can work for or against both sides of the political parties, but the basis of this argument is on mere opinion of republican or democrat. One side is more on the lines of getting rid of a rule that is in effect to protect states and the opposing party stays more in line with it. I would also like to add that most likely in the circumstance that the roles were switched, the republican states would be pushing for a popular vote, but they are on the side receiving the benefits. If they can not win by the rules that have been in place for 200 years they want to change the rules. This is evident through history our government is continuously getting more corrupt or absent minded. Where the parties are more for their platforms best interest instead of the best interest of Americans. Which is one of the reasons why change in American legislation is so difficult. Obama and Biden would propose legislation to “help” people but would be blocked by the opposing party in the house or senate. Today’s government is all partisan, parties can not agree on a lot of things. This is one of the flaws of our government. With the partisan nature of the political culture it trickles down to the entire country. It divides the country into two. Effectively it divides the United States into either two pools of people. You are either democrat or republican. Like Stanley fish states there are two types of people, those who think rhetorically and those who do not (Anti-rhetorical).
So to really think analytically of is the electoral college fair or not. You have to really look at why it was put into place. It was to prevent the majority being able to rule or take power and effectively control the minorities. It is a preventative measure to ensure that every state big or small has equal say in the outcome of elections. People see this as an archaic aspect of our constitution that effectively doesn’t accomplish anything. But thinking past that is it really? Or is it doing exactly what it was envisioned to do by our founding fathers. It is to just ensure that everyone, one, every state, every vote as equal say in the outcome. No state has more power than another.
Works Cited
Bernard Dobski, Ph.D. “America Is a Republic, Not a Democracy.” The Heritage
Foundation,www.heritage.org/american-founders/report/america-republic-not-democracy
