=In recent U.S History, Donald Trump won the Presidential election while also losing the popular vote by almost three million votes to his counterpart, Hillary Clinton. In other words, on December 19, 2016 nearly three million citizens were not represented, and thus silenced by the United States federal government. The electoral system in the United States neglects the rights citizens have to elect government officials and participate in the democratic process. American citizens must become aware of the unfair system established in American society and why it calls for a necessity to reform its implications. There is unequal influence in election campaigns due to the superfluous amount of money that donors are allowed to give to candidates and the amount of money in total going toward one individual's campaign. The writers of the book, “By the People” state that in 2012 candidates running for presidency and Congress spent more than six billion dollars on their campaigns. The electoral college deprives the needs of citizens from being heard and recognized. The popular vote can be considered redundant because ultimately, it is the electoral college who has the final say in who becomes elected. Some states have more power than others in voting. The result of the corruption of the electoral college is evident in the 2016 presidential election and many more before then. There are also voting laws that restrict citizens from fully engaging in elections. From registration rules to election day operations, there are countless barriers that disable people from expressing their opinions through voting. What aspects of the electoral system must be reformed in order for all citizens to be able to participate in the democratic process? All citizens’ opinions and votes must be represented equally in elections and there must be a change in the amount of influence money has in politics. Furthermore, voting regulations must increase citizen participation and endorse a representative democracy.
Each citizen’s concerns are not represented proportionally and that is due to the electoral system that deprives their involvement in state and national elections. The ¨One-person One-vote¨ rule requires that every citizen’s vote be treated equally under the law. Therefore, the electoral college is violating the constitutional principle that gives each citizen equal voting rights. This is evident because electoral votes are not based on the size of a states’ population. Smaller states receive more representation by the electoral college system than bigger states. For example, citizens of Wyoming receive more than triple the amount of electoral votes than their Californian counterparts, according to the Washington Post. The table above shows just how many states are underrepresented and overrepresented. There are far more states that are overrepresented, making it unfair for states with larger populations. This translates to more citizens being deprived of their right to vote. How can this system exist when the constitution, that is the foundation for policy-making, states that each citizen must receive the exact same number of votes during elections? Our current government officials cannot reject our fundamental constitutional rights. It disables us from practicing the fullest extent of our citizenship. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 22 that "The fundamental maxim of republican government … requires that the sense of the majority should prevail¨. This ideology for republican government is rejected in modern-day government as the majority does not always have final say in decisions. The popular vote can be ignored if the electoral college decides to do so. Another detrimental flaw within the electoral college is that ¨faithless electors¨ choose to vote for the candidate of their own preference and not of the majority of the state. Only twenty two states require electors to vote for the states’ chosen candidate. That leaves the electors of the remaining twenty one other states able to neglect the opinions of its residents. Supporters of the electoral college see it as an essential and intelligent way of choosing our nation’s leaders. They advocate that it prevents large urban areas from dominating politics and leaving smaller rural areas without a voice. Therefore, eliminating the electoral college would be very difficult because many states insist on preserving the status quo. Congress or a national constitutional convention would have to take long and profound steps, including creating an amendment. It would then have to be ratified by either three-quarters of state legislatures or by state ratifying conventions in three-quarters of the states. The likelihood of this occurring is low as it would be a very extensive and complex process. However, allocating the electoral votes based on population would shape the election system into a more democratic system. We must consider that our votes are not being properly represented. The effects of this result in leaders whose interests and policies are not in favor of the publics’. Ultimately, The electoral college deflects the representative-democracy that would enable the concerns and opinions of Americans to be enacted through voting.
There must be regulations to the financing of campaigns as it is corrupt and unfair. More popular and known candidates have an advantage as wealthy donors give them excessive amounts of money to fund their campaigns. With those sources of income, they are able to expand their name and influence on a much larger scale. The media will cover one specific candidate over others because of how much money a candidate invests in television commercials and appearances. This is unfair to other candidates who aren't financially capable of advertising their campaign in the same way. If donors were limited to how much money they could give to candidates, there would not be unequal influence among candidates. However, wealthy donors are legally able to invert however much money they want into a political campaign. For instance, Donald Trump was able to spread his influence far more than his opposing candidates because of the amount of money he spent on his presidential campaign. This added to his popularity and recognition and played a significant factor in his victory in the presidential election. Additionally, public funding creates the gap between citizens and the political candidates. If citizens do not donate to the cause of political parties and candidates, they may be less likely to involve the ideas and concerns of citizens when issuing policies. A lot of candidates rely greatly on the contribution of donors. Many candidates are able to spread their campaign mainly through monetary volunteers. When this method is not occuring, the parties and candidates may not feel obligated to respond to the needs and opinions of ordinary citizens. Moreover, when the public funds political party and candidate campaigns, they are giving their money to non urgent causes when they could instead invest that money to schools and hospitals. The public should not have to fund the campaigns of political parties and candidates. That money could go towards meaningful causes that are in dire need of resources. America’s central focus should be on the education and health needs of citizens. Funds are being given to politicians who are very wealthy as it is. They do not need excess money for their campaign when they can afford to fund it themselves. If this was enacted, their campaign would maybe not be as widespread, but public funds would serve a more meaningful and effective purpose. Political campaigns are not as important as the education that is shaping the future of America and the health and necessary resources of citizens. There must be a fundamental separation between money and politics. The Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruled that campaign financing is protected by the first amendment. Financial contributions were seen to be a form of political speech. To the delight of conservatives, the citizen's legal right to fund campaigns was extended to large corporations and labor unions. This brings up the question: how are individual people equivalent to corporations? The ruling unfairly enabled rich donors, groups, and businesses to freely give however much money they want to political campaigns and thus, manipulate the election process. The Supreme Court has reduced the regulations of campaign financing in other ways, including the 5-4 ruling in 2014. There are now even less limits on how much money an individual can contribute to political campaigns. Those in favor of this ruling believe that Congress cannot intervene in citizens’ political participation. However, campaign financing plays a significant role in influencing elections, meaning that corruption is present in elections. There should at least be a rule that requires groups and organizations to disclose to the public how much money they contribute. Citizens have the right to know just how much businesses and organizations are paying to the enhance the influence of their political nominee through television commercials and other forms of advertisement. In order to more effectively solve the problem, there must be legislative changes to limit the amount of money individuals and organizations can donate. Regulating campaign financing could restore the integrity of the election system and make them more equal and fair.
The government must take measures to encourage and increase voting participation in order to ensure that all Americans have equal opportunity to be represented in elections. The use of older voting equipment in some jurisdictions has caused the disqualification of ballots. This occurs a lot less in jurisdictions with newer and therefore more accurate voting equipment. In many states older equipment was mainly put in low-income areas, which resulted in a significant amount of voters being disqualified. People of color who reside in these areas are not being prioritized by the government, which is why they don't receive the same quality of utilities as richer areas. There is a lack of funding for election administration, which is why many localities have not have the financial resources to hire election workers. The reason there is a high rate of citizens who do not vote can be due to the inability to register the weeks before election day. Eleven states do allow voters to register the same day of elections. There is no reason why this law should not be applied to all fifty states. It would not pose a threat to elections, it would rather increase voter turnout and provide a more accurate account of the public's opinions and desires. It could dramatically change the results of elections. In order for voting reform to occur, there should also be other changes in the election system. An absentee ballot should be available to any voter for any reason. The government should also consider allowing in-person voting a week before election day. It would increase the amount of people who vote. The more dates available to vote would not compromise with peopleś busy schedules. As some people do not have transportation to voting polls, there can be a a voting-by-mail system implemented like some states already have. Voting ballots may be difficult to understand for some voters. Enacting the Voter Friendly Ballot Act would eliminate this complication. Prisoners and ex-felons should be able to exercise the right to vote. If the prisoners remain citizens throughout their incarceration, why can they be treated the same as any other citizen under the law? The government can constrain their freedom, but cannot decline their citizenship. Many prisoners are exploited and receive cruel treatment behind bars. The best and most effect way to solve the issue is to allow prisoners to have a say in the way they are governed. The injustices prisoners endure call for justice. However, there is very little focus on the welfare of prisoners. This could change if prisoners were allowed to be involved in policy making as they could advocate for policies that could improve their own conditions. If we give prisoners the right to vote they will also be more like to participate in voting once they are released. This is why many post-prisoners are not involved in the voting process. The 6.1 million prisoner votes that could become valid could significantly impact elections. The chart above shows the amount of people convicted of felonies that have been silenced by the election system. Government agencies must examine the factors that disable citizens from fully participating in elections. They must take steps to refine the laws that have damaged the way in which people can cast their vote.
In conclusion, the fallacies of the election system call for serious reform. The electoral college does not properly represent each citizen, as the popular vote is not always taken into account. The eradication of the electoral college is not likely but the importance of equal representation remains. There are other regulations and options such as the allocation of electoral votes on a population basis that would still allow the nation to uphold its democratic principles. There is also too much money being invested into political campaigns. Consequently, this manipulates the election process. There must be more regulations concerning the amount of money that donors can give to candidates. The voting experience is also challenged by factors that disable participation. There are both simple and broad laws that could drastically change who and how people vote. In order for all citizens to collectively contribute to the democratic process, our government officials must enact changes to ensure that every lawful citizen can cast a meaningful vote and be properly represented.