The Fairness of the Electoral Process in America (Essay Sample)

Author:
Course Title:
Instructor:
Date:
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 predominantly been praised 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 level of underlying 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 perception that the process of elections in the country 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.
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.
Types of U.S. Elections
The U.S elections comprise mainly of two types of elections: general and primary. 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. 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 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 enough financial resources, management expertise, and popular appeal in order to win the legislative district pluralities all over the country. In such a system, a 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 elections process 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 method of the Electoral College in U.S elections further reinforces the two-party system of electing a president. 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 is directly awarded the two electoral votes with the winner in each congressional district taking one electoral vote. Similarly to the one-member district system, the Electoral College disadvantages the third parties with very minimal chance for such a candidate to win the electoral votes 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 are the major effects of the 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 popular vote? In order derive a satisfactory answer to 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 state contests has become an expensive and arduous process, usually requiring petitions with hundreds of thousands of signatures. Furthermore, the new party must demonstrate the ability to attract a substantial threshold proportion of the vote in any subsequent electoral contest for it to remain 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 ...