Election Process in the United States of America - Essay Example

Election Process in the United s of America In the opinion of many, America is one of the countries that exercise democracy at an advanced level. In the recent past, nations have strived to embrace democracy by adjusting the structures and regulations that govern elections. However, in the view that its election process is fair and an ideal manifestation of mature democracy, the United States has remained reluctant and upheld its election process. Sadly, though, the election system is quite unfair. A close examination of the election process reveals some aspects that compromise the perceived fairness. This paper will highlight the unfairness that exists in the election process citing examples. The college vote is one of the critical aspects that determine whether a presidential candidate clinches the top seat or not. Contrary to many emerging democratic nations that rely on the popular vote, the American nation decides the president using the college vote. Apparently, all citizens participate in the popular vote of the president and vice president, but also elect a representative of each state to the Electoral College (Ryden 56). Usually, the individuals chosen as electors in the college are people who express allegiance to a certain party. In other cases, they operate under state laws that vary from state to state. It is worth noting that each of the 52 states has a different number of representatives in the Electoral College depending on their population. The Electoral College then determines who wins the presidential race. The candidate who secures a majority of the 538 college votes becomes the designated president. There is limited fairness in this process as will be discussed below. The popular vote is of little regard in the United States. However, it is of essence to highlight that the popular vote represents the opinion of each American who is eligible and chooses to vote. Despite the fact that the popular vote represents the voice of the majority, the elections system disregards it and relies on the college votes to determine the president. This is an indirect implication that an individual’s vote is irrelevant. Considering the 2000 presidential elections where Gore and Bush were competing for the top seat and Gore won the popular vote. However, the popular vote decided that Bush had won. The irony in this is that the majority voice represented by the popular vote had proved less significant. For the many people who voted in this election, this was unfair (Ryden 56). The Electoral College does not adequately represent the voice of the majority of the Americans. The electors are highly partial, and their opinion does not have to reflect the pledges they made to parties. This leaves them with the opportunity to vote according to individual preference. This compromises the level of democracy because 538 people shoulder the responsibility of electing a president for everyone. With the advancing level of understanding and participation in presidential debates, the defense that the electoral colleges serves as a fair opinion because of the level of information that the electors have is no longer valid. Majority of Americans exhibit the potential to hold an independent opinion contrary to buying the opinion of the national media. Although the media expresses its opinion on the preferred candidates, Americans know better than blindly buying the waves on popular media. This explains why the opinion expressed in the popular vote when electing the president needs consideration. The popular vote represents the opinion of 315,000,000 votes. Each of the electors in the college does not necessarily vote in conformity to the popular vote in their state (Rush, and Engstrom 66). It would be fair if the United States scrapped off the Electoral College. This would leave the popular vote to determine the candidate who wins the presidential race. The Electoral College superiority denies the people the free will of choice expected in a nation that claims to be a mature democracy. Effective democracy does deny the people an opportunity to express their voice. On a different issue, each state has varying laws that govern the election process. a clear illustration is that some states allow ex-felons to vote while others restrict anybody with criminal record from voting. Some states have highlighted the types of crime involvement that would hinder an individual from voting (Ryden 80). Other states are more liberal and allow ex-felons to express their political opinion through voting. An additional difference is also evident in the voter registration process. In some states, an individual may only need am driver’s license to vote while other states have stringent laws governing the identification process during voter registration. These differences in the processes that define the election process introduce multiple disparities that compromise the level of equality. In addition, the voting procedures differ from state to state. In some states, there are manual records of the voting exercise, a factor that makes a recount possible. On the other hand, some states rely on the most modern tabloids and machines in the voting process. The differences do exist in polling stations of the same state. Election officers in each of the state conduct the election process differently, ripping the process off any equality. Fairness would exist if all states conducted the elections in a similar procedure with national rules governing the election process (Rush, and Engstrom 49). Although the freedom accorded to states to have unique rules governing elections sought to promote democracy, it has also introduced new loopholes that compromise the level of fairness in the election process. There is a surging need to introduce a uniform procedure of carrying out the election process in all the states if fairness is to be a defining factor in the American election process. A critical analysis of the election process also reveals a level of racist intentions that compromise democracy. In some states, whites do not need to produce certain identification documents as a mandatory part of the voting process. In the same states, the minority groups have to present identification documents in order to ascertain their identity. This introduces an aspect of partiality on racial basis. Racial unfairness manifests itself in different ways in the election process. For example, some slogans that emerged during the Obama- Romney presidential race were purely racial. Many people judged one candidate on racial basis before assessing his potential as an individual (Rush, and Engstrom 45). Although Obama won and set a new record for the American nation, he had to battle with multiple challenges that had a racial basis introducing unfairness in the election process and related procedures. Racial unfairness is also evident in states where ex-felons cannot. According to crime statistics, the minority groups are more susceptible to crime hence the majority of the ex-felons are people belonging to the minority groups. Upholding the principle of forbidding ex-felons from voting then means that only, a few of the minority groups can vote (Boda 45). This limits expression of the voice of the minority groups in such states. This translates to the fact that minority groups lack the opportunity to choose their leaders in a democratic way. Democracy, in such a case denotes’ the expression of the will of the people’ in the choice of their leaders. For example, in Milwaukee, there was a compromise of equality after strange fliers indicating that ex-felons and their family associates were not eligible for voting. This served to instill fear in these people, denying them the opportunity to choose their leaders freely. The fact that America has proclaimed democracy for a long period does not mean that the tallying processes after elections are without errors. In closely contested races at different races, there have been claims of erroneous tallying and rigging (Bjornlun 23). In some states, the cases have been resolved in courts. It has proved very difficult to resolve some of the cases especially when there was the absence of manual records that could necessitate a recount. Recounts usually prove impossible in states that rely on machine memory in the tallying process. As described above, it is evident that the American election process is not fair. The different aspects highlighted above do not exactly reflect the real situation. There is a need for an audit of the election process, as this will highlight more of the incidents that define the existing unfairness and compromise on democracy. The controversy surrounding the debate on the college votes also needs addressing. Work Cited Bjornlund, Eric. Beyond Free and Fair: Monitoring Elections and Building Democracy. Washington, D.C: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2004. Print. Boda, Michael D. Revisiting Free and Fair Elections: An International Round Table on Election Standards, Organized by the Inter-Parliamentary Union, Geneva, November 2004. Geneva: IPU, 2005. Internet resource. Rush, Mark E, and Richard L. Engstrom. Fair and Effective Representation?: Debating Electoral Reform and Minority Rights. Lanham, Md. [u.a.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001. Print. Ryden, David K. The Us Supreme Court and the Electoral Process. Washington: Georgetown university press, 2002. Print. Thompson, Dennis F. Just Elections: Creating a Fair Electoral Process in the United States. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press, 2004. Print. Read More