Introduction
It is generally considered that codified constitutions are an essential element of democracy in that by clearly setting out the functions of each branch of government and their relations with each other and their citizens, this prevents an over powerful executive developing and ensures rights of citizens are protected. However, I believe that codified constitutions are not an essential element of democracy as there are examples of robust democracies which have uncodified constitutions and at times codified constitutions are more of a hindrance than a help to the democratic process.
Codified Constitutions are often not very democratic
A codified constitution is a constitution ‘in which key constitutional provisions are
…show more content…
In 2012, ‘Republicans won a majority of seats in the House despite securing only 48 percent of the vote and to win a majority of 218 House seats, the Democratic candidates would need to win ten million more votes than Republicans in 2016.’(Richie,The Nation,2014) This often leads to situations in which the will of the democratic majority are ignored as seen after the Sandy Hook Massacre in 2012, where Bird (Occupy Democrats,2015) argues ‘90% of Americans wanted greater background checks for guns.’ However, the gun reform measures were defeated in the Senate leading an infuriated Obama(2013) to argue ‘how can something that has 90% support not happen?’
Moreover, the codified US constitution does not even provide for a democratic electoral system to elect the President. The electoral college system is not very proportional in the sense that the winner of the electoral college doesn’t necessarily have the majority of popular vote. This has happened a number of times; the most recent being in 2000 with the election of Bush and Gore. Gore won ‘48.38% of the popular vote and received 266 electoral college votes’(Leip,2012), whereas Bush got ‘47.87% of the vote and 271 electoral college votes.’ Leip,2012)
The
It is generally understood that the United States is built upon the principles of democracy, in which the majority consensus of the citizens helps to define the shape of issues or elections. However, in assuming that the Constitution - the document upon which such practices are founded – is inherently democratic is only partially accurate. Indeed, it has been frequently argued that the U. S. Constitution is representative of the rule of law from a federation as opposed to a pure democracy; in a federation, elections occur among the majority of the citizenry but this process results in elected officials who then determine the direction of the country. In short, a federation
Each state can have no less than 3 electors. This is because they get an elector for every chair they fill in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Because all states have two Senate members and at least one House member, we see why. All together, including all of our nation's states we have an Electoral College consisting of 538 members. In order for a candidate to actually become the President he must obtain at least 270 electoral votes, giving him the majority plus one (Glennon 19). Because we use the Electoral College, it has come to occur on numerous occasions that a candidate with a higher percentage of the popular vote is defeated by his political opponent by the electoral tally (Glennon 19), thus defeating the purpose of a Democracy. A Democracy exists if we the people have "the right to self- governance." "American 'democracy' has existed for over 200 years, and citizens are ready, as they have been for decades, if not centuries, to finally control their own country" ("Electoral College Problems"). Therefore the use of the Electoral College is completely useless and should be abandoned to the idea of the popular vote. If not completely thrown out, then altered by an amendment.
When writing the Constitution, one of the most prominent arguments focused on whether America should be considered a Democracy. A large percentage of the founding fathers feared the term “Democracy” because they strongly believed that if the people had control, then there would be disorder and violence. As James Madison stated in Federalist No. 10,
When people gather together for form a society, they will automatically need a fundamental law (constitution) that will be above everything and everyone. Constitution is what actually regulates a country. It provides rights and set up obligations for everyone. The United States constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written. It provides liberty, prosperity, equality, more importantly huge freedom. However, the ratification of the U.S. constitution was not an easy task. The farmers had trouble to agree on several issues such as the representation and distribution of political powers; how to prevent excessive democracy; and the protection of individual liberties, etc.
First of all, the Electoral College ignores what most citizens want and undervalues their votes. Because people in each state are voting for electors that are assigned to each party rather than the actual candidates, the decision for president is really up to 538 electors instead of the population of more than 300 million Americans (The Electoral College: Top 3 Pros and Cons). 48 states use a winner-take-all system, where the dominant candidate in each state gains control of all the electors. The only states that don’t use this system are Maine and Nebraska ( ). This system the election about winning states in order to gain electors, and not about each citizen's individual vote. It’s so focused on winning overall states that it completely neglects the popular vote. It is mathematically possible under the Electoral College system that a candidate can win only 21.8% of the popular vote and still win the presidency.. This is due to the fact that the 39 smaller states have too many electoral votes for their population, and because of the winner-take-all system in every state except Nebraska and Maine, all a candidate needs to do is win 50.01% of the popular votes in those states, and he/she can clinch the election (Why We Should Abolish the Electoral College). Events similar to this have happened in history where the candidate who received more popular votes didn’t win the election. For example, in 1876
Democracy, a form of government where significant power is vested in the people and the people exercise their power by electing representatives or exercise their power directly by themselves via assembly. The U.S. Constitution was once considered to be Democratic – however – after an examination of the 3 branches of government the U.S. Constitution has some seemingly undemocratic attributes. There are features in all 3 branches that makes the U.S. Constitution seem undemocratic. The Executive Branch is undemocratic in the presidential election, specifically the Electoral College. The Legislative Branch is undemocratic in the Senatorial and House of Representative representation of the states. Lastly, the Judicial Branch is undemocratic due to its power of Judicial Review and the appointment process of new judges. Nevertheless, despite these features, I do not believe the U.S. Constitution should be truly classified as an undemocratic government.
Not all systems are perfect, nor is the Electoral College. As we seen in the 2016 presidential election, the popular vote may not necessarily get the majority in the Electoral College resulting in what is criticized not to be as democratic when the popular vote winner, Hillary Clinton in this case, was the loser of the election. The outcome of the election can be dictated by the electors and in some cases not reflect the will of the people. Also, the winner-take-all clause creates a possibility that the popular vote gets nothing even in a situation when is it very close to half the votes. All states except for
This system needs to be put to an end. The American people are well enough informed to elect their own president without the aide of an Electoral College. The electors in the Electoral College do not actually make decisions anyway. They are just figurative for they should vote along their state’s popular vote, even though most are not legally bound to do so. Even though the electors’ votes reflect that of their state’s popular vote, the views of the people are not always represented. If one candidate receives 50.1 percent of the popular vote, and the other candidate receives 49.9 percent, the candidate with only .2 percent more of the popular vote receives all of that states electoral votes. This system is also very unfair to the third party candidate. He/she has very little chance of receiving any electoral votes. In 1992, Ross Perot won 19 percent of the national
The Constitution of the United States of America created a system called the Electoral College where it outlines the rules in which we elect the President of the United States of America. As stated in Article 2, Section 1 of the U. S. Constitution created the Electoral College. Each state receives as many electoral votes as it has senators and representatives. Therefore, each state, including the District of Columbia, will have at least three electors. This is the vision of the Constitution. Now the problem arises when all the Electoral votes from one state are given to the popular winner for that state. This causes a with people’s right to chose their leader as votes of the people that voted for the losing candidate are tossed in the trash. All this while giving the state the ultimate power to elect the president.
The United States, well known for its democracy, holds elections every four years to elect its President. Every American citizen over the age of 18 has a right to cast a vote in the presidential election. The voting process, although it seems easy and straightforward, can be very complicated. In the 2000 election, Al Gore captured the majority of votes, but George Bush won. The reason for this strange outcome and why Al Gore lost was because of the Electoral College. The Electoral College is voting system where different states are given a certain amount of votes in the election, and which ever candidate wins a state, is given that state’s votes. The Electoral College is out of date, and should be replaced by the Popular Vote system,
Democratic theorist, Robert Dahl once said, “…every member must have an equal and effective opportunity to vote, and all votes must be counted as equal.” This quote greatly summarizes what the Electoral College system means; every person in the United States is guaranteed one vote. Everyone should have an equal opportunity to elect who serves in the government, and we are given that opportunity through this system. This is what the Founding Fathers came up with in order to solve the problems they faced over 200 years ago. However, some have opposed this system is not fit for this democracy, and argue that other systems would work more fairly. On the contrary, I strongly believe that the Electoral College system should be kept because it is the fairest way to elect the President.
The question posed by both Madison and the Framers in the 85 “Federalist Papers” and Dahl in his book How Democratic is the American Constitution? is how effective the Constitution is at promoting the ideals of a democracy. For Dahl, there are several issues surrounding the Constitution, from its drafting, to its ideology, to its relevance. By analyzing Dahl’s critiques of the Constitution in terms of the parallels that exist between factions and the two-party system, the issue of unequal representation, and the necessity for the Framers to compromise on their ideals to ratify the Constitution, Dahl defined a clear argument based in his general disapproval for the Constitution. However, by combining Dahl’s critiques with potential rebuttals from the opinions and perspectives of Madison and his fellow Federalists, it is evident that both Dahl and the Framers believed that if the constitution was completely successful, then the lives of the American people would be enhanced. While Dahl believed that the Constitution, ultimately, has not fully protected the rights of all persons, he, like the Framers, focused on the particulars of government that must be improved such that the American life is bettered.
When the Electoral College was put in place as part of the voting process it seemed a good idea. “Our framers distrusted democracy and saw the Electoral College as a deliberative body able to correct bad choices made by the people.” (Anderson 519). Times have changed and today’s society is a lot different that it was when George Washington was President. It’s about time that the U.S eliminates the Electoral College and makes America more of a democracy by making the popular vote the deciding factor in electing the president.
In conclusion, I would like to say that the United States of America is not that democratic at all. The United States of America is ran by the big business's that help support the candidates that run. The people who help out with there generous contributions (usually the ones with more money donated) always end up getting what they want. This is only
Is the United States Constitution a sacred and absolute document? Dahl (2001) argued that the Constitution is not perfect or permanent in his book, How Democratic is the American Constitution. He stresses that his main aim is not to propose that the Constitution must be amended, but to facilitate readers in changing how they think about the Constitution. In order to help people rethink the Constitution, Dahl (2001) explained the limitations of its Framers and the Constitution’s not widely known undemocratic aspects. The strengths of the book are its ethos or reputation of the author that establishes his credibility, informal writing style that can appeal to more people, its consideration of a number of undemocratic aspects of the