The efficiency of the Electoral College
When designing and writing the American Constitution, the foundation for our state, in 1788, the Founding Fathers developed a structure of electing the President, which they termed as the Electoral College. They decided to call it this for several reasons, but the most important of these reasons is that they did not have confidence in the theory of direct democracy. This belief is grounded on the direct involvement of the population is the decision making process. After the Founding Fathers took the people’s obligation from the presidential poll matrix, it was time to address the rest. The second reason for this exercise, in line with Chris Baylor journalist at Washington Post, the pioneers intended that the electoral college’s essential function was to choose a leader who would not dwell on unconstructive politics, who would protect the continuing interests of the population. This highlighted the purpose of the Electoral College: removing the suspicion of the American society out of the presidential rotation yet again.
This paper explores the study question: “Is the American Electoral College the better option and approach when it comes to the representatives of the United States? This question would be addressed by not only apply for the Electoral College as the only measure of fairness but also taking into consideration various case studies that will be used, for instance, the 2000 and 2008 presidential polls. By narrowing into these polls, I will be able to access the efficiency and success of the Electoral College by analyzing data from every race while as well exploring the likely alternatives that would aid strengthen our Electoral College.
Functions of the Electoral College
When the Electoral College assembles in December, the first Monday after the second Wednesday, it has one agender, to elect the next American President. At this moment, it is the most influential political organization in the universe. To achieve such an assignment, the Electoral College is constituted of voters or persons that either occupy a political position for instance, government-elected representatives or party leaders, along with an individual with a strong association to the presidential election (Miller 1-25). To occupy the ranks of the five hundred and thirty-eight constituents, the American Constitution stipulates that: “Every state shall assign, in such Manner of the Legislature therein may be direct, several constituents, equal to the general number of Representative and Senators, or an individual occupying a public office or profit under the country, shall be appointed a voter.” By choosing constituents in this manner it guarantees that those who are delegated with this responsibility have an understanding on the ground of politics and have dependable interest in who will be the next American President.
Functions of the Constituents
The voters, as stipulated in the first Act, the second section of the Constitution are tasked with the responsibility of meeting in their appropriate States, and elect by Ballot for two individuals, of whom at least should not be necessary the resident of the same state where they come from themselves. And they shall come up with a list all individuals voted, and the number of votes each garnered; which list they should sign and authenticate, and convey sealed to the seat of the American government, addressed to the head of the Senate. In other words, to sustain the representation, that is in line with the legislative arm, the Constitution highlights the number of constituents that shall represent the interests of the American population on the election night. Constantly, no member of Congress is allowed to be a voter to avoid any favoritism or conflict of interest.
Therefore, you may be questioning yourself why the population for an election early November, but the constituents meet in December. Okay, this draws back the important aversion of direct democracy that our nation was anchored on. When qualified electorates head to the elections in November which is line with a federal regulation that was personalized to the United States agricultural past, they are expressing their state’s constituents whom they think should be next American President. Or, sequentially, which voters should represent their state on poll night. Having explored this, it is time to delve into the electoral college, its latest arguments, and measure it on a moral scale.
The Concept of Fairness
To describe such an individual phrase, “fair” we should confine our definition on our founding documents. Consistent with the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these tenets to be manifest, that all people are created equal, that they are gifted with their creator with specific untransferable rights, that among them are life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness (Jefferson 64). That to protect these rights, governments are formed among the people, driving their just powers from the agreement of the ruled, that whenever any type of government becomes unhelpful of these ends its rights of the population to change or to eliminate it, and to introduce new government, anchoring its foundation on such values, and structuring its powers in such manner, as to them shall appear most probably to effect their happiness and safety. Though it is extremely complex to describe such a phrase, especially when applying it in the political setting, we can infer to our founding Constitution as a parameter to establish what is fair in this state, at least the one thousand seven hundred and seventy-six standards. On this basis, the concept of fairness is one that enhances equality and imparts authority into people that the American populations believe are prepared and able to maintain the ideals set before them.
As observed in his essay, “Justice as Fairness,” John Rawls notes that there are two values to what fairness is. The first one is that each individual has equal indefeasible demand for a complete sufficient arrangement of equal basic freedoms, which arrangement is well-matched with the same arrangement of freedoms of all. Though this was early described as one of the main reasons for the separations from the British head in the pronouncement of independence, it is worth retaliating its importance in the basic comprehension of fairness. The second principles observe that economic and social disparities are to gratify two circumstances, first, they must be associated to offices and ranks open to all under circumstances of fair parity of opportunities. Lastly, they are to be the most important and advantageous to the underprivileged members of the society. Thought the last principle is more similar to the economic organizations, it can be intertwined to the principal of what is fair to the country, it needs the fair ideals of our political freedoms.
Consistent with Gringer, at the final phases, parties as well develop the institutions that will be important to achieve the fair value of the equal political freedoms. On this subject, Gringer is inflexible, not unless there are public resources for polls, limitations on campaign funds, and significantly equal accessibility to the media, politics will be seized by attentions of private financial power. This will make it nearly impractical for equally-able populations to have equal chances to control politics irrespective of their economic muscles, as fair value dictates. This observation is the best way of explaining fairness both theoretically and politically. Therefore, if Streb thinks that without financial capability, it is not possible for the general public to control politics and polls, the how could the Electoral college be the fair approach of electing the American President.
The 2000 Presidential Poll
At the eve of the twentieth century, Al Gore, a democrat was prepared to occupy the White House, or so the American population were meant to believe. This poll showed that, for the first time in history, even an insignificant number of one fifty votes could have a huge impact when it comes to electing the next American President. When George Bush was declared the 43rd head of state, a whisper was heard all the nation. How could that be possible? Al Gore, the fiercest opponent to Bush, has substantially, more followers in the popular vote with nearly six hundred thousand more votes compared to what Bush garnered, however he still lost the election. When it came to the Florida state with its populace of twenty-one million, managed to garner twenty-nine electoral votes. This makes it the fourth largest state in relation to the number of voters, and a common target for presidential contestants on the run for the White House. On the material for the poll various media channels pronounced that the competition for Florida, was to close to call, and Bush’s political rival followed this and called Bush to accept defeat some into the night. Noting his early acceptance, withdrew it once he was told just how close the competition was. Consistent with Citizens for Busch (2002), the close range for Florida polls is equal or less than 0.5 % of the average polls cast for a certain race or office. These checks are introduced automatically by poll officials. The law makes it clear that contestants, comprising contenders for holding a judicial position, and ballot measures are all entitled to verifications. Both primary and general polls are entitled for verifications. The contestants who are defeated by the close-vote range may surrender the verification if an application is made in writing to the transmission committee. According to section 102.141 (7), because the competition’s close range, an automatic verification was started the following day. This early verification minimized the range between the two contenders from one thousand seven hundred and eighty-four to more than nine hundred votes. Where we start to become more concerned about the disagreement is with the structure of Florida’s votes themselves, labeled butterfly ballots. In line with University of Washington professor, Emeritus Janes, intents were positive when the Palm Beach, the long-serving poll official restructured the ballots.
Theresa LePore, an election supervisor restructured the ballots for the elders which made her to enlarge the font size of the contestants’ identities, therefore, circulating them all over two pages of the Votomatic punch-card ballot. Progressively, this established an extraordinary concern, the chad. Consistent with the McCormick (2020), a chad is described as punctured square sized piece of paper where electorates were asked to pick from ballot cards by perforating with a stylus. These restructured ballots would end up causing problems during the second verification. Ballets branded as disputed were not being verified. The ballots that were classified under this group involved those that were not stamped in the right manner, and therefore had chads. If a ballot was found to have a chad, the machine could not be able to tally the vote. For instance, In Palm Beach County only, twenty-nine thousand votes had been established to be rejected only because they were incorrectly stamped. Gore himself observed that discarding votes implies denying democracy itself, and this is where the Supreme Court was involved. Not only does this demonstrate the interest of the Elections officials in restructuring the ballots, but also, highlights the logic for disagreement within Florida and this poll in general. CNN was quoted stating that the butterfly ballot costed Gore the Presidency.
The 2000 poll was one of extraordinary incidences with one of the most uncommon results in American history. What actually made the result so nonconformist was the interruption by the Supreme Court. However, before the petition could be transferred to the Apex court, it had to pass through Florida’s Supreme Court. In this case, named, Bush against Palm Beach County Transmission Board; Republican applicant George Bush, was disgruntled by the verifications happening in the state filed by his Democratic nemesis Gore, appealed Katherine Harris, Florida’s Secretary of State, to authenticate the outcome of the presidential poll on November 14, the time limit set by Florida’s election law (Dionne 214). Moreover, Gore petitioned Harris’s determination to assume the results of manual verifications his campaign had demanded in four Florida counties, verification accessible under another regulation of Florida’s election ethics. The Florida Supreme Court listened to Gore’s petition and determined that Harris could not authenticate the result until November 26 (Bickerstaff 425). The Florida Supreme Court also determined that Harris should incorporate the outcomes of manual verifications in the verified outcomes. By prolonging the time limit to November 26, the Supreme Court gave more time for four counties to windup their verifications. This reduced Bush’s lead to a slight range of only five hundred votes. In reaction, Gore for the second time filed a petition the Florida Supreme Court this time round to give more time for carrying out a massive verification of the seventy-thousand aforesaid disputed ballots.
After a nineteen-day dividing line with the American presidency was sufficient enough for the American Supreme Court to intervene in the second verification happening in the Sunshine State. By a majority vote of seven to two, the American Supreme Court finally made a determination that the verification stop. They justified such move by observing that a verification of only selected ballots contravened the Equal Protection Act of the 14th Amendment in the American Constitution (Walker 823). After the closure of the first case by the Florida Supreme Court and following the American Supreme Court’s determination, Gore finally had no alternative other than to accept defeat in Florida’s twenty-five Electoral College polls to Bush, enabling him to secure the White House (Belsky 45).
Using our explanation of the fair system, as one that enhances equality and imparts authority into people that the American Population believe are ready and able to support the values set before them. Finally, shows the obvious unjust instances of the 2000 Presidential Poll. Al Gore would end up garnering more than half a million votes a head of Bush, however was compelled to accept defeat on his rightly deserved position on the Oval Office because of the unjust Electoral College.
The 2008 Presidential Poll
After the extended term of George Bush’s ideology and war-making, the American population wanted reform. They were yearning for a source of hope after two prolonged fierce conflicts. This statement was confirmed by the poll outcomes of 2008. Barrack Obama, a Democrat aspirant was aligning himself as the only source of hope for the American population had been waiting for. While John McCain a Republican contender had groped with his selection for his running-mate, the Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin (Traugott 866-894). A keynote started to increase in this poll that would pit reform against experience, such theme would enable the Democratic contestant to outsmart his competitor. Obama started campaigning on the philosophy of reform in the nation, backing up universal health coverage and withdrawing soldiers from the Middle East. As election day approached, this message had proved to be important and working so well to Obama. With 66.7% American electorates heading to the elections on November 4th ,2008, Obama overpoweringly emerged winner in both the popular vote where he garnered 69,454,897 of the total votes cast, and an overwhelming 365 Electoral College Vote. These are paralleled to John McCain; a Republican is average of 59,934,825 popular votes and an Electoral College votes of 173(Abramowitz 691-695).
The 2008 Presidential Poll displayed the best of the Electoral College. By consenting the election of Obama, the Electoral College offered the American population the hope and the reform that had been yearning for. It continues to demonstrate that the credibility in our existing system that was not evident in the 2000 poll (Todd 82). Connecting into our previous description of fairness as a structure that enhances equality and imparts authority into people that the American population believe are ready and capable to maintain the values set before them. The Electoral College attractively and effectively satisfies this description in this instance. Regrettably, discrepancy has no room for our democracy, resulting to various options to be recommended to replace our existing system.
To begin with, the District Plan will be initiated as suggested by Josephson, and on this plan, the aspirants with the majority votes in any of congressional district would emerge victorious in that district’s electoral vote. This implies that, instead of having an average of five hundred and thirty-eight electoral votes; it would change to an average of four hundred and thirty-five since there are only four hundred and thirty-five Congressional Districts in America. Josephson, also highlights that the two Senate supplementary votes in every state would then be handled as general votes and given it to the state’s popular vote victor. Lastly, Josephson, observes that, the only two states that do not apply the principle of the winner-take-all, were Nebraska and Maine, already started using this system. The District Plan supports the idea that aspirants should campaign in the states where they think it is safer than concentrating on states with the largest payment in electoral votes. Therefore, this plan would develop higher voter involvement than the winner-take-it all structure since each electorate feels that his or her vote really counts.
Finally, in line with Josephson,, under the Proportional Plan, the Electoral College would still be kept but the electoral votes in every state would be assigned based on the proportion of popular vote won. Thus, instead of basing the percentage of the electoral votes in every state consistent with its number of senators and representatives, the electoral votes would be focused on the number of the popular vote garnered. Though the supporters of this structure claim that it keeps the Electoral College strength, the voices of the minority factions could be heard and captured in the national outcomes. Therefore, it is also probable to happen that a presidential aspirant can win the poll without necessarily winning the popular vote.
In a system that works of the people, by the people and for the people, it is actually a peculiarity that such a fair, and critical institution such as the Electoral College can still be applied in the contemporary’s system of national polls. As demonstrated in the 2008 poll, the Electoral College can address some of the serious problems that have been ailing the American population and also represent their interest, but if the changes that were early explored were executed, they would strengthen our electoral system. This leads to a system of national polls that precisely and constitutionally the vote of the electorates.
Works Cited
Abramowitz, Alan I. “Forecasting the 2008 presidential election with the time-for-change model.” PS: Political Science & Politics 41.4 (2008): 691-695.
Belsky, Martin H. “Bush v. Gore–A Critique of Critiques.” Tulsa L. Rev. 37 (2001): 45.
Bickerstaff, Steve. “Counts, Recounts, and Election Contests: Lessons from the Florida Presidential Election.” Fla. St. UL Rev. 29 (2001): 425.
Busch, Andrew E., and James W. Ceaser. The perfect tie: The true story of the 2000 presidential election. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002.
Dionne, E. J., and William Kristol, eds. Bush v. Gore: The court cases and the commentary. Brookings Institution Press, 2010.
Gringer, David. “Why the national popular vote plan is the wrong way to abolish the Electoral College.” Colum. L. Rev. 108 (2008): 182.
Jefferson, Thomas. The declaration of independence. Verso, 2019.
Josephson, William, and Beverly J. Ross. “Repairing the Electoral College.” J. Legis. 22 (1996): 145.
McCormick, Christy. “Election Integrity in Ensuring Accuracy.” The Future of Election Administration. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2020. 213-241.
Miller, Nicholas R. “Why the Electoral College is good for political science (and public choice).” Public Choice 150.1-2 (2012): 1-25.
Rawls, John. Justice as fairness: A restatement. Harvard University Press, 2001.
Streb, Matthew J. Rethinking American electoral democracy. Routledge, 2015.
Todd, Chuck, and Sheldon Gawiser. How Barack Obama won: A state-by-state guide to the historic 2008 presidential election. Vintage, 2012.
Traugott, Michael W., and Christopher Wlezien. “The dynamics of poll performance during the 2008 presidential nomination contest.” Public Opinion Quarterly 73.5 (2009): 866-894.
Walker, Laurens. “The Stay Seen Around the World: The Order That Stopped the Vote Recounting In Bush v. Gore.” JL & Pol. 18 (2002): 823