Hollywood, Mustangs, and democracy. These may be some of the most common items that come to mind when we think of the United States of America. But how are each of these established, and what makes them define America? In this article, we shall look at the concept of American Democracy, and explore its standing within its participants.
Today, the United States of America, dubbed the epitome of democracy, ironically operates under a highly questioned electoral system known as plurality. Many claim that this system undermines democracy. Otherwise understood as a winner-takes-all system, plurality in America dictates that a presidential candidate’s majority vote in a state will allow them to carry all the electoral votes held by the state, and is practiced in all states with the exception of Maine and Nebraska. This is juxtaposed with the popular vote system, which is used in most other functioning democracies when electing the executive branches of government.
Electoral Map of the 2020 Presidential Elections, in which Biden won 306 electoral votes (as opposed to 232 by Trump)
Image credit: 270towin
In Maine and Nebraska, however, the electoral votes are broken down and awarded to candidates proportionally. That is to say, the candidates will share the electoral votes based on their proportion of votes garnered.
This has given rise to five awkward electoral victories, during which even though the victorious candidate has won a majority of the electoral college votes, they have failed to attain the popular vote. Though some may argue that that would be the precise antithetical to democracy, such plurality systems are not without merit. After all, America is not the only place to implement it – Sicily of Italy has recently acquired it for the 1993 executive branch elections, a change from the popular vote used in 1990.
The five times the electoral college trumped the popular vote were:
1824 (John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson)
1876 (Rutherford B. Hayes over Samuel Tilden)
1888 (Benjamin Harrison over Grover Cleveland)
2000 (George W. Bush over Al Gore)
2016 (Donald J. Trump over Hillary Clinton)
In these situations, the winning candidate has essentially garnered enough bare majorities in just enough states, but with margins of opposition in the losing states greater than their margins of victory in the winning states.
Expectedly, such counterintuitive exercises of democracy has left many in disagreement, and others retaliating. Alternative approaches have been considered, and will be discussed later, but let us first take a look at the discourse around plurality in voting.
To understand why many support the plurality system, we must first refer to the opinions of the Constitution’s Framers, who created the electoral college in the first place. While some believed in proportionality, and the rule of the popular vote, others focused on protecting the minority against the “tyranny of the majority”. That is to say, given that the many states in America were of vastly different sizes and had vastly different population densities, candidates could afford to neglect the “minority” districts as they could receive a majority vote simply in the highly populated metropolitans and large cities. Therefore, the opinions and needs of the “minority” votes will no longer matter to candidates and incumbents alike, undermining their democratic sway.
Therefore, by amplifying the voices of minority districts through directly giving them electoral weight, it allows for these residents to enjoy their democracy with more direct agency.
On the flip side, it may well be argued that in practice today, small states and districts are generally not highly contested, with a generally predictable political preference. Therefore, candidates still do not substantially consider influencing, or catering to, these states for they expect clear-cut victories or losses there. The “minority” party voters in these states will, then, essentially have zero voices, or electoral votes to carry their positions in the state.
Critics of plurality also point out a behavioral trend amongst voters. For states that have a clear majority – both small and large states – voter turnout rates are generally lower, as citizens already expect the outcome, which would not be considerably impacted by their individual vote.
Usually, a low voter turnout is seen as having a poor effect on the functioning of democratic majority representation, as political parties are less familiar with the true political breakdown of the states. This may skew their policy preferences as they appeal to just a segment of the voting electorate.
Finally, following the same logic that voters will expect a result in lower-competition states, they see a lower incentive, or necessity, to be politically engaged and informed. They see little value in making use of an informed vote, and many hence opt not to do so for convenience, and remain apathetic.
This even further undermines American democracy, which is defined by a strikingly transparent decision-making process for the people to keep the government in check. If voters are not even informed on political affairs, how will they be able to do so, and call a foul when they see one?
In Maine and Nebraska (pictured above), electoral votes are proportionally awarded to presidential candidates.
Image credit: Taegan Goddard
In practice, the plurality voting system has naturally created the idea of tossup states – highly contested states that will determine the winner of the election. This comes as other states those with a candidate more clearly winning the majority of the states’ votes, will see less national attention as parties strategically place more resources to campaign in the tossup states.
This essentially leads to disproportionately higher stakes being placed on these tossup states, making candidates more motivated, and in some cases, desperate, to win the specific set of tossup states. This may give rise to a higher propensity of voter fraud – tampering with the state-wide popular vote in a series of ways. This comes as candidates see a crucial need for victory, as well as a wealth of resources diverted for them by their parties.
While voter fraud may not have been committed in the 2020 Presidential Elections – and we’re not suggesting that it was – allegations of such have certainly surfaced, and they were very centered around the 6 tossup states – Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Nevada.
MAGA Republicans expected Biden to have cheated primarily in these 6 states. The reason? Well, the stakes in those 6 states were the highest, and they were where candidates fought the hardest to win.
Image Credit: Jose Luis Magana
Rarely anyone paid any attention to whether there was voter fraud in California, or Alaska. This was because nobody expected any party to attempt cheating there, because there was no point. The stakes were significantly lower in those states, and therefore not worthy of the risk and resources.
This begs the question: does the higher propensity of voter fraud in these six states exist because of the plurality system? Would voter fraud be less common if it was proportionate voting? Or would it simply be less concentrated? If it was less concentrated, would parties then decide not to take risks in more districts, and hence give up completely? The correlation between plurality and voter fraud is certainly one worth pondering upon.
Let us wrap up with an observation about party politics, especially in America. Many times, the way things are run may not necessarily be best way forward. Similarly, solutions may not necessarily be rejected because they are less effective. In fact, even something fundamentally agreed upon by both sides, in theory, may not come to fruition. Case in point: slavery – many in the South were also cognizant of the human rights contraventions of slavery. Sometimes, in the face of contestable politics, stakeholders prioritize power over pragmatism. They value personal agendas above morality.
Today, one example would be the question of the filibuster – that a simple majority is not enough to conclude debate on a matter, simply because parties wish to stall voting. In this context, it may perhaps be true that Republicans believe in the effectiveness and rightfulness of using the majority vote approach in presidential elections. It may, then, be well possible that the reason why they still argue loyally for the plurality approach is that it would be the only possible way for them to win presidential elections – the Republican candidate in the previous 6 presidential elections lost the popular vote 5 times, but has won 3 terms within this span, based on plurality counting under the electoral college.
In that case, would the Republicans’ politically-charged objection be democratic? Certainly. But is it in the spirit of democracy? Debatable. Do they recognize the moral hazards to that? Probably. But in the face of self-interested power, many do not care. Some also suffer from self-righteousness, using the concept of “the ends justify the means”. This is a group of people in politics who view their government as heroic and crucial for the success of their country, and that that, itself, could justify winning elections with whatever morally dubious means possible.
References
Galeotti, G. (1994). On Proportional Non-Representation. Public Choice, 80(3/4), 359–370. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30027090
Mudambi, R., Navarra, P., & Nicosia, C. (1996). Plurality versus Proportional Representation: An Analysis of Sicilian Elections. Public Choice, 86(3/4), 341–357. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30027122
ProCon.org. (2023, February 8). Electoral College Top 3 Pros and Cons. Retrieved from https://www.procon.org/headlines/electoral-college-pros-cons-procon-org/
National Archives and Records Administration. (2023, February 3). The constitution of the United States: A transcription. National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved from https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
Wike, R., Fetterolf , J., & Mordecai, M. (2021, June 3). U.S. image plummets internationally as most say country has handled coronavirus badly. Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/09/15/us-image-plummets-internationally-as-most-say-country-has-handled-coronavirus-badly/
Comments