Government

Corruption and power have completely changed the nature of America’s so-called representative democracy.  With increasing debates regarding human rights and government, American citizens' right to democracy is constantly being threatened. In Orwell’s 1984, he voices his fears of the government becoming too controlling and too powerful. For example he says, “ in the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it” (Orwell 53). And while we have not reached the point that Orwell writes about in his book, we do have parts of our representative democracy crumbling. Most seem to believe that all citizens in the US have an equal voice. However, that is far from the truth.  Many aspects within our written and unwritten constitution have allowed the abuse of power to go unnoticed and unregulated.  Our government systems like the electoral college, campaign finance, interest groups, lobbying, and even  the Supreme Court have failed us in protecting our rights to democracy and our basic human rights.  The people have the right to demand reform and politicians have the duty to answer.

Most citizens consider their right to vote essential in deciding who will be their President for the next four years.  However, does your vote count? America’s electoral college directly takes away power from the people and instead gives the decision of who will be America’s next president to a group of electors whose interests don’t always align with the people’s.  The main issue with the electoral college lies in the winner-take-all feature, which is not a law in the constitution but is considered common practice in all states excluding Nebraska and Maine.  Originally the electoral college was adopted under the premise that the people did not have the education to make a sound decision on who the next president of the United States will be.  In the 1700s they did not have ways to televise candidates’ platforms and most white male citizens didn’t have much knowledge on the inner workings of the government. In fact, most women did not even go to school and public schools weren’t as widespread as they are today (American Board).  In order to counteract the lack of education within the population, they decided to create an exclusive college consisting of educated individuals who will be able to properly choose the president.  But can the same be said about today’s population? Are we so uneducated that we cannot decide who the president will be? Social media, TV debates, and other forms of information are widespread.  In the 2020 election, 73 million people tuned in to witness the first debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden and in 2016 Trump and Clinton broke records, bringing in 84 million viewers (“US Election 2020…”).  We are no longer a nation that does not know their candidates and we no longer need a group of “higher educated” individuals taking control over our voting power (Schwarz).   Another reason for the creation of the electoral college was slavery.  The ⅗ compromise allowed lawmakers to give the south a vote proportionate to their population.  However, that same principle would not work if a direct popular election was conducted to elect the President.  In order to have a truly equal vote, the government would’ve had to have slaves vote in the election.  This was completely out of the question, but with the Electoral college the Southern states would retain the votes from their slaves since the number of electors of each state was equal to total senate and house members.  The most important thing to note about the creation of the electoral college in the 18th century is the fact that the framers of the Constitution did not think the Electoral College would actually choose the President.  They predicted that no one running for President would ever be so popular that they could win a majority of the vote.  Instead the plan was for the electoral college to narrow down the pool of candidates and then the House of representatives would make the final choice.  But today we see that the electoral college usually decides between two candidates, one from each party.  Simply put, the electoral college is outdated.  Numerous inadequacies of the Electoral College have come to light: multi-party elections in 1912, 1924.  1948.  and 1968; contested results in 1876 and in 2000; “minority” Presidents in 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000; and “faithless electors voting for candidates other than the ones they were chosen to vote for'' in 1948 and 1960 (Schwarz).  The electoral college has created this idea of swing states, which is a state in which no single candidate/party has support of the majority of voters.  Candidates cater their campaigns towards these swing states.  In the 2020 election, Pennsylvania and Florida, two major swing states, held ⅜ of all general-election campaign events (“Map of General-Election…”).  Similarly in 2016, ⅔ of the general-election events were held in just six swing states: Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.  The same principle applies to TV ad spending and the issues covered during presidential debates usually pertain to swing states.  So if you don’t live in a swing state, not only will you never see a presidential candidate visit your state, but your vote really doesn’t count.  For example, New York’s outcome is predictable therefore most democratic candidates can assume they will receive those votes no matter the number of voters.  Fixing an institution as old as the electoral college is an extreme challenge, although not impossible. Much like the corruption in the Presidential election, there is much greed and power associated with the election of our legislation.   

Our current legislative branch heavily relies on campaign financing, which takes power away from the people and gives it to the wealthy.  The increased role of money in elections can be attributed to SuperPACs and non-profits and the lack of regulation that is required of them.  In fact, during 2020 a grand total of $14 billion was spent on all federal elections. This is a dramatic increase from the $6.6 billion raised in 2016 (“Cost of election”).  So why has America’s campaigns become so expensive? For starters, the US is one of the few nations that requires the candidate to hire staff to run their entire campaign. This requires money since elections are candidate-centered, not party-centered meaning candidates are left on their own. In 2008, Obama set a new precedent by being the first presidential candidate to refuse public funding. The main problems with public financing include a spending cap on public financing  and the possibility of raising even more money if the candidate refused the government money. Congressional candidates do not receive public funding and all of their money comes from private sources like wealthy individuals, PACs, parties, etc. In 2012, a conservative nonprofit group named Citizens United decided to sue the FEC after they prevented CItizens United from airing a film that criticized Hilary Clinton. The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC set a precedent allowing corporations and other outside groups to spend an unlimited amount of money during elections without much regulation. While many consider spending a form of the first amendment right to speech, the ruling has “led to policies that benefit special interests, not policies that enjoy support from the majority of Americans” (Saez). Nonprofit organizations and SuperPACS began to raise unprecedented amounts of money after the ruling. PACs are fortunately limited to approximately $5000 per year to a candidate per election. Super PACs are a different story, these outside groups are permitted to spend an unlimited amount of money independently with very little regulation. Although super PACs must disclose their donors, it is not so clear as to where the billions of dollars are coming from. “...Donors can include dark money groups, which make the original source of the donations unclear” (Lau). Nonprofits like environmental groups or gun rights groups have the right to spend money without disclosing their donors by registering as “social welfare groups under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code” (Prokop). With our current system, third party candidates will never have a chance to win an election and unnecessary advantages are given to candidates who the people aren’t choosing. So why haven’t we taken steps towards reform? First of all, spending is considered a first amendment right and if any amendment or legislation tried to limit it, there would be outrage across the country.  Another barrier to reform is the incumbency advantage. Why would incumbents vote to reform a system that benefits them? The very last barrier is the issue of the Supreme Court. Without having a new amendment passed or the court overturning itself there is no way to reform campaign financing. Although difficult, reform is not impossible. Simpler solutions include having free or low cost TV time or forcing full public financing of all elections. It is our right to have equal and fair elections and that should apply to an equal and fair chance for all candidates to win.

In addition to the unfair tactics employed by the electoral college and candidates, there are also many laws enacted to prohibit voting. In fact, “in recent years, more than 400 anti-voter bills have been introduced in 48 states” (“ACLU…”). These include bills regarding voter ID laws, felony disenfranchisement, criminalization of the ballot box, voter roll purges, etc. Can this nation still call itself a democracy if not everyone gets an equal opportunity to vote? When looking at voter ID requirements, it’s clear to see that legislators are targeting  the votes of people of color and younger voters. In fact, some laws “requiring a physical street address discriminate against groups that are more likely to have P.O. Box addresses, such as Native Americans living on reservations” (Carnegie Corp). Laws that discriminate against citizens convicted of felony offenses also restricts voting rights. Approximately, “75% of disenfranchised voters live in their communities, either under probation or parole supervision or having completed their sentence” (Chung). It happens to be convenient that many of the citizens are part of a minority population. Both of these laws disproportionately affect communities of color and while the US has made many advancements to create racial equality, it is simply not enough. State legislatures themselves are making it harder for minorities to have their voices heard through the practice of district gerrymandering. When politicians decide to redistrict the map they often lean to one political party and draw lines that will help them win more seats in the house. Two tactics are used for gerrymandering, cracking and packing. Cracking is when groups of people with the same party are split apart so their voting strength is decreased. Packing is the opposite, politicians will try to cram groups of voters into very few districts. These methods have absolutely worked. For example in 2010, “gerrymandering was crucial to the Republican party’s strategy of undermining democracy” (Riley). In fact, republicans were able to draw 213 congressional districts in order to increase their chances of winning majorities in state legislatures. So how does district gerrymandering impact communities of color? In the Supreme Court case, Rucho v. Common Cause, the Supreme Court allowed, “Republican-controlled states to defend racially discriminatory maps on grounds that they were permissibly discriminating against Democrats rather than impermissibly discriminating against Black, Latino, or Asian voters” (Kirschenbaum). Since certain minority populations usually have the same political party affiliation, it’s easier for legislators to pack and crack those communities. These are just a few examples as to how our voting rights are prohibited by a plethora of laws and strategies employed by politicians. 

From voting to campaigns, many aspects of our electoral system are flawed and biased. And while politicians may be reluctant to bring attention to the flaws of today’s government, it our duty as citizens of a “representative democracy” to bring the change to the government

Work Cited

11 facts about the history of education in America. American Board Blog. (2019, October 17). Retrieved January 24, 2022, from https://www.americanboard.org/blog/11-facts-about-the-history-of-education-in-america/ 

“ACLU News & Commentary.” American Civil Liberties Union, 18 Aug. 2021, https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-voter-suppression-in-2020/. 

Carnegie Corporation of New York. “11 Barriers to Voting: Voting Rights.” Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1 Nov. 2019, https://www.carnegie.org/topics/topic-articles/voting-rights/11-barriers-voting/. 

Chung, Jean, and Marcy Mistrett and Mariana Espinoza. “Voting Rights in the Era of Mass Incarceration: A Primer.” The Sentencing Project, 3 Sept. 2021, https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/felony-disenfranchisement-a-primer/. 

“Cost of Election.” OpenSecrets,  1 April 2021 . https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/cost-of-election?cycle=2020&display=T&infl=N.

Kirschenbaum, Julia, and 206. “Gerrymandering Explained.” Brennan Center for Justice, 15 Dec. 2021, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/gerrymandering-explained. 

Lau, Tim. “Citizens United Explained.” Brennan Center for Justice, 6 Dec. 2021, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained.

“Map of General-Election Campaign Events and TV Ad Spending by 2020 Presidential Candidates.” National Popular Vote, 8 July 2021, https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/map-general-election-campaign-events-and-tv-ad-spending-2020-presidential-candidates.

Prokop, Andrew. “The Citizens United Era of Money in Politics, Explained.” Vox, Vox, 9 Feb. 2015, https://www.vox.com/2015/2/9/18088962/super-pacs-and-dark-money.

Riley, Theresa. “In 2010, Republicans 'Weaponized' Gerrymandering. Here's How They Did It.” BillMoyers.com, 13 July 2020, https://billmoyers.com/story/in-2010-republicans-weaponized-gerrymandering-heres-how-they-did-it/. 

Saez, Mariel. “Ten Years after Citizens United, House Democrats Call on Senate to Take up House-Passed Government Reform Measures.” The Office of Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, 14 Jan. 2020, https://www.majorityleader.gov/content/ten-years-after-citizens-united-house-democrats-call-senate-take-house-passed-government.

Schwarz, Frederic. “The Electoral College: How It Got That Way and Why We're Stuck with It.” AMERICAN HERITAGE, 1 Dec. 2021, https://www.americanheritage.com/electoral-college-how-it-got-way-and-why-were-stuck-it. 

“US Election 2020: Debate Pulled in 73 Million TV Viewers.” BBC News, BBC, 1 Oct. 2020, https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54365868.