How Far Does the System for Electing the President Fulfil Democratic Criteria?

Katherine Harvey Key Skills

In a democratic society such as the United States, there are several functions of elections, none more so than to allow democracy to prevail, hence the people of the country are given the opportunity, through voting, to decide who becomes president, thus everyone has a say in deciding who leads them. Understandably, there is a whole range of criteria to judge how democratic the US election system is. In short, the system is one that currently falls short of fully fulfilling the democratic criteria, however it does offer a relatively democratic system as a whole.

A fundamental requirement of democracy is that of voter participation. The USA does offer men and women of all ethnic backgrounds the opportunity to participate in presidential elections, and as such this is a commendable asset to US democracy. On the other hand, participation levels are alarmingly low. In the 2000 presidential election approximately half of those eligible to vote actually bothered. This places much doubt on how representative the elected George W Bush really was. There is evidently a part, or a number of parts, to the electoral system which discourages people from voting hence such a low turnout. A major reason is voter apathy. Some would argue that there are too many unnecessary elections in the USA which has caused a high level of voter fatigue and, quite simply, a lack of interest. This is also the case during presidential elections, where the electorate are expected to vote in the primaries as well as the main election itself. The election campaign is one that lasts several months, this too inevitably leads to an all round lack of interest. Another argument is that the presidential election is basically a two party race, and there is arguably little difference between them and, as a result, some feel inclined to stay at home as they feel the outcome will make little difference. There are further reasons for this voter apathy such as the problem of negative advertising (where parties just attack each others policies) and also a lack of inspiring candidates.

Password

Confirm Password

I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy

This is a preview of the whole essay

In a democratic system there needs to be a strong element of voter choice, where the electorate are able to have a realistic choice of candidates in order to choose who they wish to represent their views. However, the US system effectively limits voter choice, and as such limits democracy. Due to the Republican and Democrat duopoly of power, there are essentially only two candidates with a realistic chance of being elected, providing voters with very little choice. A mounting problem is that both the two main parties have adopted centralist policies in order to attract as many voters as possible. This means that there is relatively little difference between the two parties in terms of policy. It should be said however, that these parties have almost been forced to adopt these more centralist policies in order to maintain healthy relations with financial backers. Quite clearly, these relationships would diminish if either party adopted more extreme policies. Needless to say, other candidates are able to stand and can make some impact. For example, in 1992, Ross Perot stood as candidate for the Reform Party and subsequently attracted around 19% of the vote. For this reason, the system remains democratic.

A further problem with the US system is the registration process. The ability for voters to register is an important factor of democracy on its own. It is not completely simple to register to vote in the US and, unlike the UK, in most states individuals are expected to register themselves in order to be eligible to vote on Election Day. People are discouraged from registering as it involves filling out forms or meeting a registrar. Quite simply, a large proportion of the electorate cannot be bothered and find the registration process a waste of their time. Also, an important figure to consider is that approximately 25% of the population move house each year, many of these relocating to different states. This means people have to keep re-registering so many will simply not bother. Steps were taken by president Clinton in 1993 to increase the number of people registered to vote. He introduced the ‘Motor Voter Bill’, which effectively allowed people to register to vote as they applied for a driving license. As a result, there was an increase in voters by 5 million. Yet still, by 2000 only 66% of Americans were registered to vote. It should be pointed out that of those registered, 75% or so do actually turn out to vote. In order to fulfil democratic criteria, everyone eligible need to vote in elections so that those elected will be representative of the people’s views. Although this registration process appears to decrease the level of democracy, the fact is that there is nothing actually preventing those eligible from registering to vote. The process is just perhaps a little more difficult than it should be.

Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the US electoral system is the fact that a candidate can win the presidency and yet poll less votes than their opponent. This occurred in the 2000 presidential campaign where Bush won the presidency for the Republicans yet had fewer votes than his opponent, Al Gore of the Democrats. This is primarily due to the working of the Electoral College (EC). In each state, the candidate who polls the most votes wins all the EC votes allocated to that state. States are allocated a certain number of EC votes depending upon its population size. This means that larger states such as California (with 54 EC votes) have a disproportionate level of significance. As a result candidates concentrate on winning the larger states and simultaneously consider the smaller states to be less important. This may affect turnout in the smaller states too, as voters will feel that their views will be given less significance. A further problem is that associated with the primaries. The early primary held in New Hampshire effectively will ‘make or break’ a candidate. Those who perform badly are likely to lose any chance of financial backing and thus consequently be forced to withdraw from the presidential race. The importance of New Hampshire is clearly undemocratic as candidates may well have performed admirably in other states but it’s their performance in states such as New Hampshire, in particular, that counts. On the other hand however, the primary system is an opportunity for ‘outsiders’ and those not within the ‘inner circle’ of the party, such as Clinton, to be elected as a candidate. This is unquestionably an asset to democracy.

Yet another problem is that of voting infrastructure. States are expected to implement their own system for casting and counting votes. In the 2000 election, a number of votes were not actually counted as ballot systems in some states failed. In some areas, it was unclear where holes on ballot cards had actually been punched. This meant that some votes were unable to be counted. This is clearly an undemocratic procedure and one that certainly needs rectifying. The following image is by an American citizen poking fun at the complex nature of some ballot papers:

The media have a great impact on the level of democracy during elections. To be considered democratic, the media must provide fair reporting. However, it is clear that the wealthiest candidates can purchase the most media coverage and as such, reporting is never equally balanced.

One of the most controversial areas of the US electoral system is that of campaign finance. To be considered a truly democratic system, each candidate must have relatively equal access to money. However as candidates are expected to find their own financial support, US politics has traditionally favoured the wealthy. This unfair system has been recognised however and steps have been taken (such as the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971) to curb the size of donations to candidates. Also, state funding was introduced in order to match funds raised by individual candidates. This enabled less wealthy candidates a more realistic chance of making an impact and simultaneously increased democracy. However it has become apparent that candidates have found ‘loop holes’ in these precautions and thus there has been a growing trend of ‘soft money’ (see the table below). There is much controversy over where the line is drawn on what this ‘soft money’ can be spent on. President Clinton used carefully planned politically orientated events to generate this money such as ‘Golf with the President’ and trips on Air force One.

The system for electing the president does however fulfil some democratic criteria. There is a secret ballot which eradicates corruption and any possible intimidation. The system also offers a coherent method of voting, as the voter simply has to vote for the candidate that they would like to take office.

There are unarguably a high number of problems associated with the US system of electing a president and many areas that do not completely fulfil democratic criteria. Voter registration is too complicated, voting infrastructure is often old fashioned, voter choice is significantly limited, votes count unequally and are disproportionate and the media fails to remain impartial due to the influence of the wealthiest candidates. However the system does have its merits and does contain some aspects of democracy. There is a secret ballot, campaign regulations are in place and the election system is simple and coherent enough for the voter to understand.