| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | The Current Structure of Voting Causes Problems for American Republicanism
The oft repeated goal of the American voting system is to provide each citizen an equal opportunity to elect his representatives. In almost every election, no matter the winner or loser, both candidates make a point to tout the success of the electoral system and how it stands for everything quintessentially American, freedom, choice, democracy. But a quick look at our voting system when compared to the other liberal democracies of Western Europe tells a different tale. Voter turnout and registration in the United States remains comparatively lower than that of other Western democracies. Even in the most hotly contested presidential elections, turnout among the voting eligible population hovers around 60% (55% if you count the almost 10 million voting ineligible), and in legislative elections with no presidential vote, turnout is around 40%. Given the amount of media coverage around a Presidential election, this seems a strange phenomenon. Western Europe, by contrast, has voter turnout between 75-80%. | |
<
< | Sometimes, candidates who win the popular vote do not win the Presidency, as we saw in 2000. Results like these only encourage political parties to pursue a strategy of total war in 10 or 12 states, while ignoring states they consider lost causes or easy wins. | >
> | Sometimes, candidates who win the popular vote do not win the Presidency, as we saw in 2000. Results like these only encourage political parties to pursue a strategy of total war in 10 or 12 states, while ignoring states they consider lost causes or easy wins. Identity politics, where candidates compete to lock down specific voting blocs, is commonplace. Additionally, the system disenfranchises voters in states considered solidly in one camp or another. | | | Historical Underpinnings of American Electoral Institutions | |
<
< | The current system has its roots in pre-colonial norms and practices. The Electoral College was created at a time when people did not cast direct votes for president. The Founders did not trust the mass of people to vote for the Executive. The vote was extended to poor white males, blacks, women, and voters between the ages of 21. Despite the names on the ballot being for presidential candidates, voters today still vote for slates of electors, who are technically free to cast their ballots for any presidential candidate they choose, although some laws exist to punish so-called "faithless electors."
By federal statute, Election Day is set for the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. In pre-industrial American society, days were required for travel, so voters were expected to attend church on the Sabbath, travel on Monday, and vote on Tuesday. | >
> | The current system has its roots in pre-colonial norms and practices. The Electoral College was created at a time when people did not cast direct votes for president. The Founders did not trust the mass of people to vote for the Executive. The vote was extended to poor white males, blacks, women, and voters between the ages of 21. Despite the names on the ballot being for presidential candidates, voters today still vote for slates of electors, who are technically free to cast their ballots for any presidential candidate they choose, although some laws exist to punish so-called "faithless electors." By federal statute, Election Day is set for the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. In pre-industrial American society, multiples days were required for travel to and from the polls, so voters were expected to attend church on the Sabbath, travel on Monday, and vote on Tuesday. | | | The Modern System Must Adapt | |
>
> | Our modern system suffers from neither of these problems. Tuesday is now part of the traditional 40-hour, 9-5 day work week. If polls open at 8 and close at 8, that insures people will be shunted into two time slots, before work and after work. Many Americans do not work where they are registered to vote. We no longer publicly hold a view that it is unwise for the people to elect their executive. | | |
Possible Solutions to Increase Voter Turnout and Create a More Equitable Voting System | |
<
< | Change Election Day
Low voter turnout cannot only be explained by an Electoral College system that encourages concentrating attention and resources on a few "battleground" states. Even in states like Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Florida, and Ohio, turnout rarely reaches over 70%. Additionally, turnout is lowest amoung members of the poor and working class. The problem of how to increase voter turnout on days when people are expected to go to work and take their children to school is a not a new one, and the solution is simple, either move Election Day to the first Saturday in November, make it a national holiday, or do both. | >
> | Move Election Day
Low voter turnout cannot only be explained by an Electoral College system that encourages concentrating attention and resources on a few "battleground" states. Even in states like Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Florida, and Ohio, turnout rarely reaches over 70%. Additionally, turnout is lowest among members of the poor and working class, and highest among the rich. The problem of how to increase voter turnout on days when people are expected to go to work and take their children to school is a not a new one, and the solution is simple, either move Election Day to the first Saturday in November, make it a national holiday, or do both. | | | Introduce Same-Day or Automatic Registration | |
<
< | Same day registration has long been opposed on the ground that it will encourage voter fraud and increase lines and waits at polling places. A system of automatic national voter registration, similar to the Selective Service System, would be the easiest | >
> | Same day registration, where voters can register at the polls, has long been opposed on the ground that it will encourage voter fraud and increase lines and waits at polling places. A system of automatic national voter registration, similar to the Selective Service System, would be the easiest solution. This has already been used in Europe with very successful results. Perhaps something in the American psyche, such as the struggle many groups have had to gain the franchise, caused a idea that anyone wishing to vote needs to do more than simply "show up." Voter registration is the province of state governments, and so any solution here will need to be instituted state-by-state, or by Constitutional amendment. | | | Abolish or Neuter the Electoral College
The proposal that would engender the most criticism would involve eliminating the Electoral College entirely through a constitutional amendment, or convincing enough states to sign a compact awarding all of their votes to the popular vote winner. A few states have already passed laws requiring the electors to cast their ballots for the winner of the presidential popular vote, and once enough states pass these laws The Electoral College is a long-standing institution in American politics, and one that has served its purpose. Meant to protect the interest of smaller states, today it disenfranchises individual voters of both major parties and third parties. Candidates for president love Massachusetts and Texas donors, but would trade two Massachusetts or Texas votes for every Pennsylvania or Florida vote. Money flows from wealthier states into battleground states, and campaign volunteers are in high demand, leading to a reliance on the party's base, not as voters, but as a pool of labor for volunteering. | | | These solutions seem simple enough, and only the elimination of the Electoral College entirely would require a Constitutional amendment. Given the recent problems with the voting system, change should be self-evident, but much of the focus is on campaign finance reform.
How the War Will be Fought | |
<
< | The weapons in the battle for voting reform will be words and op-ed pieces. The rhetoric used by the interests in power will appeal to voters' sense of patriotism, history, tradition, and individualism. There will be appeals to the Founding Fathers "if the Electoral College was good enough for them, why isn't it good enough for you?" and to the mythical "good voter,": "if someone can't take an hour to go register to vote, or spend their lunch break at the booth, why should we change what the good voters have been successful at for so long. If they don't want a say in the government, forget them." This rhetoric, however, is no different than the rhetoric used to stifle change at every opportunity. What will allow for real voting reform is to understand and defeat the interests who have no reason to change the current system. | >
> | The weapons in the battle for voting reform will be words and op-ed pieces. The rhetoric used by the interests in power will appeal to voters' sense of patriotism, history, tradition, and individualism. There will be appeals to the Founding Fathers "if the Electoral College was good enough for them, why isn't it good enough for you?" and to the mythical "good voter,": "if someone can't take an hour to go register to vote, or spend their lunch break at the booth, why should we change what the good voters have been successful at for so long? If they don't want a say in the government, forget them." This rhetoric, however, is no different than the rhetoric used to stifle change at every opportunity. What will allow for real voting reform is to understand and defeat the interests who have no reason to change the current system. | | | The National Parties | |
<
< | | >
> | The national parties have been fighting the same election battles in the same states for 25 years. These battles are familiar and easy for them- they need to tailor their messages to independent voters in a few key states. In a true popular vote, however, the side that wins will not only need to convince independents, but also increase turnout among voters in high-population states or states where they have a strong base that does not vote. This will require many different messages, tailored to different | | | The Media
The Battleground States
| |
<
< | Social Control Through the Imposition of | >
> | Social Control Through the Imposition of Choices Between Rights | | |
America Can Be Divided Into Three Major Classes, But All Americans Desire Security | |
<
< | American society consists of three broadly defined socioeconomic groups, although there are divisions within those groups such as the upper-middle class and the lower-middle class. The first group is the upper-class. These are Americans who have achieved such a level of wealth that they can guarantee themselves and their families security, not only for the duration of their lives, but for some generations afterward. The middle class is a group that, if they maintain their current standard of living, will have security for the rest of that individuals life, and may be able to leave some for their children. The lower-class has no security. | >
> | American society consists of three broadly defined socioeconomic groups, although there are recognized divisions within those groups, such as the "upper-middle class". The first group is the upper-class. These are Americans who have achieved such a level of wealth that they can guarantee themselves and their families security, not only for the duration of their lives, but for some generations afterward. The middle class is a group that, if they maintain their current standard of living, will have security for the rest of that individuals life, and may be able to leave some for their children. The lower-class has no security. | | |
Security is a nebulous term that includes more than simply wealth, although wealth is a sizeable component. Security also includes opportunity (the ability for one and one's children to increase the amount of security they have through education, a career with advancement potential), physical safety, membership in a stable community, participation in the dominant cultural institutions, and the option to adopt the values and morals of the dominant culture because your group has contributed in some way to that culture. With some exceptions, most Americans desire security over anything else.
| | |
The three classes of rights that improve one's access to security are, in no order of preference, economic/physical protection, civil/political participation, and cultural/social input. Economic/physical protection means, among other things, safety from government-imposed violence or violence perpetrated because of a lack of effective government, providing one's family with a comfortable standard of living that includes non-essential items and access to a decent education. Civil/political participation is the ability to donate to candidates, speak freely, assemble, vote, and become a member of civic organizations that increase one's political influence. Culture/social input means having the values of your group influence the dominant values and morals of the wider culture.
| |
<
< | Traditionally, the wealthy have controlled all three of these classes of rights. The rich continue to get richer, and even during the high-taxation years preceding Ronald Reagan were able to afford residency in sheltered communities, safe from the physical violence of the streets, with good schools. Unless a member of the upper-class falls into an otherwise despised group, such as Communists, participation in the political process is also guaranteed. Finally, the upper-class are largely responsible for creating two of the dominant mythical culture figures in modern American society, the American businessman (an extension of the frontiersman of old) and the nuclear family (with the individual role of husband/provider, mother/caretaker, and children so specifically defined). These mythologies ultimately benefit the wealthy in terms of encouraging social stability, increased consumption, and a bias against government being used to engineer more security. | >
> | Traditionally, the wealthy have controlled all three of these classes of rights. The rich continue to get richer, and even during the high-taxation years preceding Ronald Reagan were able to afford residency in sheltered communities, safe from the physical violence of the streets and the hopelessness of urban schools. Unless a member of the upper-class falls into an otherwise socially despised group, such as Communists, participation in the political process is also guaranteed. Finally, the upper-class are largely responsible for creating two of the dominant mythical culture figures in modern American society, the American businessman (an extension of the frontiersman of old) and the nuclear family (with the individual role of husband/provider, mother/caretaker, and children so specifically defined). These mythologies ultimately benefit the wealthy in terms of encouraging social stability, increased consumption, and a bias against government being used to engineer more security. | | |
The poor have none of these rights. For example, poor blacks during segregation could be beaten and killed at the whim of the majority, lived in abject poverty, had no input into the political system, and were vilified and negatively stereotyped by the dominant culture. Control is established by the upper-class, unconsciously, by offering the middle class a choice between classes of rights. That is to say, the middle-class will always face a choice between having some of the pie or none of it, without any consideration to whether they or the poor might be able to have it all. The one idea that must exist for this system to survive is that enjoyment of all these rights by all people is impossible, and that using government to establish rights for the lower class would involve permanently reducing the rights of the middle and upper classes. |
|