The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Electoral Process - Term Paper Example

The Fairness of the Electoral Process in America Free and fair electoral processes form a critical component among the fundamental keystones that define any democracy worldwide. Fair elections are important for any meaningful and peaceful transfer of executive power to take place. When people embark on the process of electing their preferred representatives, their core desire is to select leaders who will positively transform the future of their country or society. Thus, elections are usually termed as very concise ways of empowering the ordinary citizens, and give them a participatory role in shaping the destiny of their countries. A fair electoral process gives ordinary people the impetus to have an impact on the future policy strategies of their government, and in so doing, allowing them to influence their own future lives. The United States has been hailed as a representative democracy ever since the constitution was ratified in 1788. This is despite the fact that the electoral process in the U.S started during the colonial period with its roots in British colony. Despite the long existence of the U.S electoral process, concerns have always been voiced regarding the fairness of the electoral process in the United States. Critics have argued that the conduct of the electoral process encapsulates glaring irregularities that negate the tenets of a fair and free electoral process. However, the proponents of the electoral process in the United States are of the view that the process of elections in the United States is largely above board and open for emulation by other nations that hope to achieve the true principles of democracy (Kalen 26). It is plausible that the electoral process in the United States has been characterized by complications and confusions, but the process has evolved to encompass the universal suffrage of the adult population in the country, in their exercise of democratic and constitutional rights. Thus, this research paper is aimed at critically evaluating the fairness of the electoral process in the United States by evaluating the major propositions as presented by both the opponents and the proponents of the electoral process in the United States. The paper looks at the current conduct of the American electoral process and how the process is carried out at the state, federal, and local levels (U.S Department of State). The United States depends on a complicated federal system of government in which the central government plays a center role, even though the local and state governments have direct authority over matters that do not fall under the reserve of the central government. Both ‘state and local governments enjoy varying degrees of independence in their organization and conduct of electoral processes within their jurisdictions’ (U.S Department of State). TYPES OF U.S. ELECTIONS The U.S elections comprise mainly of ‘two types of elections: general and primary’ (U.S Department of State). The primary elections precede the general elections, and they are held to select party candidates for the succeeding general election. The winning candidates in the primaries represent their parties in the general election, but only after their respective parties give them a confirmation to go ahead in the general election. It is plausible that the party primaries have been the major electoral device for selecting candidates from as early as the 20th century (U.S Department of State). Except in very rare scenarios, the candidates who win in the party primaries are directly nominated by their parties to participate in the general election. In some few states, the party flag bearers are selected in the state or local nomination conventions and not in the primaries, either by option of the particular political party or by tradition of the party. After the conclusion of the party primaries, a general election is conducted to select the ultimate office holder. In the U.S, the electoral process may encapsulate more than merely selecting individuals for public office. In some localities, questions on issues that touch on public policy may be subjected to a ballot process to seek voter approval or rejection (Thompson 22). The electoral; system in the United States differs from the proportional system practiced in many democracies in that the one-member district arrangement allows only a single party to win the contest in any given district. The one-member system ostensibly forms incentives to compose broadly based national parties that have sufficiently financial resources, management expertise, and popular appeal in order to win the legislative district pluralities all over the country. In such a system, third-party, as well as the minor candidates appear to be greatly disadvantaged. In fact, parties with dismal popular support and insufficient financial resources are very unlikely to win in any electoral contest in the United States. Indeed, it has become very hard for new parties to gain any viable degree of [proportional representation, and gain a national clout, courtesy of the winner-take-it-all structure of the electoral process in the United States. The major query presented by the critics of the electoral system in the U.S thus is why two and not, say, three or more well financially equipped parties? The proponents counter-argue that the major reason for the two-party system is partly because two parties appear to give voters sufficient choice, and partly because Americans have a historical dislike for political extremes. Furthermore, both political parties in the United States have been known to embrace new ideas whenever such ideas suffice. The Impact of the Electoral College The ways of the Electoral College in U.S elections further reinforces the two-party system of electing a president (U.S Department of State). Under the system, the American citizenry, technically, do not elect their president directly. Rather, the voters choose a group of “electors” who bear a pledge to any one of the two major presidential contenders. The number of these electors has a direct correlation to the number in any state’s congressional delegation. The number corresponds to the number of senators and representatives derived from any given state. Basically, election to the U.S presidency requires that a candidate must meet the absolute majority threshold of 538 votes from the Electoral College. The critics of this system argue that the requirement for an absolute majority makes it almost impossible for a minor or third-party contender to win the presidency since the individual states’ electoral votes are distributed in a contemporary winner-take-it-all arrangement. The arrangement means that the candidate who receives a simple plurality from the popular vote, no matter whether it is just a slight plurality, takes all the electoral votes available in that state. In Nebraska and Mine, for example, the winner of the popular vote gets the two electoral votes with the winner in each congressional district taking one electoral vote (Ross). Similarly to the one-member district system, the Electoral College disadvantages the third parties with very minimal chance for such a candidate to win an electoral vote in any given state, leave alone gathering enough votes to win the presidency (Miller 12-14). Barriers to Third Parties It is apparent that the founders of the country designed the Electoral College system as a plan to facilitate power sharing between the national government and the states. Under the system, the countrywide popular vote for any candidate does not bear any final significance. Hence, it becomes possible that the electoral votes distributed on the basis of state elections might produce a varying result from the countrywide popular vote. So, what is the effect of such a system on the fairness of the whole electoral process if a majority popular vote does not confer the presidency on the candidate that gathers the majority popularly vote? In order to answer the question, it is important to gauge an idea of gathering an overall popular vote and the need to ensure that candidates contest for the presidency in many states rather than just enjoying popularity in any one of the most populous states. It appears that the latter idea is better to ensure fairness in the whole electoral process. It means that the candidate who emerges as that overall winner has the backing of citizens from across the country, and hence has the mandate from citizens across all corners of the country (Lewis 36-38). Due to the tendency of the electoral process to present only two national parties over time, and with the Republicans and the Democrats taking absolute control of the whole government machinery, it is obvious that the two parties have enacted electoral rules that play to their own advantage. For instance, the process of qualifying a new party for participation in the state contest has become an expensive and arduous process, usually requiring petitions with hundreds of thousands of signatures. Furthermore, the new party must demonstrate the aptitude to attract a substantial inception amount of the vote in any subsequent electoral contest for it to keep on the ballot paper. The distinctive nomination process in the United States is another structural barrier that greatly affects the third parties. It is important to note that from among the world’s most successful democracies, the United States is unique due to its over-reliance on the method of primary elections for the nomination of partisan contenders for all elections from the congress, presidential, and other state offices. As noted above, such a system of nominating candidates, rank-and-file voters in any given primary contest choose their preferred party nominee for participation in the general election. In other democracies, partisan party nominations are conducted under the guide of party organizations. But in the U.S, it is often the voters who make the final determination of the candidate to receive the full backing of the two major political parties. Even though the system results in weaker party organizations, the participatory nomination process has reinforced the Democratic-Republican domination of the electoral politics in the United States (Ford 18-22). Due to their broad-based socioeconomic dynamics of electoral support coupled with the need to operate within a community that is largely anchored on a middle-of-the-road ideology, political parties in the U.S have developed great tendencies to adopt centrist policy frameworks. Additionally, the parties have exhibited a high level of flexibility in their policy decisions. Such a non-doctrinaire approach ensures that the Democrats and the Republicans have significant tolerance for far-reaching diversities within their ranks. This has contributed to the parties’ ability to easily absorb third parties, and to protest any movements whenever they occur (U.S Department of State). Public Wariness Despite the impressive evidence of organized partisanship in the U.S electoral process, a deep-seated component of the American philosophy has been characterized by rising suspicion of the political parties (Webb & Hormann 32-44). The implementation and growth of the primary system for selecting state and congressional contenders offers prove to populist, sometimes anti-party sentiments among the public. Currently, some American citizens remain skeptical on how some party leaders tend to exercise great influence over their government. In fact, numerous public opinion polls have consistently showed that large proportions of the American population believe that the parties at times bring more confusion on issues rather than offer clarifications (Webb & Hormann 32-44). Conclusion A succinct analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the electoral process as outlined in the arguments above demonstrates that the use of primaries and pre-primaries helps in withholding democracy and ensuring that the country gets a passionate and fully leader whose mandate emanates from the citizenry all over the country. The process is fairly democratic, especially due to the fact that the electoral process begins very early, and the aspiring presidential candidates must be prepared to face immense pressure in order to win the presidency. The intense pressure that candidates have to endure makes the whole electoral process in the United States very strong as it renders the candidates democratic by taking them through a rigorous process. Nevertheless, some stages in the electoral process seem to be unnecessary with possibilities of creating indifferent members of the electorate, and predisposing the electoral system to the effects of inciting voter apathy. Works Cited Ford, Gerald. To assure pride and confidence in the electoral process: report of the National Commission on Federal Election Reform. Retrieved 26 July 2914 from http://uml.worldcat.org/title/to-assure-pride-and-confidence-in-the-electoral-process-report-of-the-national-commission-on-federal-election-reform/oclc/422791671&referer=brief_results Kalen, Stuart. Are American elections fair? Farmington Hills, MI: Green haven Press, 2006. Lewis, Bob. How fair are Elections in the United States? Retrieved 26 July 2014 from http://ivn.us/2014/03/28/fair-elections-united-states/ Miller, Debra. Federal Elections. Detroit: Green Haven Press, 2010. Ross, Tara. "The Elewctoral College: Enlightened Democracy ." 1 November 2004. heritage.org. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/11/the-electoral-college-enlightened-democracy. 26 July 2014. Thompson, Dennis. Just elections: creating a fair electoral process in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005. Retrieved 26 July 2014 from http://uml.worldcat.org/title/just-elections-creating-a-fair-electoral-process-in-the-united-states/oclc/49558822&referer=brief_results U.S Department of State. USA Elections in Brief. state.gov. Web, Retrieved 26 July 2014 from http://photos.state.gov/libraries/amgov/30145/publications-english/USA_Elections_InBrief.pdf. Webb, James & Hormann, Nicholas. “A time to fight: reclaiming a fair and just America.” US Government & Politics. Retrieved 26 July 2014 from http://uml.worldcat.org/title/time-to-fight-reclaiming-a-fair-and-just-america/oclc/229124642&referer=brief_results Read More