Are we happy with our voting system?

Chapter 10 focussed on the U.S. voting system and its role in campaigns and elections. As stated in the reading, elections are the chief means by which citizens selected elected officials, who in turn run the government. However, an important question to ask yourself is: Can elections actually ensure that elected officials do what the people want? Is the election process really truly democratic?

For years voters have had issues with the electoral college. In recent years this concern has grown especially after the 2016 presidential election, when Donald Trump became the U.S. president without winning the popular vote. Before Trump, only four other presidents had achieved that in U.S. history. Throughout President Trump’s campaign he made a tremendous amount of bold statements and promises. While many were reluctant to believe these promises, others were moved by them. His anti-elite and economic populism message resonated with voters in working class counties in Rust Belt states and in turn swayed them to vote for him. By gaining more votes in certain rural and small city areas, Donald Trump won the majority of electoral votes making him the president. Although Hillary Clinton gained the popular vote with 48.2% (to Trump’s 46.2%), without the majority of the electoral votes she could not secure her spot as president. This brings about many controversies with the U.S. voting system.

Firstly, as I had just stated, it allows a candidate win the race without winning the popular vote, which is extremely concerning. Furthermore, the system promotes the candidate to strongly focus on swing states and simply brush aside states that they deem as either 100% republican or 100% democrat, which is unethical. Also this system distorts the one-person, one-vote principle of democracy, as electoral votes are not distributed according to population, but instead each member it has delegated to the House of Representatives and two bonus electors representing its Senators. This therefore causes significant overrepresentation in much smaller states, such as Wyoming vs. California. Also, this system could allow for a tie vote, which almost happened in the race between Obama and Romney. Lastly, because of this system it is extremely difficult for third parties to win elections and almost impossible for them to win the presidency. How is that democratic?

It is understood that our system is very much the best case scenario that we have; however, should we simply settle? With all of these known faults and imperfections that cause such drastic decisions and upset, how can we move along as a country in an effective and cohesive manner? In my opinion, there must be more discussion around this issue and a better understanding as a country as a whole as to why people with no political experience can be elected into office over someone with decades of experience, without even winning the popular vote.

https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2012/10/10-reasons-why-electoral-college-problem

https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/12/daily-chart-0

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/15/should-the-u-s-keep-or-get-rid-of-the-electoral-college/?utm_term=.07d41f20f755

6 Responses to "Are we happy with our voting system?"

Marc Bosch Valentines says:

March 28, 2018 at 2:19 pm

Stephanie,

Thank you for this blog post. I found it really interesting and insightful. The fact that the candidate that wins the popular vote is not the one that gets to be elected as the president of the United States already has a precedent, which is Al Gore. I find that this situation is really unfair because it implies that the minority decides for the majority. The majority is 50% + 1 and whoever discusses this statements is claiming that the minority decides over the majority. There is no doubt that the electoral system needs to account for that and thus needs to be modified and revised so that to make sure that the one that wins the popular vote is also the one being elected as president of the United States. It is understandable that the Congress still maintains diversity in the representation of the states so that every state can propose their own policies, nevertheless, when it comes to elect the president of the nation it is important that the popular vote is taking into account because it is the most direct way that citizens have to say who they want as president. In Catalonia, it happens a similar thing, the vote of underpopulated states has twice the value as a vote from Barcelona. It is not something necessarily bad but normally the one that gets elected as president is the one that also holds the popular vote even if this is not always the case.
Joanna Briand says:

March 28, 2018 at 4:12 pm

Hi Steph,
Thank you for your blog post. I think you share a view with many others that are frustrated with the electoral college and the way that it almost manipulates election results. It’s interesting you raise this point because Senator Barbara Boxer introduced a bill in 2016 to abolish the electoral college, and there is also a growing movement to reform the way we choose our presidents. This dialogue, however, has been debated off and on since the 17th century. I read an article that our founding fathers were doubtful about the idea of a population election as well as the idea of having election by Congress. The reason that the Electoral College exists is that it was the best alternative between the two. It is understandable why they made this decision. However, I understand your frustrations, and I, too, am curious if this change will ever be made.
Joanna Briand says:

March 28, 2018 at 4:12 pm

Hi Steph,
Thank you for your blog post. I think you share a view with many others that are frustrated with the electoral college and the way that it almost manipulates election results. It’s interesting you raise this point because Senator Barbara Boxer introduced a bill in 2016 to abolish the electoral college, and there is also a growing movement to reform the way we choose our presidents. This dialogue, however, has been debated off and on since the 17th century. I read an article that our founding fathers were doubtful about the idea of a population election as well as the idea of having election by Congress. The reason that the Electoral College exists is that it was the best alternative between the two. It is understandable why they made this decision. However, I understand your frustrations, and I, too, am curious if this change will ever be made.
Everett Harper says:

March 28, 2018 at 4:14 pm

Stephanie, thank you for your post. While I understand why citizens criticize the electoral college, I believe that it is necessary for a fair election. If the US used direct democracy and majority vote, that would render small state’s votes irrelevant. Considering the majority of the population resides in New York, Texas, and California it would be unfair to small states during an election. The argument that candidates focus the majority of their time campaigning in swing states would be reversed if the United States were under a direct democracy, the candidates would spend most of their time campaigning in areas with the largest populations. The electoral college has proved to be successful over many years and occasionally its flaws are shown when a candidate wins the election without the popular vote. If the government could somehow devise a combination of the two, the criticisms of both the electoral college and majority vote would be hindered.
Jennifer Munnings says:

April 4, 2018 at 7:40 pm

Thank you for your thought provoking post.
I think that the electoral college is a complex issue, it helps mitigate majority tyranny, but occasionally a president is elected that did not get the majority vote.I think it is really frustrating that someone that did not win the popular vote could be the president. However like you say in your post, it is not the best scenario but it is the best one possible. An ideal solution would be one in which small states have equal representation, and the popular vote is realised. Of course I don’t know how this would be achieved.
Akshit Sharma says:

April 4, 2018 at 11:47 pm

Thanks for the post Stephanie, I enjoyed reading it. I also agree with your point about how people should not get elected if they do not win the popular vote and/or do not have the qualifications and experience necessary to be the leader of a country. Since you also claim that some aspects of the system make the country seem less democratic, I would recommend taking into consideration the popular vote as well as the electoral college vote when deciding the presidency to make it a more comprehensive and well balanced decision. Having the present system in place means if a candidate manages to win the battle states and does well in the primaries and campaigns aggressively, he/she has a better chance of winning. I think that’s not entirely fair and to counter balance that, the popular vote should be considered as well.

Comments are closed.