The birth of democracy in the United States did not come from the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. In fact, The Unites States was still not a democratic state when the Constitution was ratified in 1789. Actually, it wasn’t until the farewell address of George Washington, that the country’s status was cemented as a “stable democratic state” (Stromberg). But that’s for another research paper. What the International Discourse community seeks to do, is define the word ‘democracy’, and examine the current political environment of the United States to see if it still can be defined as such.
For many decades now, Americans have been questioning the actions of their own government. And in light of recent events, specifically the presidential election won by Donald Trump, these questions have become more prominent. What is a democracy? And can America still be defined as one in spite of the recent presidential election? To answer these questions this essay will examine the electoral college and its process. But first, we must establish an understanding of what a democracy is.
According to the Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary, a democracy, in the context
of politics and government, is “the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system
of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by or elected representatives
or directly by the people themselves”. Following this definition, then Americas government
qualifies as a democracy, but in order to accurately categorize America as such, we must look
beyond the formal definition and look at the operational definition. To do so, we must look at
how democratic traditions and practices are used in American politics today. America has a
population far too large for a direct democracy, as a result, the founding fathers put “indirect”
or “representative democracy” (The Independence Hall Association). A representative
democracy, in the most basic sense, is a form of government in which the officials are
elected by the citizens.
In theory, the citizens vote for their government officials, and these officials represent the
citizen’s ideas and concerns. The terms republic and democracy are now used interchangeably,
however, the founding fathers preferred the term republic because “it described a system in which
the interests of the people were represented by more knowledgeable or wealthier citizens who were
responsible to those that elected them” (The Independence Hall Association). This notion has
somehow changed in the past couple hundred of years, since one of the criticisms of representative
democracy states that “the representatives become the elites that seldom consult ordinary citizens”
(The Independence Hall Association). And if this is true, democracy in the United States does not
exist. Which brings us to the next point. A look at the electoral college system will demonstrate
how the interest of the majority of the people is not represented by the officials of the current
government of the United States. The best example demonstrating how, in 2016, Hillary Clinton
lost the presidential candidacy, while holding the popular vote.
To understand how such a situation can present itself, we must first understand how the electoral college works. After consulting many different sources such as CNN, the Washington Post, Huffington Post and the National Archives and Records Administration here is the basic structure of the electoral college process. Each state has electors, the number of electors allotted is the same number of representatives for that state in addition to the two senators. These electors are generally nominated at “state party conventions” but they can be chosen as well. On election day, voters select the elector representing their choice of the presidential ticket. The electoral votes are then tallied for each state/jurisdiction following a “winner takes all system. The “slate of electors and all of the electors for the presidential ticket that receives the most motes is appointed and all of the electoral votes for that state go to those candidates (except Maine and Nebraska)” (Washington Post). To win a presidential election, a candidate needs to win a majority of 538 votes. This, in theory, sounds like a fair and democratic process but it does not address a big issue: the national popular vote.
In the election that took place in 2016, Hilary Clinton outpaced President elect Donald Trump by 2.9 million votes. Her count was nearly sixty-six to his sixty-three million, however, Donald Trump defeated Clinton because of the electoral college system. In theory, the electoral college is democratic, but as proven, the results are not always in favor of true democracy. This seemingly unfairness has cause quite the debate. New bills such as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which class for electing a president by a national popular vote has been introduced, and so far, there have been 165 electoral votes for it, meaning it has reached sixty percent of the way to activation (Fair Vote). If such a bill can receive supporting votes, then members of the government have certainly recognized that the current electoral college process is faulty.
However, there are many opposing votes that do argue for the US being a democratic state. In a sense, The United States government is defined as a democracy, there is no denying that, but just because that is taught and told over the years, does not mean we cannot challenge the notion. Associations such as The American Hall Association argue that:
“democracies have come in many shapes and sizes as reflected by the different answers to questions of how, when and to which people power is given. And although not mentioned in the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution, democracy clearly likes to ‘rule of law’ to for a basic principle that profoundly shapes American Government”.
But can is it just to accurate to argue that the United States is a democracy when it recently contradicted the most basic core foundation of representing the majority of the people equally and fairly? It is easy to dismiss this argument as speculation, but looking at the bigger picture, the presidential election was just one of the many events in history that went against the democratic principles the founding fathers tried to establish when they were forming the government of the then new country.
The relationship between the government and the people is far more complex than it seems. The U.S. might fight the formal definition of democracy, but the operational definition seems to be different than the democratic practices that are applied in today’s politics. The nation and its government has changed dramatically since George Washington’s farewell address. As a result, its only normal that what constituted a “stable democratic” state is not what constitute one today. It’s not, necessarily, that we do live in an anti-democratic country, but rather we live in a different type of government that has not been defined yet, and so it is easier for the current government to keep the label it has had for all these years.
As former President Barack Obama said “It should be the power of our votes that drive democracy”. The voices of the American citizens should be heard and not ignored by the government. Past democratic traditions simply do not work the same way they did a couple hundred years ago, and this is why we need a reform. The current state of the United States does not represent a stable democratic nation; in fact, it resembles a collapsing democracy. Change needs to be enacted at every level of government in order to see true democracy. The International Discourse community does is not pushing for the new labeling of the current governmental system, rather it is pushing for the citizens to be aware and knowledgeable of their government. When in reality, the citizens are the ones who should have the power, and therefore it’s important for them to recognize the type of government they are following and to pursue change if needed.