NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Unequal Participation at the Polls The electoral system we have now is Electoral College. The system is not new to United States and has deep history throughout the country. The system forces candidates for president to campaign throughout the country instead of ignoring smaller states and only seeking to dominate the popular vote in the larger states. Candidates are less inclined to offer deals to large population states at the expense of small population states in this way. Also one cannot forget that the U. S.
is made of several states and each state has its own rights. As such, the elimination of the Electoral College system would dilute those rights by erasing state lines contrary to founding principles of the country. Further, while the founding fathers did not envision the two party systems, the Electoral College helps maintain it and prevent splintering such as those that have plagued Europe. Finally, with direct elections, a close election like the one of 2000 may have required an entire recount instead of just certain districts in one state. For decades opponents of the Electoral College system have argued that a constitutional amendment was needed to change the method of electing the president to a direct vote. According to David Abbott a president would soon be elected under the current system yet lack the popular vote.
He argues that this will result in a president who lacks a mandate from the public, and thus, spends his presidency powerless in relation to the congress (Abbott, 46). Further, it is suggested that upon the election of president who lacks the popular support of the voters, the people will become disinterested in politics and future voter turn out will suffer. While the United States is yet to see if these grim predictions will actually come to pass, it can be argued that the failure of George W. Bush to garner the popular vote has made the majority of American voters, who cast their votes for Albert Gore, feel disenfranchised. Moreover, there are more concerns that the Electoral College must address before one can say that it is in fact the best system for electing the president of the United States in the twenty first century. (American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 71) A major negative characteristic of the Electoral College system is that it is contrary to the countrys democratic nature. After the United States Supreme Court held that one person - one vote was fundamental in congressional races, it is difficult to swallow that it is not in fact fundamental for the presidential race.
There seems to be a glaring contradiction between what we believe to be the requirements of a fair election, and what the founding fathers have imposed upon twenty first century voters. Further, the Electoral College system fails to even serve its originally stated purposes. Unlike the days of the countrys founding, the ability of average Americans to gain access to information about presidential candidates is even greater than their ability to access information about their local representatives. Television, newspapers, and the Internet provide a plethora of information on national candidates while most people do not have the time to get into see their local city council meeting. Further, the implicit argument for the electoral system that average Americans do not have what it takes to make such a lofty decision is simply reprehensible and contrary to democratic principles. Finally, Hamilton's latter assertion is even further defeated by the fact that Electors are only used to cast a vote, and in fact do not make the choice themselves.
The unequal representation comes from electoral system as well. (Patterson, 17) As a minority in the United States, Black people start off from a disadvantaged position from birth. Racism, prejudice, and systematic manipulation of economic, social, and educational structures in the United States lead to securing the disadvantaged position that black people maintain. The role and impact of majority rule, single member districts, and Black representation was analyzed in its effects on Black Americans in a watered down Democracy. In contrast solutions such as interest representation, cumulative voting and super majority rules will be discussed and analyzed to interpret what impact they could have on the current system if any. Majority rule is defined as "the proposition that 51 % of the people should be able to get whatever they want" (Zeidenstein, 17). Guinier points out several problems with majority rule, which include: a disproportionate distribution of power, voter dilution, and racial polarization within the legislature.
These all serve to point out the fact that majority rule is not a just form of rule. Guinier hypothesizes that in order for a rule to be fair, "it must comport with the stability, accountability, and reciprocity assumptions. " In light of that, Guinier says, "A system in which a permanent and homogeneous majority consistently exercises disproportionate power is neither stable, accountable, nor reciprocal. " (Guinier, 69) Examples of such unjust majority rule would be how certain cities are drawn into districts in order to maximize legislative power. Guinier points out a situation that includes 1000 voters within a ten-seat jurisdiction. Within that jurisdiction the legislature passes laws by a simple majority of six votes.
If a small minority of like-minded people spread across the 10 seats ban together, they can win a majority in the legislature without having a majority of voters in the popular vote (Guinier, 104). Is it fair that the minority can rule out the wishes of the majority through trite manipulation of a system? On the other hand is it fair to redistrict lines in order for a segment of the population to gain representation, only for their representation never to be heard, or to always be outvoted? Although redistricting is presented as a solution to the black communities outcries for representation or a lack thereof it is a band-aid solution, to a critical situation. To redraw districts only pacifies certain segments of the population, because it provides no change and is really a deceptive solution. Is one to believe that democracy is truly being carried out in a system, which allows occurrences such as the one, described?
In effect, a government, which is rigidly lopsided, can never be fair. Majority rule, within the constraints of Guinier's argument, would be a fair system if the majority and minority shifted places in a natural balance. Some things in life provide the material for a comic routine. Single member voting districts are one of them.
Digressing momentarily let the role of government be reiterated upon. The role of government is to carry out the duties of the state as directed by the people. The government represents the objectives, wishes, and goals of the people at large. The governments duty is to carry out actions, which satisfy those objectives, wishes, and goals of the people it represents. With that stated, we can look at the purpose of a legislator.
A legislators primary objective is to represent the needs of the people whom he or she was elected by. In representing a given people, the legislators optimal function includes satisfying the demands of the people he or she was elected by (The Choice of Voting Systems, 82). What kind of customer satisfaction would a store get if it sold broken goods to everyone who came into their store? What kind of athlete would someone be if they lost every contest? What kind of teacher would a person be if every student flunked every exam? Each one of those individuals would be unfit to have their position, unless someone corroborated against their success.
In the case of single member districts, thats the present situations. There are black legislators getting elected, fighting tooth and nail at times, for initiatives and change only to consistently be outvoted by their constituents. Guinier says that, "in order to spend any money in the majority-black district, other than through servicing individual, constituents, the black representative however, needs a majority of legislative votes, not just one or two legislative seats. " (Guinier, 19) This brings up the point of inclusion vs. active involvement. There are many people who are included in a company, but who are never actively involved in the companys decisions. Black representation via single member districts means nothing.
Black representation holds weight when black legislators are actively involved in the decision making process. Guinier directly addresses this in her Theory of Black Electoral Success and concludes "the black electoral success empowerment model fails to provide a realistic enforcement mechanism for establishing either leadership accountability within the black community or representational effectiveness within the legislative deliberation and coalition building process. " (Guinier, 73) Black representation presents a problem only under certain circumstances. Having a black representative is a problem if they dont: authentically represent their community, or have like-mindedness with the community they represent. This holds true in many other respects. Its also a problem if black representatives cant form cross-racial coalitions and are stagnated by racial polarization. Guinier considered someone politically authentic if black voters elected him or her.
She also said "ratification from single member districts establishes authenticity. These facts distinguish the authentic representatives from those officials who are handpicked by the establishment. " (Guinier, 55). Guinier also addressed the issue of a black representative being culturally and psychologically authentic. In street terms a person would be referred to as "real", or "true" if they embodies cultural or psychological authenticity. Guinier described a "real" black representative in these terms, "because they grew up being black, these official enjoy a cultural and psychic linkage that cuts across class lines. By their presence, role models articulate black interest and represent equal opportunity process. " (Guinier, 132) The biggest problem with black representation is that in a majority rule system, the numerical lack of black reps puts restraints on how much black interest can be accounted for.
Black leaders in governmental positions, who are incapable of forming alliances with white constituents for whatever reason, be it personal, lack of charisma, or racist view of their constituents limit the amount of change that can occur. Black representative must find a way around polarization within legislatures in order to bring change to their respective communities. Interest representation assesses the fairness of the election system against the potential of an alternative. In other words the solution of interest representation would look at the voting scheme of a particular area and try to maximize the opportunity for minority individuals to receive representation.
Dopplet states that interest representation locates "politically cohesive minorities" and demonstrates existence of alternative electoral processes that give better results. The whole purpose of interest representation is to combat voter dilution. (Dopplet, 67) The cumulative voting structure is a system that would be used to maximize the existence and intensity of minority voter presence. Dopplet says that cumulative voting would end the winner take all nature of todays current democratic system. Dopplet suggest lowering the required threshold it would take for a person to get elected.
She also proposed giving voters as many votes as there were seats in an at large election. (Dopplet, 92) Through cumulative voting a united group could ensure that clumping all their votes together in support of the candidate of their choice represents them. The super majority is just what it sounds like. It requires more than the bare minimum of 51 % percent in order to get an initiative passed. The super majority is a tool because it forces the majority to fraternize with the minority and appeal to the needs of the minority.
In order for anything to get done in a system that incorporates a super majority, the needs of the minority have to be adhered to (Bickel, 49). Now the question remains: is interest representation, cumulative voting, and a super majority rule just and Constitutional. Lani Guinier is a great woman, with incredible accomplishments, but things such as interest representation, cumulative voting will create more problems than they could ever solve. Interest voting was described as giving the best possible voting situation for minority voters based on at large or single member districts. Whos to say that the majority wont do the same thing only to neutralize interest representation? The voting majority isnt going to allow people to pick and chose the way they want to vote just so they can get some representation. (Schudson, 164) With that in mind a law would have to be passed to allow that to happen.
That would only weaken the majority, so thats not going to happen. Interest representation isnt allotted for in the constitution to the best of my knowledge. The voting rights act was to make sure that black people werent systematically kept from voting. You vote to decide outcomes by a plurality. Thats one of the characteristics of voting. Someone shouldnt be guaranteed representation just because they voted.
If every minority is given the right to rule it will be like a mob. Things will get out of control. If Collier Harper votes during an election and his candidate doesnt win should they give him his own district so he can elect his own personal congressman, senator, governor, and president? See that sounds silly. Its the same thing on a larger scale. If I were in the majority, I wouldnt want to hear what the minority had to say.
Combating the abuse of power is one thing but manipulating the system for a marginal and maybe even detrimental outcome is another. The most dangerous proposal is cumulative voting. The white majority already votes solidly in certain areas. Its ludicrous to think that white people wont clump their votes together in order to thwart the black vote.
So now white people would have even more votes to control representation. No many how many times the votes are multiplied, there are still the same number of votes proportionally between voters, so it still comes down to one vote against one. There isnt that much diversity in voter participation as to where votes are going to get splintered across a plethora of candidates. There are only two parties and it usually comes down to two dominant candidates during most elections if not a landslide by an incumbent. (Bickel, 62) The solution for offsetting the Tyranny of the Majority is for Black people to get off their behinds and go vote.
Many people in America dont participate in voting the way many democratic nations do. If all the people of color would just get up and go vote that would shake up the majority enough to get a change and significant representation. The power of the minority vote would be overwhelming if people of color and other minorities would get up and go vote instead of sitting around on the day of the election. The biggest problem is not getting representation, its maintaining participation.
During the presidential election of 2000, many Latinos, blacks, and Asians who could have voted, sat at home because they felt the election was primarily decided. If all the Hispanics down in Florida would of voted, the election would have had a completely different outcome. Minorities would become close to a majority if they would all go register, and vote in a solid bloc. But getting 100 % of anyone to do anything is impossible. If the oppression gets bad enough it will spark a result, but at this moment in time black people are content with tokenism. Bibliography: Abbott, David Wrong Winner: the coming debacle in the electoral college, Lexington Books 1992 American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
Direct Election of the President. Washington, DC: AEI Press, 1977. Bickel, Alexander M. Reform and Continuity: The Electoral College, the Convention, and the Party System. New York: Harper and Row, 1971. Crotty, William J. , ed.
Paths to Political Reform. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath, 1980. Dopplet, Jack, and Shearer Helen Nonvoters: America's No-shows University Press of America, 2002. Guinier, Jessica True Representation, Lexington Books, 2001 Patterson, Thomas Vanishing Voter: Public Involvement in an Age of Uncertainty Penguin, 2000 Schudson, Michael The Good Citizen: A history of American Civic Life.
Harper and Row, 2000 "The Choice of Voting Systems", by Richard G. Niemi and William H. Riker; in Scientific American, June 1976 Zeidenstein, Harvey G. Direct Election of the President. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1993.
Free research essays on topics related to: electoral college system, founding fathers, harper and row, majority rule, twenty first century
Research essay sample on Electoral College System Twenty First Century
