Elections in America today have become trivialized, and William Hudson, in Chapter Five of American Democracy in Peril, outlined the specific issues with today’s elections. Hudson’s thesis is that in order for “elections to be democratic, they must meet three essential criteria:” opportunity for equal representation, mechanisms for deliberation, and control over what government does. Hudson analyzes the three criteria in depth and for the most part, I agree with him. Hence, this blog will be an elaboration of his argument and at times, disagreements on his stances.
Unfortunately, over time elections have diminished the opportunity for equal representation of the American people. Hudson states that “voting rights are a political resource distributed equally to all citizens, irrespective of wealth or social status…they provide each citizen with the capacity to influence public decision” (Hudson, 182). Yes, it is true all citizens 18 years and older have the opportunity to vote and participate in government; however, there are cricks in the voting system that trouble potential voters. The issue of cost-benefit, which was brought up in chapter four of Hudson, affects many citizens in America. For citizens with more than one job, children that need care, and not enough money for gas, it is a difficult choice to figure out whether it is not worth going to the polls on November 4th. Citizens are forced to weigh out the pros and cons of voting to figure it is vital to vote. One issue that is commonly brought up in these citizens’ heads is whether or not their vote on the ballot will actually receive representation.
Unfortunately, with the Electoral College system, if your vote is not the majority vote, then technically, your vote does not count. The Electoral College system has two main problems. The first, is that the number of electoral votes is not based on population; the number of votes is taken from the number of Representatives plus two Senators. The second, is that it is a “winner takes all” system, which means that the majority receives all of the vote. The Electoral College is addressed in the Constitution: “Article II gives states the power to “appoint,” in a manner determined by the state legislature, electors who the cast their votes for president” (Hudson, 199). The Founders created the Electoral College system because they were worried that the common people would have too much power over elected officials and government. Because the Electoral College has been present since the found of the United States, I feel that instead of completely diminishing the system, it needs to be reformed. First of all, the number of electoral votes needs to be proportional to the population of the state. That way, the state will gain the proper representation in accordance to the other states. Secondly, the “winner takes all” system needs to be removed and changed into a percentage system. With a percentage system, all votes will be properly represented and the American people wont feel resentment toward the Electoral College system.
In the 2000 presidential election, the Electoral College ran into trouble. Al Gore had won the majority of the popular vote through the United States; however, because of the different number of electoral votes per sate, George W. Bush won the electorate vote. I believe that because American government is a democracy, the popular vote should have been the vote that decided that president. It makes no sense why electoral votes can determine the presidency if the popular vote (representation of the American people) had a different result.
Another argument in equal representation of elections is the role of political parties. Hudson states that “political parties have provided the means of structuring equal representation” (Hudson, 183). I do agree with this because political parties give Americans an opportunity to voice their opinions and take a stance with other citizens. The role of parties in elections has diminished overtime because elections have shifted from party-centered elections to candidate-centered elections. The reason that modern, candidate-centered campaigns cannot provide equal representation is because of the four main steps of modern campaigns: “deciding to run for office, raising campaign funds, building a professional campaign organization, and marketing the candidate to the voters” (Hudson, 186). With the first, candidates can technically self-select themselves and create their own political platform. Many self-selected candidates have little or no experience and in turn, voters have no idea whether or not the candidate is true to his/her policies. The issue with raising campaign funds is the “hidden election.” In order, to have an effective campaign, candidates have to seek out contributors. Many elections are dependent on whether or not the campaign has raised enough money. There have been many government reforms trying to regulate campaign fundraising; however, special interest groups and political parties have found ways to get around the laws. Campaigns becoming professional organizations devote all their time to winning the election. Campaign directors are usually not active community participants and are strictly business personnel. Lastly, marketing a candidate has become the main goal of campaign because of the media constantly reporting on issues (read on for more about the media!).
The second issue that makes elections undemocratic, Hudson says, is deliberation. Deliberation is the political discussion of the issues. In order for proper deliberation, “candidates must articulate issue positions clearly and address directly the view of their opponents, and the media must report extensively on these contending views in a manner that assists voters in making judgments about them” (Hudson, 202). Unfortunately, the media has become so involved in today’s (at least the 2008) elections that voters become engulfed in array of false and true information about the presidential candidates. Hudson states that “too little attention [of the media] is given to elections” (Hudson, 203). I will have to disagree with this statement. I can turn on the news, be it CNN, FOX, or MSNBC, as about any time of the day and see some type of news story relating to the presidential campaigns. I can agree with Hudson when he says that because media has to focus on entertaining their audiences, they stay away from policy issues and focus more on imagery issues. I believe that the media has become a third opponent in the 2008 election. For example, Sarah Palin, Republican vice presidential nominee , has been constantly bashed for her unintelligence and style. Although it is necessary to appear respectful as a vice presidential nominee, I feel that the media has focused to much on unnecessary issues in the campaigns. Voters should be worried about policy issues, not style issues. Hudson also says that “the Internet provides an opportunity for improving public deliberation in elections” (Hudson, 207). I definitely agree with this statement. I think that in our day and age the Internet has played a large role in elections and voter education. There are countless sites providing citizens with candidate information and policy issues and there are also countless blogs that provide an opportunity for citizens to debate and discuss issues. There is also the negative part of the Internet, like YouTube, which can focus on negative parts of campaigns. I can only hope the uneducated voters don’t follow false videos. The last part of the media are the televised debates. Hudson says that “even the televised candidate debates are primarily regarded as opportunities to project images and strike poses rather than to discuss public policy issues seriously” (Hudson, 209). I agree with this statement to an extent. I do believe that many people watch the debates to become educated about the candidates’ stances; however, what goes along with that is criticism of the candidates’ images. Again, it is important to appear respectful, but it is interesting to me how style affects many voters’ opinions on a certain candidate. The opportunities for deliberation of policy issues is scarce, but if a voter cares enough, they will seek opportunities to do so.
The last reason that Hudson argues that elections are undemocratic is that they do not provide an opportunity to control what government does. Elections have begun to lose their affect on government policies and have commonly failed to solve political issues. This is because “nonelected officials and processes unconnected to elections have come to play an increasingly important role in making important policy decisions” (Hudson, 211). I don't think this is the fault of elections, I think it is the result of increased bureaucracy and judicial power. Also, special interest groups have found many ways to needle themselves in and pressure the voting direction of representatives. This cannot be changed in the course of elections.
Although elections have become increasingly undemocratic, I still feel that it is important to vote. Who actually knows if your vote counts? And how will you ever find out? The answer is no one and never. I believe that voting, even if your vote doesn’t count, is an awesome way to show that you care about government and project your feelings towards policy issues. Yes, there are many obstacles that elections have to tackle, but overall, having the opportunity to elect the next President is special and not all people have that opportunity (I don’t, yet!). For elections to change, major changes would have to be made and I don’t think it is actually worth it do to so. So do your part, and go to the polls on November 4th to elect the next President.
Unfortunately, over time elections have diminished the opportunity for equal representation of the American people. Hudson states that “voting rights are a political resource distributed equally to all citizens, irrespective of wealth or social status…they provide each citizen with the capacity to influence public decision” (Hudson, 182). Yes, it is true all citizens 18 years and older have the opportunity to vote and participate in government; however, there are cricks in the voting system that trouble potential voters. The issue of cost-benefit, which was brought up in chapter four of Hudson, affects many citizens in America. For citizens with more than one job, children that need care, and not enough money for gas, it is a difficult choice to figure out whether it is not worth going to the polls on November 4th. Citizens are forced to weigh out the pros and cons of voting to figure it is vital to vote. One issue that is commonly brought up in these citizens’ heads is whether or not their vote on the ballot will actually receive representation.
Unfortunately, with the Electoral College system, if your vote is not the majority vote, then technically, your vote does not count. The Electoral College system has two main problems. The first, is that the number of electoral votes is not based on population; the number of votes is taken from the number of Representatives plus two Senators. The second, is that it is a “winner takes all” system, which means that the majority receives all of the vote. The Electoral College is addressed in the Constitution: “Article II gives states the power to “appoint,” in a manner determined by the state legislature, electors who the cast their votes for president” (Hudson, 199). The Founders created the Electoral College system because they were worried that the common people would have too much power over elected officials and government. Because the Electoral College has been present since the found of the United States, I feel that instead of completely diminishing the system, it needs to be reformed. First of all, the number of electoral votes needs to be proportional to the population of the state. That way, the state will gain the proper representation in accordance to the other states. Secondly, the “winner takes all” system needs to be removed and changed into a percentage system. With a percentage system, all votes will be properly represented and the American people wont feel resentment toward the Electoral College system.
In the 2000 presidential election, the Electoral College ran into trouble. Al Gore had won the majority of the popular vote through the United States; however, because of the different number of electoral votes per sate, George W. Bush won the electorate vote. I believe that because American government is a democracy, the popular vote should have been the vote that decided that president. It makes no sense why electoral votes can determine the presidency if the popular vote (representation of the American people) had a different result.
Another argument in equal representation of elections is the role of political parties. Hudson states that “political parties have provided the means of structuring equal representation” (Hudson, 183). I do agree with this because political parties give Americans an opportunity to voice their opinions and take a stance with other citizens. The role of parties in elections has diminished overtime because elections have shifted from party-centered elections to candidate-centered elections. The reason that modern, candidate-centered campaigns cannot provide equal representation is because of the four main steps of modern campaigns: “deciding to run for office, raising campaign funds, building a professional campaign organization, and marketing the candidate to the voters” (Hudson, 186). With the first, candidates can technically self-select themselves and create their own political platform. Many self-selected candidates have little or no experience and in turn, voters have no idea whether or not the candidate is true to his/her policies. The issue with raising campaign funds is the “hidden election.” In order, to have an effective campaign, candidates have to seek out contributors. Many elections are dependent on whether or not the campaign has raised enough money. There have been many government reforms trying to regulate campaign fundraising; however, special interest groups and political parties have found ways to get around the laws. Campaigns becoming professional organizations devote all their time to winning the election. Campaign directors are usually not active community participants and are strictly business personnel. Lastly, marketing a candidate has become the main goal of campaign because of the media constantly reporting on issues (read on for more about the media!).
The second issue that makes elections undemocratic, Hudson says, is deliberation. Deliberation is the political discussion of the issues. In order for proper deliberation, “candidates must articulate issue positions clearly and address directly the view of their opponents, and the media must report extensively on these contending views in a manner that assists voters in making judgments about them” (Hudson, 202). Unfortunately, the media has become so involved in today’s (at least the 2008) elections that voters become engulfed in array of false and true information about the presidential candidates. Hudson states that “too little attention [of the media] is given to elections” (Hudson, 203). I will have to disagree with this statement. I can turn on the news, be it CNN, FOX, or MSNBC, as about any time of the day and see some type of news story relating to the presidential campaigns. I can agree with Hudson when he says that because media has to focus on entertaining their audiences, they stay away from policy issues and focus more on imagery issues. I believe that the media has become a third opponent in the 2008 election. For example, Sarah Palin, Republican vice presidential nominee , has been constantly bashed for her unintelligence and style. Although it is necessary to appear respectful as a vice presidential nominee, I feel that the media has focused to much on unnecessary issues in the campaigns. Voters should be worried about policy issues, not style issues. Hudson also says that “the Internet provides an opportunity for improving public deliberation in elections” (Hudson, 207). I definitely agree with this statement. I think that in our day and age the Internet has played a large role in elections and voter education. There are countless sites providing citizens with candidate information and policy issues and there are also countless blogs that provide an opportunity for citizens to debate and discuss issues. There is also the negative part of the Internet, like YouTube, which can focus on negative parts of campaigns. I can only hope the uneducated voters don’t follow false videos. The last part of the media are the televised debates. Hudson says that “even the televised candidate debates are primarily regarded as opportunities to project images and strike poses rather than to discuss public policy issues seriously” (Hudson, 209). I agree with this statement to an extent. I do believe that many people watch the debates to become educated about the candidates’ stances; however, what goes along with that is criticism of the candidates’ images. Again, it is important to appear respectful, but it is interesting to me how style affects many voters’ opinions on a certain candidate. The opportunities for deliberation of policy issues is scarce, but if a voter cares enough, they will seek opportunities to do so.
The last reason that Hudson argues that elections are undemocratic is that they do not provide an opportunity to control what government does. Elections have begun to lose their affect on government policies and have commonly failed to solve political issues. This is because “nonelected officials and processes unconnected to elections have come to play an increasingly important role in making important policy decisions” (Hudson, 211). I don't think this is the fault of elections, I think it is the result of increased bureaucracy and judicial power. Also, special interest groups have found many ways to needle themselves in and pressure the voting direction of representatives. This cannot be changed in the course of elections.
Although elections have become increasingly undemocratic, I still feel that it is important to vote. Who actually knows if your vote counts? And how will you ever find out? The answer is no one and never. I believe that voting, even if your vote doesn’t count, is an awesome way to show that you care about government and project your feelings towards policy issues. Yes, there are many obstacles that elections have to tackle, but overall, having the opportunity to elect the next President is special and not all people have that opportunity (I don’t, yet!). For elections to change, major changes would have to be made and I don’t think it is actually worth it do to so. So do your part, and go to the polls on November 4th to elect the next President.
2 comments:
This is terrific Ariella! This is one of the few blogs so far this year that really critiques the author! Way to go!
Dr. Berry
yay :) thanks!
Post a Comment