Essay On The Electoral College Is A Democratic Institution
Is the Electoral College a Democratic Institution? Ever since the Constitutional Convention of 1787 there has been constant debate as to whether or not our system of voting, the Electoral College, is a democratic institution. After all, how can an electoral system that grants the power of the presidency to the candidate who did not win the popular vote claim to be truly democratic. This debate over whether or not we should dispense of the Electoral College in favor of a system based on a purely popular vote will most likely continue to be an issue, because without a constitutional convention and amendment, which is highly unlikely, it cannot be changed. And if it were changed, such a shift in policy would be sure to have extensive social and political consequences. Growing up, and especially now, as a political science major, I cannot help
…show more content…
but be fascinated by such a debate. Before I began research, I was unaware that such a debate even existed. In reading the opposing arguments that I will later share with you, I found arguments both for the continuation of the Electoral College and the dismantling of it completely. Much of the debate centered on a few aspects of the Electoral College as it was written into the Constitution. Critics use the election of 2000, where Bush failed to receive the popular vote but still was sent to White House. On the other hand, supporters of the college point to the power that the system gives to the individual states. Both my background regarding politics and the magnitude of the debate itself leads me to ask the following question: Do certain aspects of the Electoral College warrant its abolition? My exploration began with the transcript of a debate between Professor Sanford Levinson, of the University of Texas Law School, and Professor Daniel H. Lowenstein, of UCLA Law School. Professor Levinson offers a political science perspective on the issue. He begins the debate by arguing that “true believers in majority rule should find it insufferable that the United States still employs a constitutional iron cage built for us by the Framers.” He very quickly acknowledges and denies his opponent’s stance, stating that the only argument for the opposing side is a “Burkean” one, which rationalizes the existence of the Electoral College in terms of tradition and the fact that it would be too difficult to change. The core of his argument lies in three deeply-rooted claims. Firstly, the Electoral College sends candidates to the White House that did not receive the majority of the popular vote. Secondly, the bias that the Electoral College grants to small states was only necessary in 1787 when the founding fathers were trying to assure the ratification of the Constitution. Lastly, modern elections have become too centered on what we refer to as “battleground states.” “In fact,” he says, “99% of all expenditures by the two major-party candidates were concentrated in only 17 states.” These claims support his assumption that the Electoral College is an example of the costs of path dependence, “Whereby,” he states, “decisions made at time X become entrenched and shape future politics for decidedly ill.” I found Levinson’s opening statement to be quite persuasive. This argument could particularly inspire likeminded critics of the Electoral College. Even I, an avid supporter of the Electoral College, found it hard to disagree with Levinson’s argument, particularly his concept of path dependence—it’s hard to deny that the founding fathers were in a different position in 1787 than we are in 2012. Along with a strong argument, Levinson also has a plethora of real world examples to back up all of his main points. His strong logos is also complimented by his strong ethos. As stated before, he begins his argument by acknowledging the opposing side. Also, Levinson is clearly invested wholeheartedly in his argument, drawing from personal experience as well as hard facts to lend to his credibility as an author. Although he has, by all means, what can be considered as a strong argument, I find it hard to really grasp his refutation of the opposing side. His assessment that the argument for retaining the Electoral College as part of the political process is purely a “Burkean” one is unfounded, and it seems like he is rather unqualified to make such an assessment because he lacks concrete examples for that argument. Although Levinson helped me see the out dated nature of the Electoral College, he does not convince me of the need to abolish the current system. My next source is interesting because it is a direct rebuttal to the previous argument. Daniel H. Lowenstein, a professor of Law at UCLA Law School, offers up his five inconceivable reasons to support the Electoral College. He sets the stage by respectfully discounting the Burkean argument previously made by Levinson. He says that Levinson’s main objection is “theoretically and mathematically based.” An interesting point that Lowenstein brings up is that, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, it is “consent, not majoritarianism” of the governed. This point counters the claim the Levinson argued that a major problem with the Electoral College is its inability to truly choose the popularly elected candidate. His arguments are based in personal experience and conjecture. By the end of his argument he lists his five inconceivable reasons to preserve the Electoral College. First he claims that the Electoral College turns the many winners who fail to win the majority of the popular vote into majority winners. Secondly, The Electoral College causes presidential elections to be significantly oriented around the states. Thirdly, The Electoral College produces good presidents. Fourthly, the Electoral College confines electoral conflict to one state. Lastly, if we lose the “faithless elector,” we would lose what might someday turn out to be its greatest asset. These five claims make up the core of Lowenstein’s argument. Lowenstein’s argument, although convincing, was ultimately, in my opinion, not persuasive. Lowenstein establishes his opinion and background early on. His opinion reminded me much of my own opinion before further exploration. I held all of the same claims as truths, unfortunately, those claims were unwarranted. Lowenstein offers minimal to no support for his five inconceivable reasons to support the Electoral College. Unlike his opponent, who offers specific elections and campaign statistics as support for his arguments, Lowenstein does not do likewise—his argument seriously lacks logos, and thus makes it very difficult to fully grasp. Although he claims that Levinson is wrong for calling his argument a Burkean one, it seems as if his own argument is just that—theoretical and mathematical, seriously lacking in backing. Lastly, I chose to evaluate an article by Jack N. Rakove, an American historian, author, professor at Stanford University, and Pulitzer Prize winner. In his article, “Presidential Selection: Electoral Fallacies,” Rakove takes a two-pronged approach, acknowledging each side independently and diligently, although ultimately concluding that “we ought to hold both the Constitution and our own political behavior subject to a higher standard.” And in his opinion, that higher standard is “the principle of equality for all citizens, regardless of the accident of their residence in one state or another.” It seems, although he does not state, as if he is a proponent of change within the Electoral College—a change towards a more democratic system based on popular not electoral votes. He, like my first source, uses many examples within recent elections, especially 2000 and 2004, when criticism towards the Electoral College was most potent. His support, however, is not limited to the past decade. It actually stretches back all the way to 1787 and the Constitutional Convention. His support is not lacking in the slightest. His argument is the epitome of the rhetorical triangle. He includes not only strong logos and ethos, but also pathos. His ethos is mostly established from his credentials and his argument, which is grounded in the assessment of two other arguments. This approach that he takes assures the audience that he is just as confused as us, and that he wants to understand the question and answer with us. Although he addresses all of the same points made in the previous two sources, he does so in such a way that increases the pathos, which makes it much easier for me to grasp. Together with his strong evidence and strong credentials, Ravoke successfully completes the rhetorical triangle with his excellent pathos. All three arguments that I chose to look at examined certain aspects of the Electoral College that the author thought supported his argument for or against the Electoral College.
These aspects included the bias it provides not only small but also large states, the validity of a seemingly outdated system, and most importantly why a candidate can be elected to the presidency without the vote of the majority of the population. Although I never even thought of the Electoral College as outdated or something that needed change, I now have completely revised my view. From the arguments I heard, I feel like there is a much stronger argument for the abolition or amendment of the Electoral College system. I know believe, that although the Declaration of Independence states that democracy is a result of the consent not the majority of the governed, it is still unethical to take that basic power—the power to vote—away from the people. We must hold democracy to a higher standard, a standard that acknowledges, no respects “the principle of equality of all citizens, regardless of the accident of their residence in one state or
another.”
Works Cited
Levinson, Sanford, and Daniel H. Lowenstein. "Should We Dispense with the Electoral College." PENNumbra: University of Pennsylvania Law Review. University of Pennsylvania Law Review. Web. 13 Apr. 2012. .
Rakove, Jack N. "Presidential Selection: Electoral Fallacies." JSTOR. Political Science Quarterly, 2004. Web. 13 Apr. 2012. .
but be fascinated by such a debate. Before I began research, I was unaware that such a debate even existed. In reading the opposing arguments that I will later share with you, I found arguments both for the continuation of the Electoral College and the dismantling of it completely. Much of the debate centered on a few aspects of the Electoral College as it was written into the Constitution. Critics use the election of 2000, where Bush failed to receive the popular vote but still was sent to White House. On the other hand, supporters of the college point to the power that the system gives to the individual states. Both my background regarding politics and the magnitude of the debate itself leads me to ask the following question: Do certain aspects of the Electoral College warrant its abolition? My exploration began with the transcript of a debate between Professor Sanford Levinson, of the University of Texas Law School, and Professor Daniel H. Lowenstein, of UCLA Law School. Professor Levinson offers a political science perspective on the issue. He begins the debate by arguing that “true believers in majority rule should find it insufferable that the United States still employs a constitutional iron cage built for us by the Framers.” He very quickly acknowledges and denies his opponent’s stance, stating that the only argument for the opposing side is a “Burkean” one, which rationalizes the existence of the Electoral College in terms of tradition and the fact that it would be too difficult to change. The core of his argument lies in three deeply-rooted claims. Firstly, the Electoral College sends candidates to the White House that did not receive the majority of the popular vote. Secondly, the bias that the Electoral College grants to small states was only necessary in 1787 when the founding fathers were trying to assure the ratification of the Constitution. Lastly, modern elections have become too centered on what we refer to as “battleground states.” “In fact,” he says, “99% of all expenditures by the two major-party candidates were concentrated in only 17 states.” These claims support his assumption that the Electoral College is an example of the costs of path dependence, “Whereby,” he states, “decisions made at time X become entrenched and shape future politics for decidedly ill.” I found Levinson’s opening statement to be quite persuasive. This argument could particularly inspire likeminded critics of the Electoral College. Even I, an avid supporter of the Electoral College, found it hard to disagree with Levinson’s argument, particularly his concept of path dependence—it’s hard to deny that the founding fathers were in a different position in 1787 than we are in 2012. Along with a strong argument, Levinson also has a plethora of real world examples to back up all of his main points. His strong logos is also complimented by his strong ethos. As stated before, he begins his argument by acknowledging the opposing side. Also, Levinson is clearly invested wholeheartedly in his argument, drawing from personal experience as well as hard facts to lend to his credibility as an author. Although he has, by all means, what can be considered as a strong argument, I find it hard to really grasp his refutation of the opposing side. His assessment that the argument for retaining the Electoral College as part of the political process is purely a “Burkean” one is unfounded, and it seems like he is rather unqualified to make such an assessment because he lacks concrete examples for that argument. Although Levinson helped me see the out dated nature of the Electoral College, he does not convince me of the need to abolish the current system. My next source is interesting because it is a direct rebuttal to the previous argument. Daniel H. Lowenstein, a professor of Law at UCLA Law School, offers up his five inconceivable reasons to support the Electoral College. He sets the stage by respectfully discounting the Burkean argument previously made by Levinson. He says that Levinson’s main objection is “theoretically and mathematically based.” An interesting point that Lowenstein brings up is that, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, it is “consent, not majoritarianism” of the governed. This point counters the claim the Levinson argued that a major problem with the Electoral College is its inability to truly choose the popularly elected candidate. His arguments are based in personal experience and conjecture. By the end of his argument he lists his five inconceivable reasons to preserve the Electoral College. First he claims that the Electoral College turns the many winners who fail to win the majority of the popular vote into majority winners. Secondly, The Electoral College causes presidential elections to be significantly oriented around the states. Thirdly, The Electoral College produces good presidents. Fourthly, the Electoral College confines electoral conflict to one state. Lastly, if we lose the “faithless elector,” we would lose what might someday turn out to be its greatest asset. These five claims make up the core of Lowenstein’s argument. Lowenstein’s argument, although convincing, was ultimately, in my opinion, not persuasive. Lowenstein establishes his opinion and background early on. His opinion reminded me much of my own opinion before further exploration. I held all of the same claims as truths, unfortunately, those claims were unwarranted. Lowenstein offers minimal to no support for his five inconceivable reasons to support the Electoral College. Unlike his opponent, who offers specific elections and campaign statistics as support for his arguments, Lowenstein does not do likewise—his argument seriously lacks logos, and thus makes it very difficult to fully grasp. Although he claims that Levinson is wrong for calling his argument a Burkean one, it seems as if his own argument is just that—theoretical and mathematical, seriously lacking in backing. Lastly, I chose to evaluate an article by Jack N. Rakove, an American historian, author, professor at Stanford University, and Pulitzer Prize winner. In his article, “Presidential Selection: Electoral Fallacies,” Rakove takes a two-pronged approach, acknowledging each side independently and diligently, although ultimately concluding that “we ought to hold both the Constitution and our own political behavior subject to a higher standard.” And in his opinion, that higher standard is “the principle of equality for all citizens, regardless of the accident of their residence in one state or another.” It seems, although he does not state, as if he is a proponent of change within the Electoral College—a change towards a more democratic system based on popular not electoral votes. He, like my first source, uses many examples within recent elections, especially 2000 and 2004, when criticism towards the Electoral College was most potent. His support, however, is not limited to the past decade. It actually stretches back all the way to 1787 and the Constitutional Convention. His support is not lacking in the slightest. His argument is the epitome of the rhetorical triangle. He includes not only strong logos and ethos, but also pathos. His ethos is mostly established from his credentials and his argument, which is grounded in the assessment of two other arguments. This approach that he takes assures the audience that he is just as confused as us, and that he wants to understand the question and answer with us. Although he addresses all of the same points made in the previous two sources, he does so in such a way that increases the pathos, which makes it much easier for me to grasp. Together with his strong evidence and strong credentials, Ravoke successfully completes the rhetorical triangle with his excellent pathos. All three arguments that I chose to look at examined certain aspects of the Electoral College that the author thought supported his argument for or against the Electoral College.
These aspects included the bias it provides not only small but also large states, the validity of a seemingly outdated system, and most importantly why a candidate can be elected to the presidency without the vote of the majority of the population. Although I never even thought of the Electoral College as outdated or something that needed change, I now have completely revised my view. From the arguments I heard, I feel like there is a much stronger argument for the abolition or amendment of the Electoral College system. I know believe, that although the Declaration of Independence states that democracy is a result of the consent not the majority of the governed, it is still unethical to take that basic power—the power to vote—away from the people. We must hold democracy to a higher standard, a standard that acknowledges, no respects “the principle of equality of all citizens, regardless of the accident of their residence in one state or
another.”
Works Cited
Levinson, Sanford, and Daniel H. Lowenstein. "Should We Dispense with the Electoral College." PENNumbra: University of Pennsylvania Law Review. University of Pennsylvania Law Review. Web. 13 Apr. 2012. .
Rakove, Jack N. "Presidential Selection: Electoral Fallacies." JSTOR. Political Science Quarterly, 2004. Web. 13 Apr. 2012. .