From its inception, the Electoral College has been embroiled in vehement contention between those who find the value in the system and those who see it as an antiquated means to repress democracy. There are several reasons why the Electoral College is an integral cog of a functioning representative democracy, and these reasons will be discussed herein. In order to determine what benefits the Electoral College has to American democracy, one must first examine its nature. Instead of choosing a president, people vote for... ... middle of paper ... ...l government. In the entire executive and judicial branches, only two officials are elected—the president and vice president.
Many Americans have questioned the accuracy of the Electoral College. Rightfully so, as three different presidents have won the popular vote but did not win the election. The Electoral College is outlined in the Constitution and is the current system that elects the president of the United States. Contrary to popular belief, the president is not elected by the people. Instead, a certain number of electors per state vote for him or her.
It is not uncommon for the President to adapt his/her policy agenda to meet their personal time frame. Additionally, to remove a President from office requires a lengthy process. A successor will likely political legitimacy and may have their own agenda causing further discontinuity. On the other hand, Linz describes the fixed term for parliamentary leaders as stable because they can be removed from office easily and replaced seamlessly. Linze writes that “Presidentialism is ineluctably problematic because it operates according to the rule of "winner-take-all-arrangement” that tends to make democratic politics a zero-sum game” This causes some people to feel disenfranchised and that the President is not “their President” if the winner is not who they cast their vote for.
The President, unlike a monarch cannot make treaties on his own. “The king of Great Britain is the sole and absolute representative of the nation in all foreign transactions.” (The Federalist No.69) The President, in contrast receives some input from his acquaintances. With consent and approval of two-thirds of the senate, the president may make a treaty with a foreign country. (The Federalist No.69) Also... ... middle of paper ... ...ese without the advising of Congress and other government officials. The vote of the people of the country is also crucial and determines how long the president can keep his job.
In parliamentary systems, the leader becomes prime minister through the majority party and can almost always rely on their support. If no majority is elected, the first who came into the party is requested by the monarch to form a government. The prime minister will then select all remaining government officials, all of whom must be within the majority party. This is quite different than the elections of any Unites States President, who had to win their nominations based on personal beliefs and promises for change and improvement. (95) Of the two systems we know today, the United States of America practices the truest form of democracy.
The majority of Americans when asked what type of government their country practices, will answer with a strong and proud, “Democracy!” but the reality is vastly different. The Unites States is not strictly a democracy. Democracy as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary is, “a system of government in which all the people of a state or polity… are involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly,” (Oxford English Dictionary) and if you observe our practices including gerrymandering, the electoral college, the intentions of the founding fathers, our history of racism and discrimination, and a republic vs. a democracy, you will see that the U.S. is in fact, not
In Article II one will find the details of the Electoral College system, a system which denies the power to elect the president to the American people. (The Constitution) The Electoral College is an outmoded system which denies the American people the right to elect their president democratically and should be abolished and replaced with a more democratic system based on the popular vote. Although not common knowledge among the American electorate, presidential elections in the United States are indirect popular elections. Even though voters cast their ballots for the presidential candidate, they are really voting for a group of electors who pledge to vote for a particular candidate. (Project Vote Smart) This group known as the Electoral College is made up of 538 citizens who are responsible for voting on behalf of their states and it is this group that actually chooses the president.
It is not uncommon for the President to adapt his/her policy agenda to meet their personal time frame. Additionally, to remove a President from office requires a lengthy process. A successor will likely political legitimacy and may have their own agenda causing further discontinuity. On the other hand, Linz describes the fixed term for parliamentary leaders as stable because they can be removed from office easily and replaced seamlessly. Linz writes that “Presidentialism is ineluctably problematic because it operates according to the rule of "winner-take-all-arrangement” that tends to make democratic politics a zero-sum game” This causes some people to feel disenfranchised and that the President is not “their President” if the winner is not who they cast their vote for.
The right to vote allows Americans not only say in who runs the government, but also affects their freedom and future. Or does it? The United States uses an institution called the Electoral College, not the vote of the people, to choose the president. In this system, each state Electoral College receives a certain numbers of votes. All of these votes go to the candidate who receives the majority in that particular state (Federal Election Committee).
Karl Weber, a sociologist and political economist, describes authority as a form legal domination. Followers comply with the rules of these individuals because they consider their authority to be legitimate. While the legitimacy of domination does not have to be rationality, right, or natural justice, it is legitimate because individuals accept, obey, and consider domination to be required. The president of the United States is considered a traditional, legal and charismatic authority, where the legitimate domination rests on the idea of the legality of enacted rules for these individuals elevated to their status to give commands. The news article Obama's Executive-Power Use Shows He Still Holds Some Cards by NPR.com shows the President Barrack Hussein Obama II, the 44th president of the United States, as a traditional, legal and charismatic authority figure based on the characteristics of domination defined by Karl Weber.