The US Constitution: Undemocratic US Electoral System (Essay Sample)

Institution
Tutor
Student
Date
The US Constitution
"The US Constitution does not generate "real" democracy but instead presents a coating of democracy. It is a political misconception that has permitted leaders of various kinds to dominate the politics and policymaking of this country." In order to bring out my standpoint apparently in regard to this claim, I find it worth first briefing on the meaning of democracy. Democratic is a system of leadership or government with the norm of one person, one vote were all qualified members of the state, normally through proposed representatives lead, also known as majority rule. The founders of the American constitution made outstanding progress in the creation of a republican government. Revolution and transformation in democratic diplomacies and principles persistent even after the codification of the Constitution, and as a result, the US system has not fully embraced all of those ideas. Therefore, as pointed out earlier, this Constitution represents a veneer of democracy, since it contains several undemocratic elements elaborated in depth in this paper.
The US electoral system is undemocratic
The Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution, establishes the Electoral College which was made clear in 2000. This clause is inequitable in the sense that it is against the direct national popular vote and thus a candidate with the most votes does not always win the presidency. The way the Electoral College works is unjust since it pliably tells a large group of citizens that their votes do not count. In other words, Americans do not officially vote for their preferred politicians; instead, they vote for members of the electorate who are sworn to choose a candidate when the Electoral College convokes. The fact that a politician is able to win the election having lost the popular vote is quite unbecoming. In addition, the Electoral College is unlawfully prejudiced towards the smaller federations in America. All these unreasonable systems were built-in in the US Constitution by the original framers as a final line of protection to block an aspirant who may be inimical to the interest of the elite (Lekani, 2016).
The U.S. Senate is profoundly autocratic
In the so-called Connecticut Compromise, the founders of the US Constitution agreed that every state should have fair representation in the Senate irrespective of population disparities among member regions. Though there might be some logic to this system, it does not come out clearly since it seems outlandish that sporadically-inhabited states such as Wyoming have no fewer representatives than regions like New York or California where many people reside. The obvious consequence of this configuration is that the proportional minority of folks who reside in the broad open spaces of a particular sparsely-populated state have as much more significant political voice in the Senate as the citizens who live in a state with congested cosmopolitan zones.
This representation disproportion occasionally results in politicians who epitomize the minority opinion on particular matters prevailing over representatives who embody the outlooks of most US citizens. Although the Democratic conclave comprises of only 46 of 100 representatives, collectively they represent approximately 56% of the US inhabitants. That population is profoundly concerted in only 15 states, where about two-thirds of the US citizens reside, and these federations tilt Democratic. That is, Republican legislators embody fewer Americans generally, but they acquire a superior say when voting on argumentative matters (Robert, par. 6).
Judicial power
In America, courts have the authority to rule undemocratic any particular decree or bylaw, even if appropriately sanctioned by the governing body and signed by the ruling president. Judiciaries are appointed (not voted for) permanently with an extraordinary verge for removal, which makes them self-regulating. The US courts have used its rather unconfined power to make universal guiding principles through jurisdictional authorization fundamentally. Since the jurisdictive system in this country possesses the massive supremacy of legal review, it is pinched into what would be exclusively political dogmatic matters in most other nations. It is thus a regular target of individuals who find themselves impacted by its judgments. In this civic obligation, the Law Court has been more susceptible to the onslaught of influenced crowds than other bureaucrats, since its affiliates are chosen for life tenancy. However, this administrative aspect would not be of significant concern if the law lords applied petite or no freedom of choice in arriving at resolutions.
Given Federal Court verdicts that seem to be statutory declarations originating from a panel of judges not alleged responsible through the polling procedure, many have understood that jurisdictional review is not in line with the essence and custom of a democratic regime. This argument has been outstretched over and over again all through the history of the nation (Ana, 2015).
Unjust Congressional power
As construed by the judges, the US Constitution reserves dominance in various realms of ruling to the member states. The authorities of the Legislative body are to some degree restricted to a particular list. Since 1895 till the 16th Constitution Adjustment consented in 1913, law court elucidations of legal necessities for "direct" taxes made a national revenue tax unpractical, restraining the income available to the central government. Throughout the era of Laissez Faire, the Federal Court construed the economic supremacies of Congress very intently, providing the central regime with minimal influence to impact on the country’s economy. However, current jurisdictional elucidations have permitted the central government to possess a much superior control over the overall national economy.
Moreover, lately, many legislators have been alleged of placing a secret hold on a bill intended to restrain pork -barrel disbursements. In the US Senate, a hold is an endorsed process passed by the Standing Bylaws of the America’s Senate which enables one or more Representatives to preclude a debate from attaining a vote on the Assembly floor. In the case the Legislator gives notice clandestinely to his or her party governance of their interest (and the political party headship approved), then the hold is referred to as a secret or unidentified hold.
Lots of consideration therefore has been accorded attempting to send out the politicians who applied this underhand opportunity. However, not that much contemplation has been given to this Congress statute that tolerates an anonymous hold. According to me, this decree is enormously undemocratic.
Senate is usually flaunted as the most autocratic legislative body. Altogether, this is where the U...