The Trailing Democracy

As the days have been passing by in these last few months, I’ve been following as much of the Presidential Campaign Trail as I possibly can. There is obviously a limit to how much an individual can endure as they observe the constant twists-and-turns, while in the meantime attempt to decipher each of the candidates’ discourse. Some spectators would suggest that the upcoming Presidential Election is one of the most pivotal in American history, and while it’s axiomatic that the question “Who will be the next American President?” will always bear much significance, it's undoubtedly possible that there is some truth behind the assertion that this time around the stakes are considerably higher than ever, and well… perhaps there is no truth to this assertion at all... I have my doubts! (Now try to decipher that one...)

Either way, we must remember that Politicians are political creatures by nature, one quick look in the common dictionary will tell you that they (the ‘Creatures’) will “use underhand or unscrupulous methods in obtaining power” – those scurvy two-faced skulks.

Regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, I’m sure you can find something in each one of the Presidential Nominees positions appealing to you personally, and perhaps your ideal candidate is some type of fusion between all three. I would argue that if we looked deeply into every government, and all governors historically, we will find many significant differences between what we would call “Initial Positions” & “Pre-Election Promises” and than comparing them with their actions later on as “Head of State”.

My point is that nobody can (or will) deliver 100% of the goods (if they would we’d be living in Utopia by now), yet when it comes to American Politics there is a deep-rooted problem. There are some major flaws in our (so-called) Democratic Voting System which make matters much more complex, and in many ways could only be described as discouraging and despicable.

The Popular Vote

The most obvious example has to do with the 2000 Presidential Elections between George Bush (the 2nd) and Al Gore. Without getting into the major dramas that took place in Florida – which are interesting enough on their own terms – the fact of the matter is that Al Gore received 539,947 votes more than George W. Bush. In other words, unlike any other Democracy in the world (as far as I know) in our country the most popular candidate isn’t necessarily the winner of the elections. So much for Politics being a High-Stakes Popularity Contest!

Historically this type of event has occurred only once, though in reality it has been a close call (or closer call than it was in 2000) at least twice before. ‘Popular Vote’ wise, in 1960 John F. Kennedy had won the Presidency with a plurality margin of around 112,000 votes over Richard Nixon, and in the 1968 Elections Nixon defeated Hubert Humphrey by just under 512,000 votes. The difference between the 2000 Elections and the other two cases that I’d mentioned is that the President Elect was also the winner of the popular vote, unlike the “Unpopular” Bush victory in 2000.

The Unbalanced House of Senate

For those who don’t know how the U.S Senate’s representatives are elected, the system is actually quite simple. There are two Senate members representing each U.S State. This, to the naked eye, sounds fair enough (definitely simple enough), that is until you do some number crunching (and I’ll try to keep this part as simple as possible).

On one hand – "Group A":

• The 36 Million residence of California get to elect 2 Senators.
• The 21 Million residence of Texas get to elect 2 Senators.
• The 19 Million residence of New York get to elect 2 Senators.
• The 16 Million residence of Florida get to elect 2 Senators.

On the other hand – "Group B":

• The 781 Thousand residence of S. Dakota get to elect 2 Senators.
• The 642 Thousand residence of N. Dakota get to elect 2 Senators.
• The 626 Thousand residence of Alaska get to elect 2 Senators.
• The 494 Thousand residence of Wyoming get to elect 2 Senators.

In other words, the 92 Million people represented in “Group A” States have as much voting power as the (just over) 2.5 Million people in the “Group B” States as both “Groups” are represented by 8 U.S Senators. The problem, when we put these numbers to the test, is that 30% of Americans have as much power as 0.8% of Americans. In other words, and I find this part quite shocking on a personal level, each vote casted by a member of a ”Group B” state is worth roughly 38 times more than a vote casted by a member of any ”Group A” State. This is Democracy at one of its weirdest moments! (And one of the reasons why we’re not really living in a Democratic country but rather a Republic)

18th Century Political Science

With all due respect to our Founding Fathers, the American Political System is outdated. Back when the American Constitution and Bill of Rights were written they were considered the cutting edge of modern politics. The fact of the matter is that they didn’t know much about Democracy back in those days, definitely not as much as we know now, and just like any Science, Political Science has seen much progress in the last 200 plus years.

I’m not going to touch the issues of Slavery or the development of Women’s Rights, but the fact remains that a serious change was needed when the time came and what seems obvious to us now was obviously not obvious to the very intelligent and progressive men who founded our country. With that said, the way our voting system was designed, and the legal process that any bill must go through for any type of change to be put into law is mindboggling. Nonetheless, it is possible to change the system. Here are a few good reasons…

A Victory for Democracy

While I understand the logic on which the American Political System was based, and considering the general knowledge that existed during that period of time, it’s understandable why things are the way they are. But there is nothing wrong with looking across the Atlantic (or anywhere else for that matter) and adopting positive innovations that have been made since the 18th Century.

When we look at the scientific field of Politics, the concept of Proportional Voting should definitely be on the table in the United States. There are many ways to incorporate a Proportional Voting Representation into the American system, at least on a partial level (as I will demonstrate in a moment), and there are many reasons that I could think of for why this should happen.

For starters, those of us who live in States or Congressional Districts that are virtually uncontested have literally NO VOTE! If (for example) each state elects one Senator and the remaining 50 Senators were elected through a Proportional system, I’m willing to bet that the voter turnout numbers would rise significantly. In this type of scenario you don’t lose the State’s Representation and you gain a House that represents ‘We the People’ in much more of an accurate way. You can divide Congress similarly, a certain percentage of Proportional reps and a certain percentage for Local reps (For Example: 300 Congressmen through districts and 135 Congressmen Proportional – or any other agreed upon configuration)

Another good reason for this type of change is for people who feel strongly about one specific issue, they could vote for a party that represents them personally, whether it’s Environmental Issues, Abortion, or any other issue you could think of, there is an actual chance for our two-party system to become a three or four party system. If enough people (let’s say roughly a Million) feel strongly about an issue they should have someone in Washington fighting their battle. This reason as well would give us a much better and more accurate representation of voters. In so many words, it would be a victory for Democracy.