US Democracy and Participation - Topic 5.4

Question 1

Arguments that the Electoral College should be reformed

Answer 1

• In two of the last six presidential elections, the winner of the popular vote has lost in the Electoral College, undermining modern principles of popular sovereignty and underlinign the outdate nature of the institution
• It effectively excludes third parties from the electoral process as the ECVs are not allocated proportionally and third-party vote tend to be thinly spread across the nation
• Small states are over represented in the Electoral College. California has 54 ECVs and a population of nearly 40 million while Wyoming has 3 ECVs for 600,000
• The bellwether state are effectively over-represented as its their votes that can change the election. A majority of states are thus ignored throughout the electoral process as their result is more predictable
• That faithless electors exist undermines the very basic principles of democracy

Question 2

Arguments that the Electoral College should be kept the same

Answer 2

• The Electoral College ensures that small states remain represented. With the US population heavily concentrated in a few big states, the role, culture and traditions of smaller states could be ignored without the College
• The College guards against tyranny of the majority nationally
• There’s no consensus on what should replace the Electoral College. There are slight reforms suggested, such as the proportional allocation of ECVs, right up to abolition and replacing it with a national popular vote
• Broadly, the College has produced a clear winner. Given the use of FPTP for US elections, the resulting two-party system means the winner has a clear majority of ECVs and therefore has a strong mandate

Question 3

Arguments supporting that the presidential election process is effective

Answer 3

• The lengthy process ensures candidates are resilient
• The Electoral College has served to produce clear winners able to govern effectively
• The primary calendar ensures that the voice of smaller states is upheld
• The ability to attract large amounts of money speaks to the character and bredth of appeal of a candidate
• The expectation of an acceptance speech at the Party Conventions, plus good performances in tv debates, highlight a skill that a president needs
• It broadly works - controversies have been quickly overcome and those who haven’t won the popular vote have still been able to lead while being kept in check
• Third parties have a role whether in share of the national vote or trying to shape the debates of an election
• Primaries allow voters a genuine choice

Question 4

Arguments that support the presidential election process isn’t effective

Answer 4

• The College has proven to be increasingly out of step
• The primaries calendar effectively disenfranchises some state while over-representing others
• The expected presidential tv debates have limited impact on the outcome of the election
• The Party Conventions serve little democratic purpose
• The amount of money required to become a president makes the process inherently elitist
• The volume of money required also gives undue influence to interest groups
• The length of the process creates political apathy among voters
• The variety of voting methods has been criticised and caused controversy over election results
• In terms of actual power, third parties are effectively excluded from the election
• Increasingly, the role of the media is more infuential than money spent and yet this area is relatively unregulated

Question 5

Why are interest groups good/bad for a representative democracy?

Answer 5

Good:

• Interest groups can represent minority groups and their interests, which might be ignored or overlooked in a winner-takes-all system
• Interest groups can encourage their members to turn out in elections, increasing the legitimacy of those elected

Bad:

• Interest groups can undermine the power of legitimately elected local representatives
• The power of interest groups over the legislature can work in the interest, and even over-representation, of the minority, rather than the majority

Question 6

Why are interest groups good/bad for a liberal democracy?

Answer 6

Good:

• Interest groups can raise issues about rights and work to protect them. This can include bringing cases to the Supreme Court
• Interest groups raise issues that hold government to account, thereby limiting its power
• A wide range of interest groups on directly competing issues is tolerated

Bad:

• Free and fair elections can be undermined by the money that interest groups pump into elections
• Tolerance of more extremist groups can appear to undermine the rights of other groups
• Interest groups that use illegal methods undermine the rule of law

Question 7

Why are interest groups good/bad for a pluralist democracy?

Answer 7

Good:

• The nature of US politics gives interest groups a greater number of access points, dispersing power
• Smaller interest groups have had success in gaining national attention for their issues, even if not in managing to achieve legislative change
• The issues raise by interest groups provide an important link between the people and government, and ensure the government is responsive

Bad:

• Interest groups with more money seem to have a disproportionate amount of influence
• The same interest groups annually seem to retain influence over the political process
• The focus of interest group action in Washington, D.C. centralises power