"Evaluate the view that the procedures for electing US Presidents and members of Congress are not fit for purpose."

introduction

In this essay, “fit for purpose” refers to the effectiveness of U.S. electoral procedures in achieving fair representation, accountability, and efficient governance. This can be answered by whether the mechanisms used to elect the President and members of Congress align with democratic principles and meet the needs of a diverse and modern electorate. Overall, while there are significant criticisms regarding the procedures for electing the President and members of Congress, certain aspects serve their intended purpose, though reforms may still be necessary

paragraph 1: electoral college

• Point: The Electoral College is often criticized as outdated and undemocratic.

• Evidence/Explanation:

  • It can lead to a president elected without the popular vote, as seen in recent elections (e.g., 2000, 2016).

  • Smaller states receive disproportionate influence, undermining the principle of one person, one vote.

• Counterpoint: The Electoral College was designed to balance influence across states and prevent the domination of large population centers.

• Evaluation: while the Electoral College may protect state interests, it is no longer effective in ensuring democratic representation, thus making it partially unfit for purpose.

• Link: Overall, Electoral College’s failure to ensure fair representation + its disproportionate impact on smaller states suggests that this method of electing president may no longer be fit for purpose in a modern democratic society.

paragraph 2: primary system

• Point: The primary system can distort the democratic process and encourage polarization.

• Evidence/Explanation:

  • Primaries favor candidates with strong party support or substantial financial resources, often sidelining moderates.

  • Early primary states (e.g., Iowa, New Hampshire) hold disproportionate influence on the nomination process.

• Counterpoint: Primaries provide voters with more choice and a say in party candidates, which supports democratic engagement.

• Evaluation: Argue that while the primary system allows for public involvement, the current structure skews representation and enables polarization, thus weakening its effectiveness.

• Link: While primary system was designed to give public greater influence, its tendency to favour well-funded candidates means it falls short of achieving a truly representative process, challenging its fitness for purpose.

paragraph 3: Length of Term for Members of the House of Representatives (2 Years)

• Point: Two-year terms for House Representatives encourage constant campaigning and limit focus on policy.

• Evidence/Explanation:

  • Frequent elections create a “permanent campaign,” reducing legislative productivity.

  • Representatives may prioritize short-term gains and popular issues over complex, long-term policy solutions.

• Counterpoint: Short terms ensure accountability and that representatives stay in touch with constituent needs.

• Evaluation: While accountability is vital, the short term encourages reactive governance rather than effective long-term policy, thus making it partially unfit for purpose.

• Link: Thus, although two-year term structure aims to enhance accountability, the constant campaign cycle it creates limits effective policymaking, casting doubt on whether it is fully fit for purpose in achieving balanced governance.

conclusion

• Summarize key points: Reiterate how each aspect—Electoral College, primary system, length of terms—presents issues in terms of representation and accountability.

• Final evaluation: Conclude with your overall assessment, e.g., “While certain elements of the U.S. electoral procedures support democratic principles, significant flaws mean they are not fully fit for purpose. Reforms to improve fairness, accountability, and engagement are necessary for the system to meet contemporary democratic standards.”