The Election Process – Does Government Work?

As a result of the most recent election, the current political culture in the United States is extremely heightened and constantly continues to be an overwhelming source of contention. The controversy of the 2016 election stemmed largely in part from the systematic yet problematic structure of our election process and voting structure, in addition to the wildly abnormal and highly debated candidates. To facilitate a more in depth understanding of this election and our nation in general, it is vital and valuable to dissect the entirety of the voting, campaigning, and election process in the United States, especially as it relates to the success and functionality of our democracy.

The fundamental attribute of elections to democratic politics is a multifaceted model that encompasses elements of theorization, specifically concerning voting models, cumulative evolutionary advancements and progressions, a diverse range of participants all with varying roles that are critical to the election process, and more, all of which aid in distinguishing American elections to be unique in nature when compared to those of other democratic countries. There are two important and identifiable trends that are likely to drastically change the American electorate over the next few decades, both of which involve the demographics of our nation, which not only was an unquestionably frequented topic in the most recent election but also is an impermanent aspect of our society. The first trend is the decreasing share of the overall population that is white while the second trend is the increasing turnout among other racial groups, especially Hispanics and Asian Americans.

In light of these supposed trends, there seems to be a pattern of increasing voter participation amongst minorities who have historically been undermined by our election process. Black people were not permitted until 1870 when the right to vote was extended to all black males. Having said this, nowadays, the turnout for eligible and registered African Americans to vote is higher than the turnout of voting-eligible whites. Similarly, women, who did not gain the right to vote until 1920, vote at a higher rate than men, by approximately 4%. Furthermore, the turnout of Hispanics at the polls has been continuously increasing from their previous low participation rates, which were fueled by low incomes, language problems, and/or suspicion of government authorities. This trend of increasing/high minority participation is seemingly logical since in the past these demographic groups have been oppressed and underrepresented in the government thus encouraging and prompting an increase in their participation to advocate, influence and inflict political and social change that is unanimously beneficial for the nation.

The increasing pattern of minority voting and participation does not inherently seem to align with the result of the 2016 presidential elections where Donald Trump, a highly controversial candidate who largely promoted and advocated for policies that would seemingly hinder the rights of many pertaining to minorities, won the presidency. Historically, the presidents and candidates in general have virtually always been middle-aged or elderly white men with extensive formal educations, relatively high incomes, and adequate and sufficient experience as government officials, political figures or military heroes. At the very least, a candidate must at least be considered and regarded as “presidential” amongst the population, and reflected in that light as well. Having said this, Donald Trump did, and arguably still doesn’t, comply with either of these two prerequisites. Trump was and will forever remain an outlier in terms of presidents and even candidates in general and was/is seemingly despised by the majority of our nation yet still managed to “win” the election, which begs the question of how this is possible or rather why this is possible.

The way America’s presidential election is structured, the popular vote does not necessarily dictate the winner of the election. The outcome of the presidential elections is not determined by the number of popular votes each candidate receives but rather by the candidate that wins the majority in the Electoral College, which can be problematic since it can let the less popular candidate win. The Electoral College system of electing the president has come into question over the years with hopes of preventing against unpopular results, such as the presidency of Donald Trump, from occurring. Advocates for the current system in existence argue that without it how can we ensure that Americans would be comfortable with a president elected by potentially so few people. However, the Electoral College system inherently provides the opportunity for the same dissatisfaction with the president, as is currently demonstrated since most Americans are not comfortable with Donald Trump being president. Additionally, supporters of the Electoral College system identify a concentration of effort in targeting, campaigning, and aiding states that would otherwise likely go unattended to for reasons such as size/population. Having said this, although these typically smaller states generate more buzz and interest amongst candidates resulting from the current partisanship system in place, those states, often the larger ones, that are not considered to be “up in the air” (in terms of being considered a Republican or Democratic state) are often overlooked since they are considering to be a “sure thing”. Therefore, either way, meaning either with the Electoral College system versus without it, someone is always being overlooked, ignored, or insufficiently attended to. Therefore, since it can clearly result in undesirable consequences, is the Electoral College system the most appropriate and effective method to utilize in our election process and to promote the overall success of our democracy?

Matthew Lidz says:

November 1, 2017 at 8:31 pm

I agree with what you said about how the Electoral College causes the overwhelming majority of political campaigning to happen in states such as Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin or other swing states. Another issue with the electoral process for president is that the primary system tends to favor states that are unrepresentative of the country as a whole. Both the Democratic and Republican primary schedule starts with the caucus in Iowa and the primary in New Hampshire respectively. Both of these states are small, primarily rural, and overwhelmingly white. These states are not an accurate representation in a country projected to be a majority minority country by the middle of the century. This affects the type of candidate and policy that is run during primaries. A candidate who has strong support among minorities might struggle to do well in the lily white states of Iowa and New Hampshire. Also, candidates might be more inclined to support policies such as ethanol subsidies or loosened restrictions on gun ownership due to these policies support among rural voters.

Margaret Castelli says:

November 4, 2017 at 6:07 pm

Your discussion and analyzation of the modern increase in the voting of minorities in relation to the recent presidential election is a fascinating point to look at this political phenomenon from. I do feel that the fault in your argument, however, is that, though these minorities, African Americans, and Latinos, are participating in higher numbers than ever before, they are still minorities. Especially in the case of racial minorities, even if there was 100% participation from, say, African Americans, this still would not even make up half of the white population in the United States. This is why a candidate, like Donald Trump, who was across the board unpopular with minorities, can still win the presidential election because even if they are participating in much higher percentages, they cannot match the “white male” vote.

Austin Liptrot says:

November 5, 2017 at 9:58 pm

You raise some interesting points about the role and effectiveness of the electoral college, specifically how it affects campaigning and can create distrust among unsatisfied votes. However, I believe that certain benefits of the college far outweigh any disadvantages it may possess. Logistically the college makes sense to prevent run-off elections when candidates may not secure a majority of the votes. The college also provides a reason to prevent recounts of popular votes which may be called upon for close states. Deeper than that reason, the electoral college is central to our constitution. It defends our democracy, unlike those who critique it as a break from our liberty. While the college does have the potential to disagree with the popular vote, this rarely occurs. That issue may persist, but with the college we can trust that the chosen president reflects all parts of our country. The college is not a perfect device for our democracy, but it is a better system than a pure popular vote.