Causes Of Lack Of Democracy In America

Despite the Electoral College system being founded by the founding fathers in America and being there as long as the Constitution exists, many people still do not have sufficient knowledge on how it works. The Electoral College does not provide honest presidential elections rather it has the potential to undo the will of people at any point from the selection of electors to the vote tallying in Congress (Shaw, 3). Electoral College in the United States has played a major role in depressing the voter's turnout. Every State is given an equal number of electoral votes despite the population and in turn, the system has put in place no measure to encourage the voters to take part in the elections. Besides, the system distorts

America has been acknowledged as being one of the world’s leading democracies, but to continue implementing the use of the Electoral College creates some distortion to that title. The out of date system does not accurately portray democracy. Theoretically, a democracy is government system that is ruled by the people. In reality, an individual’s vote may not matter depending on the state they reside in. Robert Dahl, a Democratic Theorist stated, “every member must have an equal and effective opportunity to vote, and all votes must be counted as equal.” Political equality is important to the distribution of power. Even if a person is wealthy and of power their vote should be counted the same as someone in poverty.

The outcome of the 2016 election left many Americans feeling confused, angry, cheated, and terrified of the future. Somehow, the sexist, racist, homophobic candidate Donald Trump had become the nation’s president, though Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton received the majority of popular vote. This raised many questions over the constitutionality of the Electoral College system, and whether it was unfair to the people of the United States. In the electoral system, created by the Founding Fathers due to their lack of trust in the people, the constituents of each state vote for their preferred candidate, and all of the state’s electoral votes go to the candidate with a majority. Clearly, the Electoral

In the “Point: Abolishing the Electoral College,” Benjamin Bolinger, a licensed lawyer who can practice law in Colorado and Pennsylvania, argues that the Electoral College needs to be abolished for the American democracy. Bolinger examines that some states with a little population have large number of electoral college compare to those states with larger populations. He believes that the Electoral College damages the value of democratic government by leaving

Is it possible that the heart of the election process hurt the principles of democracy more than it helps? The Electoral College has existed since the time of the Founding Fathers leading many to believe it is a crucial aspect of the election process meant to protect the ideals of democracy. In truth, this system has largely hindered the possibility of a representative government. Thus, the Electoral College is archaic and anti-democratic, supporting unfair election practices such as underrepresentation and must be abolished.

The United States is established by democracy and the will of the general population, yet in the 2000 and 2016 elections, the majority of citizens in the United States voted in favor of the losing candidate. These outcomes are on the grounds that the decision of the President in the United States hangs solely on the Electoral College. The Electoral College is obsolete and should be abrogated for different reasons. The original purposes behind embracing the Electoral College were tailored to the time of its creation and never again apply in a modern democracy. Additionally, the Electoral College prompts political imbalance as the instances of federalism, unexpected elections, and the winner-take-all broad ticket framework demonstrates. One must

It’s hard to define something big as democracy in few short words, but president Abraham Lincoln does it best by defining democracy as a “Government of the people, by the people, for the people” (Bleicherstrasse). The Merriam Webster Dictionary barely scratches the surface of what democracy really means. It tries to define democracy as “a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting, a country ruled by democracy, an organization or situation in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights”, but democracy is so much more than that. For a government to be considered true democracy it must support these four key elements “A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections, the active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life, protection of the human rights of all citizens, a rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens” (Diamond, 2004). If we go by this definition of democracy than America is not consider to be true democracy.

George Bush’s eventual triumph exposed everything: the pain of winner-takes all allocation of electors in 48 of the 50 states; the hazards of the electoral college, where if three electors with cold feet had votes for Al Gore instead of Bush then he would have won the presidency, Florida recount be damn; but, above all, the injustice of a system wherein the popular vote winner can lose.” There have been an alarming number of instances where the Electoral College set back the country due to the problems it has caused, and will continue to cause if it’s not replaced.

The Electoral College, a hot topic these days, is subject to both criticism and defense. To understand why either side is valid we must look at its values and its weaknesses, its pros and cons. In defense of the Electoral College we can see that it in its roots the Electoral College was devised to dole out the power of selecting our executives geographically, and to give otherwise marginalized portions of the U.S. population a voice. Adversely the Electoral College can be seen as an obstruction to democracy and the will of the people. Whether or not the Electoral College serves the best interest of all the people in United States is up to debate. Whether or not the Electoral College serves the best interests of all the people in United States is up to debate, and this paper functions to expose what validities either argument may include.

Throughout the past presidential election, and many others, the ideal of electing the president by popular vote has been at an all-time high conversation topic compared to previous years. While many argue that the Electoral College defeats the purpose of voting, and diminishes the majority’s voice, this is certainly not the case. Without the Electoral College, elections would quickly become, and encourage, radical and corrupt ways in their voting systems, that could possibly result in a detrimental nationwide political crisis of voter fraud, and a rise to direct democracy.

Many people hail the Electoral College as democratic, but the 2016 Presidential Election was anything except democratic. The highly scrutinized leader, Donald J. Trump, won a majority of the Electoral College, sealing his place as the Forty-Fifth President of the United States, but did not receive the majority of votes, as the popular vote went to Hillary Clinton. The results of previous elections have not reflected the people’s opinions, and it disenfranchised millions of Americans. Although the Electoral College is outlined in the United States Constitution, it reflects the needs of an eighteenth century society (Amar, 2016). Because the Electoral College does not meet the needs of a twenty-first century society, it should be replaced by a national popular vote where voter registration is based on a test regarding basic knowledge of the United States government.

Donald Trump, several months after his presidential victory, appropriately summed up the presidential elections in the U.S. by saying, “I ran for the electoral college. I didn’t run for the popular vote” (Terkel). In the time since he was elected president by winning the electoral college but losing the popular vote, the debate surrounding the effectiveness of the electoral structure has arisen once again. This system, created in 1787, has a long but controversial history among the American people, and it is also often one of the most misunderstood aspects of our government. While some people believe the electoral college should be abolished or reformed, a further dive into its workings reveals that the system is working just fine. In the vast majority of elections, it has done its job appropriately, so nothing needs to be altered.

During the 2016 election, the GOP swept positions across the nation, controlling the Legislative, Executive, and soon the Judicial branch of government. Members of the Legislative and Judicial branch are elected by their state by forms of a direct democratic vote by the state’s citizens. When electing the President, it is more complex; there are two major factors involved, The Electoral College and popular vote. It is possible for most Americans to vote for a candidate, but that candidate can still lose the election as it has happened in multiple occasions; the only way to prevent this undemocratic act is to base elections on the country’s national popular vote, the people’s vote. The Electoral College is intended to bring balance to elections

A democracy was intended to allow the voices of the people to be heard, usually through some elected officials. This is contradicted greatly in our system to elect United States’ presidents. Each election, the people of the United States cast votes in order to choose who they want to be their next president. Although a candidate may receive the popular vote, the less wanted candidate may still win by the choosing of the electoral college. The electoral college is highly undemocratic.

Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines democracy "as a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by the people" (www.merriam-webster.com). But the one big problem is that "We the people" are not exercising their "supreme power" to determine the U.S. government. Less than half of the eligible electorate showed up at the polls for the 1996 U.S. presidential election. While lower turnout has marred previous presidential elections, 1996's voter turnout dipped below 50 percent for the first time in more than 30 years. It appears that the people's increasing cynicism about politicians that they lie to get elected and the perception that people have no respect or confidence in the