Voting and Elections in the USA - Essay Example

Introduction

Elections are considered one of the most fundamental pillars of democracy. Democracy is conceived as a process that envisages more than the elections, as the fairness and effectiveness of this electoral process dictate the ideal representation of democracy. The considerable aspects of direct citizen participation are influenced by the public decisions to be enshrined in the election process. Therefore, the evaluation of democracy in the United States calls for a detailed examination of the electoral system, and the structures that defines the manner in which these systems operate.

This paper is a summary of weekly readings that focus primarily on two broad perspectives of the democratic definition in the US-voting and elections. To perform this objective, the paper will discuss readings from four book chapters, looking at the arguments that these readings contribute to the theme of this paper. The main theme concerns the theoretical puzzle about the definition of democracy as embodied in the elections, with more specificity on the need for people to vote. The larger elections are almost never determined by the single votes (Hudson, pg173, 2016). However, understanding the essence of voting in the frameworks of American democracy will guide the paper in strengthening its position that though elections are a benchmark for democracy in the US, the modality of determining the fairness and effectiveness of this process remains an impediment to the democratic viability of the process.

Analysis of the selected readings

During the election campaigns, citizens are encouraged to vote on the basis that each vote matters in determining the type of leadership that the country will have. However, this is not the case for Hudson (pg 173, 2016), who explains that the concept of democracy differs across different populations. The difference between the ancient Athenian democracy and the modern representation of democracy is depicted by the composition of the democratic institutions. The will of the people was discussed in the Assembly, with all the public policy decisions reflecting the desire of majority of the people. The role of public officials in the ancient democracy was delegated to the mere performance of the public will. On the other hand, the modern day representative democracy gives all the discretion to the public officials, who are elected not to implement the policies but to discuss and make public policies.

Therefore, each of the democratic process, as explained by Hudson (pg 174, 2016), have to display the tenets of the ancient Athenian democracy for them to attain the threshold of total citizen participation. In the reading, Hudson (pg 176, 2016) expresses several ways through which the electoral system in the United States fails to meet the standards requirements of democracy. Besides, the minimal criterion for democracy is that elections have to be free, fair and competitive (Smith, pg 120, 2013). Free elections are characterized by secrecy, zero influence on the individual voting patterns and total protection from coercion by candidates. However, Maestas (pg 189, 2013) introduces an interesting phenomenon to this argument by exposing the concept of electoral insecurity. In this reading, the primary theme of election freedom and fairness is analyzed in the context of coercion and intimidation by the incumbent, as the author strives to define the theories of the incumbent behaviors when subjected o diverse political environments.

The US electoral system exhibits gaps in relation to equality, a factor that is considered as a pillar of democracy. The Senate is not representative, as Smith (pg 130, 2013) explains. The scheme of representation in the Senate does not depict any aspect of high principle, constitutional theory, or grand design. The design of the Senate, moreover, supports the argument that the democratic representation in the US does not focus on the concerns of the people but on the political bargain. The effects of equal representation are further pointed out in the unequal voting rights given to smaller states’ representatives such as New Jersey and Delaware.

The mal-appropriation of the Senate representation has reflected in a number of legislative outcomes. The trends in the past century indicate that the majority in the Senate are from the states that have the least population numbers. The senators from smaller states, moreover, enjoy advantages that stretch to determine their influence over benefits being directed to their states.

The unequal representation of the Senate does not stop with the influence that the representatives of the states with smaller populations command in the legislative processes. In the reading by Hajnal (pg 240, 2013), the aspect of unequal representation based on the diverse social characteristics of the United States population is reviewed. In this reading, Hajnal (pg 213, 2013) asks two fundamental questions that relate to the black community living in the US. The first question sets to analyze whether America will vote for black candidates, while the second sets to determine if the elected black representatives have the ability to transform the economic position of the African American communities.

The revelations made by Hajnal (pg 214, 2013) are essential in strengthening the aspect of unequal representation as portrayed in the US electoral processes and representative institutions. The answer to the second question explains the phenomenon further by exposing that the inequalities of the Senate and the electoral process are reflected in the influence that the minority have on the majority. Whereas the majority elected the black representatives, the behaviors of the minorities are evidenced in role they play in increasing the uncertainty among the electorate, hence influencing the decisions made by the leaders from minority communities.

The incumbent insecurity, furthermore, is a factor that highlights the democratic deficiencies of the US electoral system. The incumbent insecurity is mostly higher among the representatives from minority communities (Maestas, pg 195, 2013). In their bid to forecast future political events, incumbents encounter insecurities that often spill over to influence the voter decisions. In areas that have unstable voting patterns, the difficulties that the incumbents encode in relation to assessing their reelection prospects heavily rely on the prospective rather than retrospective information with the voter support base. The conceptualization of risk, therefore, is determined by the main factors that define the majority of the voters, which are responsible for the uncertainty levels among the electorates. As Maestas (pg 188, 2013) explains, the theoretical distinction of risk from uncertainty is significant in determining the behaviors and actions that incumbents display when presented with greater uncertainties.

The bureaucratic characteristic of the US electoral system is one that raises questions about the freedom and fairness of the process, hence casting doubts the democratic validity of the elections. Smith (pg 120, 2013) exposes the gaps in the representative democratic structures of the US system, beginning by acknowledging that the most predominant form of democracy is the representative democracy. The electoral system, moreover, determines how the votes are translated into seats. Besides, the elections system dictates the position of the minority in representation and decision making, as seats play a fundamental role in deciding the prevalence of either the minority or majority wills.

To analyze this relationship, Smith (pg 119, 2013) compared the US electoral system with the Israeli system. Upon the introduction of the Israeli democracy, Smith (pg 120, 2013) acknowledges that the combative and robust nature of the democracy does not override the fact that the voting and elections in this country are streamlined and straightforward when compared to those of the United States. In the Israeli system, each party acquires a percentage of seats that is equal to the national votes that it garners. This is referred to as proportional representation.

On the other hand, the United States uses the single-member plurality system. Under this system, each of the elective offices has its own election, with the candidate having the most votes being pronounced the winner and subsequent holder of the office. In page 180, Hudson, (2016) explains that the SMP system is one that contributes to the unfairness and undemocratic nature of the US electoral process. This system is an incentive that promotes partisan polarization, as the requirements of the minorities are ignored. Most Congress members, Hudson (pg 181, 2016) explains, safely ignore the preferences, concerns, and interests of the minorities. This is in sharp contrast to the proportionate representation system as highlighted by Smith (pg 120, 2013), which is characterized by the majority attempting to increase their stake in legislation through attending to the demands of the minority groups.

The freedom of the elections, nonetheless, is a factor that is determined by the electoral system. The unitary systems of government, such as Israel, have more democratically free elections that are managed by a single national institution that oversees the process. Unlike this system, the American system has devolved the most fundamental democratic function of election. There are no national elections in the United States, since the responsibilities of administering these elections are devolved to the state. At the state level, more devolution of elections is experienced by delegating these duties to the counties. The policies and procedures of electioneering are not similar across the states within the US. This increases the opportunities for voter fraud (Smith, pg 133, 2013).

The devolution of the electoral process contributes immensely to the complexities that define this process in the US. The unfairness of the elections in the US is perpetrated before, during and after the polling exercises. Hajnal (pg 227, 2013) explains that one of the factors that have limited the freedom of the minority African American voters is voter intimidation and minimal civic education on the essence of the voting process. The voter intimidation in most states in the US often occurs when the voters are prevented from submitting their ballots. As Smith (pg 121, 2013) observes, such activities, together with the permission granted to other people to vote more than once amounts to unfair election practices before votes are cast.

Furthermore, the concept of risk and uncertainty contributes to the prevalence of election malpractices in the US. The effects of uncertainty and risk can influence the behaviors of incumbents at both the individual and party levels (Maestas, pg 207, 2013). In the event that the uncertainty is high for an incumbent, the resource allocation towards funding the elections is considerably reduced. This reflects the arguments by Smith (pg 121, 2013) that classified unfairness witnessed during elections by the intentional undersupply of equipment and staff, hence creating long lines that discourage voters in areas that the uncertainty and risk of non-reelection is higher.

The complexities of the US electoral system do not stop with the devolution of the electoral processes. The frequency of the elections in the United States does not engender the concept of simplicity, which is a cornerstone of inclusive democratic processes. In exposing these complexities, Smith (pg 136, 2013) the electoral process in the US with that adopted by Israel. In the observation, Smith defined Israel as a unitary state with a unicameral national parliament, a factor that contributes to the single election of executive officers. In contrast, the democratic space in the US seems to dilute the essence of democracy by overburdening the voters. Consequently, Americans have to cast ballots for a large number of representative positions, further raising fears of minimal credibility attached to each vote cast.

In a bid to highlight the structures of the US electoral system that minimize the spirit of equal representation, Smith (pg 133-135, 2013) and Hudson (pg 179-187, 2016) discussed the Electoral College. With the Electoral College, Hudson (pg 180, 2016) describes, the US system is exposed to a flawed electoral system that does not consider the cardinal democratic principle of majority rules. The Electoral College exhibits lack of democracy in different ways.

To begin with, the proportion of the population composition is not considered when apportioning the Electoral College votes. Therefore, the population sizes and the social characteristics of this populating are not considered when apportioning the votes. This means, further, that the value of a single electoral votes of the smaller state can be equated to three or four votes of the larger states.

The above explanation of the Electoral College brings back the argument presented in the opening statement of this discussion, which set to signify voting and elections in the US as a democratic process that is founded on the platforms of the “One person, one vote” and “Every single vote matters.” Even more interesting, the division of the electoral votes does not consider the diverse characteristics of the US populations (Maestas, pg 207, 2013).

In page 133, Smith (2013) earmarked the Electoral College as one of the anomalies of the US electoral system. This system reduces the US presidential election to one that is determined by undefined structures rather than the ultimate majority. The proponents of the Electoral College system argue that this was created in order to minimize the biasness that presidential candidates would have when campaigning for the executive position.

However, Maestas (pg 209, 2013) explained that some regions within the US that are dominated by stable voters who are not swayed by the policies but by the political party. Furthermore, Hudson (pg 178, 2016) explained that the US has two predominant parties, which control nearly all the elective representative offices. The electoral colleges do not in any way limit the biasness towards the smaller states, as the US Presidential elections have traditionally not been shaped by the majority but by the electoral votes within the big vote-rich states.

“Even if elections are both free and fair, they cannot be said to fully reflect the will of the people if they are not also competitive” (Smith, pg 122, 2013). The competitiveness of the US elections is shaped not only by ideology but also on certain factors as the social characteristics and the economic leverage at the disposal of the candidate. Hudson (pg 204, 2016) argues that the competitiveness of the US elections is minimal when compared to that of other democracies.

However, Hajnal (pg 216, 2013) applauded the ease with which a person is eligible to vote or register for an elective position in the US. Despite this ease, certain barriers have traditionally influenced the ability of a candidate to win the elections. Media advertising and campaigning are some of the factors that candidates use to ensure the flow of information to the voters. However, in the US, the acquisition of these facilities demands considerable amounts of funding and time.

A comparison by Smith (pg 125, 2013) revealed that the parliamentary systems have briefer campaigns driven by ideologies. However, the US campaigns for presidency stretch over 18 months, with these campaigns largely centered on candidates’ credentials. This limits the power of parties and strengthens the interests of the candidates. To explain how this aspect of election contributes to lack of democracy, Hudson (pg 207, 2016) explained that the structure of the campaigns, advertisements and election procedures limit the capacity of partisan government control, which further hinders the abilities of the of the people to hold the elected representative to account for their actions.

Conclusion

In the paper, the democratic nature of the US voting and election system is scrutinized. The democracy of this system is questioned by the structure of the unequal Senate representation, the singular-member parliamentary state, the complexity of the US elections and the factors that affect the voter turnout. In as much as the US voting and election systems have been admired globally, the fact remains that there are several gaps in this system that expose the elements of undemocratic processes, including bureaucracy, prejudice and complacency. In conclusion, this discussion proves that elections are a benchmark for democracy in the US, but the modality of determining the fairness and effectiveness of this process remains an impediment to the democratic viability of the process.