Democracy For Realist, Christopher H. Achen And Larry M. Bartels

The behavior of voters has great importance to politics as the people decide mainly who wins. The study of the behavior of the electorate has increased as politicians seek to appeal to the voters and find ways to gain followers and most importantly votes. The two articles Democratic Practice and Democratic Theory and The Responsible Electorate discuss the behavior of voters in the United States, and the importance of the electorate.

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 The out of date system does not accurately portray democracy.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 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 The Electoral College is obsolete and should be abrogated for different reasons.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

The distinguished contributors to this instructive volume - including Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Michael Barone, and Walter Berns- show why it would be foolish to abolish the Electoral College by explaining not only its historical and cultural significance, but also its present role in instilling a measure of stability and sanity to our electoral and party systems. This is the definitive volume for all those interested in the logic, and continuing importance of this unique American political institution.

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.

Many people in the U.S. today feel as though the Electoral College is not needed, and is in fact doing more harm than good in our country. Clifton B. Parker, a writer for the Stanford News Service at Stanford University, is one such person. In his article, Now We Know Why It’s Time to Dump the Electoral College, he illustrates the cons of this institution by stating that it “distorts campaigns, disenfranchises voters, and drives partisanship.” In short, this can make it impossible for American’s to exercise their electoral voice.

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.

Many Americans are aware of the polarization that exists within them and within the government. However, people do not realize the extent of the polarization and the effect that it has on government functions. Susan Page, author of “Divided We Now Stand” explains that many Americans are aware of the increasing polarization, when a political party influences the stance of a person, and that citizens believe that polarization influence politicians more than it influence them. However, Page argues that voters are to blame as well. She uses a survey to illustrate the choices that Americans make on a certain policy. The results of the survey show that Democrats and Republicans choose the stance of their political party, regardless of their own personal opinions on the actual policy (Page). Page’s point proves that politicians are not the only ones that contribute to the government’s dysfunction, and that voters might want to re-evaluate how they process their information and their choices if they wish to see a change.

Democratic elections are an integral part of American society; however, it appears that more and more people are becoming detached from or unwilling to participate in this essential process. This declining attitude toward elections is caused by the inclusion of the electoral college and the power it holds over elections in the United States. The electoral college is used in place of an election by popular vote, but that is an antiquated system that often misrepresents the interests of the American people. This detachment could be fixed by a reworking of the electoral process such that the electoral college is abolished and all elections are held by popular vote. This would give people a feeling of true representation in the government

In chapter two of Bartels book Unequal Democracy. He elaborates on several arguments of how people running the white house have created drastic differences in American family income growth. Throughout his research he found out that republican administrations have had an increase in income throughout the lower and middle class in the U.S.A. In addition he found that Democratic administrations have lagged this income growth to the lower and middle class families. As the white house continues to change in political views Bartel catches these dramatic differences in income growth. He proves this by showing post-war era statistics. These statistics showed that with Democrats in control, the unemployment rate is less than under a Republican. But

To have an effective democracy, a country must have an effective electoral system. The First Past the Post electoral system, used in the United States popular vote, has come under fire as being ineffective and inadequate when compared to rival electoral systems. Two articles that represent the sides of this debate are “Vote of no Confidence” by McKenna and Cameron’s speech “Keeping First Past the Post is Vital for Democracy”. In his article, McKenna says that First Past the Post allows for “a negation of democracy”, and discusses how other electoral systems would be superior. On the other hand, Cameron decries the Alternative Vote system, the most likely replacement of First Past the Post, saying that it “makes winners of losers and losers of winners”.

In this two-page paper, I challenge the “median voter model” advanced by Anthony Downs’s An Economic Theory of Democracy. In his work, Downs argues that, in a plurality election, two political parties converge in policy such that their behavior will best satisfy society’s “median voter.” Here, I consider experimentally demonstrable factors that Downs’s model disregards. These factors support a completely different theory: that political parties are better off setting their policies to satisfy big-money donors than setting them to truly satisfy the median voter.

The United States of America is one of the oldest contemporary democracies, is currently the second largest democracy, and is ranked the 16th best democracy in the world (Campbell et. Al, 2014). Yet there is a legitimate question over whether or not the United States can still truly be considered a democracy, with some studies even suggesting it has begun to resemble an oligarchy (Chumley, 2014). In this essay, I will use Dahl’s criteria of voting equality and effective participation to determine whether or not the United States are truly a democracy.

Democracy and its critics is a political science book written by Robert Dahl In 1989 and published by Yale University Press in America. The book looks at the assumptions of the democratic theory and is able to test them in relation to the questions raised by critics. Thereafter, Dahl suggests the ways in which the states must move towards improving their democracy.