5.4 Interpretations and debates of US democracy and participation

Evaluate the view that the process of electing presidential candidates is deeply flawed

Intro:

The Constitution establishes the Electoral College as method of electing the President every 4 years
Nonetheless, the Constitution left it to the states to decide how these elections would work. So, other than election day nothing else in terms of the presidential election process is fixed.
Despite the benefits of the election process evidently adhering to the principle of federalism, as each state decides and the arguably ‘anti-tyrannical’ nature of faithless electors, due to the existence of Super PAC’s and an unrepresentative electoral college it is far stronger to argue in agreement.

A - It could be argued that the use of invisible primaries in electing a president is not deeply flawed as it enhances participation

B - This is because, via media debates, it allows the electorate an insight into which direction each candidate ideologically align with and getting the public to converse about politics. As well as this it also allowed candidates to gain money in order to finance their formal election campaign, it is said that Trump has earned $2 billion from free media attention.

C - But, I would counter this and argue that primaries actually show more divisions within a party rather than enhance participation i.e. Harris and Biden - which could have negative affects on participation

Therefore, it is far stronger to argue that the informal nature of the invisible primaries provide far more negatives to US politics. For instance, media spin and the use of sound bites - i.e. ‘Lying Ted’

D - Therefore, despite the positives of primaries of potential enhancing participation, I would argue its informal nature of sound bites and party divisions provide more harm for democracy than good.

A - It could be argued that the use of primaries are not democratically flawed due to each state having delegates and therefore are of democratic value as well as upholding the principle of federalism as each state choose how they do this

B - Primaries can either be opened or closed with just paid up members of the party or any registered voter within that state for their delegates to vote at the party convention

Or, caucuses which are always open and take place in town halls ( only used by 4 states )

This can be deemed as democratic as each state will feel of equal democratic value in electing their parties candidate and therefore enhance participation

C - But, I would counter this firstly with the potential corruption of open primaries due to tactical voting from the opposition party.

As well as this, its democratic nature is then completely undermined by the nature of campaign finance in US elections. This is because following the Citizens United v FEC 2010 case the SCOTUS declared that limiting individual/corporation spending on campaigns breaches the first amendment. Therefore, giving rise to Super PAC’s which can source unlimited finance as long as it is not directly given to a candidate/party.

For example Musk gave 70 million to support Trump’s campaign via the American PAC which later became a Super PAC

D - Therefore, primaries undoubtedly uphold the constitutional principle of federalism and potentially enhance participation. However, the potential corruption of open caucuses and primaries completely undermine this. As well as this, due to the corruption surrounding campaign finance for then presidential candidates it undermines any democratic nature within the primary stage.

A - It could be argued that the electoral college is not deeply flawed as it guards against tyranny of majority which is what the Founding Farther’s intended.

B - This is because the Farther’s were not convinced about the wisdom surrounding popular sovereignty and ‘tyranny of the majority’ and electoral college disperses power away from the public. This can be seen via unfaithful electors who do not vote for the candidate they have been instructed to . This was purposely done by the Founding Farther’s which provides a strong argument that it is not deeply flawed due to its intentional nature.

C - However, it is far more compelling to argue that the electoral college is deeply flawed due to its lack of adequate representation.

This is because small states are vastly over represented with California having 54 ECV’s with a population of over 40 million and Wyoming having 3 and a population of nearly 600,000

Therefore, giving voters in smaller states far more power in determining who their ECV go towards.

Similarly, in 2016 California had 4 million votes for Trump - making it the 3rd most ‘Republican’ state yet Clinton won as she got marginally more. Therefore, all 4 million Republican party voters were simply disregarded.

D - Therefore, it could be argued that the electoral college is not deeply flawed as it is what the Founding Farther’s intended but in 1787 slaves were also deemed as 3/5 of a person and women didn’t have the vote. Because of this, it is far stronger to argue the unrepresentative nature of the ECV’s is deeply flawed regarding the election of a president.

Incumbency conveys an unfair advantage in Congressional and Presidential elections

Intro:

Incumbents have a compelling advantage in both Congressional and Presidential elections which is predominantly down to name recognition
However, as recent trends have shown in both Congress and the Presidential election it is not something that can be relied on anymore
More so, I would argue that the aspect the election process provides unfair advantages in recent years
Therefore, incumbency is an undeniable advantage yet not something that solely wins elections

A - It could be argued that congressional incumbency conveys an unfair advantage regarding the ideological alignment of the state/district which decreases the accountability of representatives

B - This can be seen with Texas Senator Ted Cruz who went on a holiday to Mexico during hurricanes in Texas yet still remains in his position today as Texas would never elect another Senator due to their innate Republican affilitaion

Therefore, providing evidence that incumbency regarding Congressional elections prevails as it allows for representatives to essentially go unchecked

C - However, in recent years this is no longer a sufficient argument as in 2020 7 incumbent Senators were replaced in the HoR which proves that the electorate are willing to hold these people to account.

In the 2018 midterms, several incumbent Democrats, like Joe Donnelly of Indiana, and one Republican, Dean Heller of Nevada, lost their re-election bids. These losses were partly due to perceived vulnerability of their seats, leading to substantial external funding pouring into their opponents' campaigns.

D - Therefore, undeniably incumbency provides an advantage as your district knows who you are. However, due to the lack of job security provided by incumbency I believe it would be inaccurate to declare it an unfair advantage in recent climates.

A - It could be argued that presidential incumbency provides an unfair advantage due to their ability to exert presidential powers during their campaign

B - This can be seen with Obama in 2012 when Hurricane Sandy hit the US and he toured disaster hit areas and appeared as a strong President which aided his campaign. In comparison, opponent Romney faced a media blackout.

Therefore, incumbency makes it far easier to show the electorate a candidates capabilities in office which provides an essence of stability.

C - However, I would argue that in recent years this is no longer the case.

As seen in the 2020 election Biden beat incumbent Trump. This is likely due to the Covid pandemic, the electorate were not satisfied with Trump’s handling and wanted change. Similarly, Biden made gains with many minority groups such as Asians and Hispanics.

Moreover, this can be seen again in 2024 when Biden lost his position as people believed he was now ‘too old’ and not an efficient leader

D - Therefore, providing substantial evidence that just because a President is an incumbent does not mean the electorate won’t hold them to account if they aren’t acting right. Therefore, historically, an incumbent President is difficult to beat due to the aspect of stability but in recent years this is simply not enough when the electorate feel as though they require change.

A - In both Congress and the Presidential elections incumbents have the ability to raise alot of finance which inherently aids they campaign

B - This can be seen in Congress :

Within the senate non-incumbent members – raised $1.8m Vs $12.8m with incumbent members from Senate.
Same in Houses of Representatives too, with only $1.6m vs $0.2m.

Similarly, the incumbent President ultimately earns alot of finance which can be seen in 2020 where Trump aquirred $1.44 million compared to Biden’s $1.06million

C - However, as seen by the outcome of 2020 the amount raised due to incumbency was simply irrelevant.

Therefore, it is far stronger to argue the election process itself provides an unfair advantage rather than incumbency.

This can be seen via the electoral colleges

This is because small states are vastly over represented with California having 54 ECV’s with a population of over 40 million and Wyoming having 3 and a population of nearly 600,000

Therefore, giving voters in smaller states far more power in determining who their ECV go towards.

And in 2016 Clinton actually beat Trump in the popular vote yet due to the system of voting she lost !

D - Therefore, it is far more compelling to argue that the finance raised due to incumbency is fairly irrelevant to the outcome as shown in 2020. More so, the unfiarness of the election process is far more of an unfair advantage, with different states providing different weighting and therefore the popular vote being disregarded in election outcomes.

Evaluate the view that the ECV system needs reform

Purpose:

Enhance democracy and prevent tyranny i.e. faithless electors
BUT POTUS can win the election without the popular vote and highly unrepresentative due to differing weighting

A - Some may argue that the ECV prevent tyranny of the majority naturally, this is due to the aspect of faithless electors

B - This is because the Founding Farther’s were not convinced about the wisdom of the popular sovereignty and therefore this indirect form of election disperses power away from the public. Therefore, under the principles of an organic constitution, due to the Founding Farther’s intentions, the ECV should not be reformed

C - However, this is a weak argument because not only has the number of faithless electors reduced in recent years, as of 2024 there were 0. Furthermore, the ECV system completely underpins the foundational principles of popular sovereignty as 2 POTUS in the last 25 years won yet didn’t win the popular vote

Trump in 2016 lost the popular vote to Hilary Clinton but gained 303 electoral votes therefore became the President
Similarly Bush lost the popular vote to Gore who gained 0.5% more of the popular vote to him in 2000

D - Therefore, providing the argument that the system of ECV is flawed as it completely underpins the ideals of popular sovereignty and actually provides tyranny of the minority. Why should singular electors be allowed ‘tyranny’ over the outcome of the election over the will of the people?

A - The system of ECV ensures that all states, including smaller states, are represented.

B - This is vital because the US population is heavily concentrated in a few big states and therefore the culture and ideological difference of states such as Texas may take over of the traditions of smaller states were simply ignored i.e. religion/discrimination.

Furthermore, it is an exemplar case of federalism. Each state has its own electoral procedures regarding the ECV i.e. some states use electors proportionately and others use them in a winner takes all system

C - However, the democratic nature of this argument is undermined by the over representation of smaller states in the ECV system.

For instance, Michigan exerted 51 times more influences than states like Utah in the 2016 race

Cali has 54 electors for a population of almost 40 millions whereas Wyoming has 3 electors for a population of nearly 600,000.

Therefore, the voters in Wyoming carry much more weight in influencing the outcome of the election.

I.e. in 2016 in Cali 4 million people votes Trump, the 3rd ‘most republican’ state, yet because Clinton got more - she got all the electoral college votes leaving 4 million people unrepresented

D - Therefore, it is far more compelling to argue that ECV is not democratic due to the over representation of small states which may in turn have influence on the participation rate if people feel their votes are wasted. Because of this, the ECV needs urgent reform to reduce the over rep of smaller states and under rep of larger states as the distribution of ECV’s evidently isn’t representative.

A - The ECV system provides a clear winner due to the pluralistic system of FPTP

B - Because of this, providing a majority government as well as legitimate mandate to govern which in turn proves as a democratic argument.

As well as this, there is no consensus of what should replace the ECV system - despite suggestions such as proportional allocation - due to the difficulty of amending the constitution and a highly partisan govt. this is near impossible.

C - The system of ECV results in the tactical nature of Presidential campaigns which undermines democratic principles

2016 - Clinton didn’t even visit Cali because she knew it was a ‘safe’ state
2016 - Trump didn’t visit Texas as he also knew it was a ‘safe’ state
Similarly, in 2020 - both candidates visited Michigan, Penn, Florida and Wisconsin - bellwether states are renowned fro having large influences on election outcomes

However, they both visited Florida 35 times during the campaign and this is because it was a swing state where Trump only won from a majority of 100,000 out of 9 million

Therefore, states who have a strong ideological alignment are virtually ignored in presidential campaign as they are seen as ‘safe’.

D - Because of this, undermining democratic principles due to a lack of political education. If neither candidates visit a state - how can they be sure they want them as POTUS? This may also have an impact of the participation rate if voters feel completely ignored by candidates as they’re no longer trying to win them over.

Evlt the view that systems in place to elect President and Congresspeople is ineffective

Incumbency
ECV
Pramaries and Caucuses ?

A - It could be argued that the system of ECV regarding electing the President is effective as it ensures that all states, including smaller states, are represented.

C - However, the democratic nature of this argument is undermined by the over representation of smaller states in the ECV system.

For instance, Michigan exerted 51 times more influences than states like Utah in the 2016 race

Cali has 54 electors for a population of almost 40 millions whereas Wyoming has 3 electors for a population of nearly 600,000.

Therefore, the voters in Wyoming carry much more weight in influencing the outcome of the election.

I.e. in 2016 in Cali 4 million people votes Trump, the 3rd ‘most republican’ state, yet because Clinton got more - she got all the electoral college votes leaving 4 million people unrepresented

A - It could be argued that congressional incumbency conveys an unfair advantage regarding the ideological alignment of the state/district which decreases the accountability of representatives - therefore the election process of Congressmen in ineffective

Therefore, providing evidence that incumbency regarding Congressional elections prevails as it allows for representatives to essentially go unchecked

In the 2018 midterms, several incumbent Democrats, like Joe Donnelly of Indiana, and one Republican, Dean Heller of Nevada, lost their re-election bids. These losses were partly due to perceived vulnerability of their seats, leading to substantial external funding pouring into their opponents' campaigns.

A - It could be argued that the process of electing presidential candidates is effective via primaries and caucuses

B - This is because, primaries and caucuses are a a perfect illustration of federalism within the US election system. i.e. 2020 4 states held caucuses and the rest held primaries. These are organised events by individual parties in each state where they publically vote for the presidential candidate they prefer

There can be open primaries ( all votes ), closed primaries ( only party members vote ) and semi-closed

C - However, many argue that those states who use a system of open voting leaves room for corruption for opposition party members to tactically vote for a candidate.

Similarly, the argument of front loading provides an argument of how this system is not democratic

This is because there is a trend to move the timings of primaries and caucuses ever earlier with Iowa and New Hampshire typically being the first states to vote

This is because Feb - June is a long time and those states at the back of the queue usually have little influence as the decision for presidential candidate it already decided

i.e. 2020 Trump gained a majority of delegates on the 17th March but 35 states were still yet to hold their primaries yet including highly populated states such as Cali

Therefore many states participate in Super Tuesday but the problem is still apparent nevertheless as seen in 2020

D - Therefore, the very fact the earlier the primary the more influence it holds undermines basic democratic principles due to differing weightings of different states primaries as a result. Super Tuesday has only ever seen max 47% delegates in 2008 therefore the problem remains persistent.

Evaluate the view that selecting candidates is effective and democratic - caucuses and primaries

Primaries / ‘Invisible Primary’
Caucuses - state based series of meetings i.e. Iowa ( little states )
National Convention ( formally candidate is decided ) - Super delegate ( Only Republican party )

A - Primaries and caucuses and democratised the process of selecting presidential candidates because they’ve reduce the role of Party Bosses

B - Prior to 1972, Presidential candidates were chosen at the National Convention - ‘smoke filled rooms’ - favours for support - very corrupt - old system for ‘fat cats’ having an undue influence on party selections.

Now, each state sends delegates to vote at the party elections in the way that their primary/caucus voted for

Democrats - Mix - PR and winner takes all

Republican - winner takes all

Therefore, the new system has weakened the grasp on the Establishment in selecting presidential candidates

Bill Clinton and Trump both considered ‘outsiders’ not part of establishment

C - However, it is far stronger to argue that primaries are not democratic - Delegates have proven they are willing to ignore the votes of the primaries

This can be seen by the speedy coronation of Harris after Biden was unfit for the job - this is because numerous delegates publically spoke out about their support for her therefore dismissing the political voices of millions - cast their ballot for Biden earlier in the year

Super delegates are still influencial despite not getting a vote in the second round of counting if the second round of counting doesn’t take place - publicly endorse candidates - 2008 - changes from Clinton to Obama

2016 - Hillary Clinto received the majority of super delegates public support over Sanders - this may have made her appear as the inevitable option - therefore helping her campaign - helping advertisement funding

D - Therefore, it is far stronger to argue that there is still establishment influence via selecting a president, definitely in the democrats

A - It could also be argued that primaries and caucuses give voters more choice and this is because more candidates step up - as it becomes increasingly more possible for ‘normal’ people to be selected

B - 11 Democrats in 2020 stood for president candidcacy and at least 20 Republicans won votes in the 2024 Primaries

Super Tuesday is now held also where many states hold their primaries on the same day

C - However, despite this fact, it is usually the expected candidates ( i.e incumbents ) that prevail - 2024 - speedy victory of both Trump and Biden as a result on incumebency which effectively disenfranchises all others that stepped forward

Only Nikki Haley and Trump remained in the Republican race - yet Trump won 54/56 primaries which appears all but telling

Both Trump and Biden secured a majority of delegates after barely ½ of the states had even held a primary

Caucuses in comparison to primaries are far less representative this is becayse turn out is far lower

Just 15% of registered republicans in 2024 in caucuses - they fail to promote participation - this is due to the long time and political engagement - due to its meeting style of format

D - Therefore, voters with an increased choice of candidates are for those states who vote first such as Iowa - otherwise the decision is pretty much finalised - half way through

A - It could be argued that primary elections increase political participation as it involved all 50 states - unlike the election process where each state is represented disprortionately

B - This can be seen because the first states to historically hold their primaries represent a diverse range of voters from rural Iowa to South Carolina

Which therefore means that candidates cannot just focus all of their funding into the large states such as Florida

C - However, this is a weak argument and this is due to the now common practice of Front Loading. This is where an increasing number of states seek to hold their primaries earlier on in the year to build momentum and increase influence.

This is because, if it’s later in the year, candidates assume that the race has already been won

In 2020 and 2024 Texas and Cali held their contests on Super Tuesday - hugely increasing their influence due to their large populations and likley undermining the influence of smaller states that didn’t take part in participation

Iowa has failed to accurately count votes on two occasions i.e. 2012 it declared Romeny as the winner of popular vote when it was actually Satorum

Its inability to report any results on election night led democrats to strip it of its ‘first’ mover status and instead choose South Carolina as first primary

D - Therefore, despite the fact Iowa ( caucus ) and New Hampshire ( primary ) are first to vote they are widely socially unrepresentative therefore fail to weild too much influence over the selection of candidate

A - The impact of primaries also has a positive impact on democracy because candidates have to appeal to a wide range of ordinary voters

B - I.e. Clinton, Obama, Biden, Harris are all examples of fairly moderate candidates with fairly moderate ideologies

This is due to the fact they need crossover appeal - this is especially due to open primaries i.e. Obama won in conservative states due to his appearance as calm surrounding the economy

C - However, I would argue that this argument is only relevant to the Democrat Party as they seem to produce moderate voters therefore moderate candidates

They tend to be more extreme in the Republican party - which has pushed candidates right in order to win votes

I.e. Trumps promise in 2016 to ‘Build A Wall’ led to other candidates calling for more outlandish policies - Ted Cruz calling for policing of Muslim neighbourhoods

2024 - Ron De Santis passed the ‘Don’t Say Gay law’ as Florida govenor - right wing

D - Therefore in contrast for the Republican party the primary season is simply a big contes to win over extreme voters

Evaluate the view that campaign finance requires reform

A - It could be argued that the finance that a candidate receives makes minimal difference to the electoral outcome - especially at primary level

B - I.e. Rhona Santo’s campaign faltered despite large amounts of money raised through Never Back Down Super PAC

Similarly, Trump spent less than rivals on the 2016 elections and proved that under this system of primaries that candidates need to build grass root movements that aren’t dependent on money

C - However, the fact that candidates had to go outside of the National Convention to gain investors proves that money is absolutely essential

As a result of Front Loading during primary elections the existence of primary elections shows how important finance is to campaign in these states

Obama outspent Clinton in 2008 and by Super Tuesday she was forced to take out a loan which came from her own pocket

The mega donations that these candidates recieve also reinforces the ‘front runner’ advantage during primaries also

D - Therefore, campaign finance requires reform, despite not being able to win the entire election, by having large funds ahead of Front Loading and Super Tuesday this give candidates a much better advantage

A - However, it could be wrongly argued that Campain Finance doesn’t require reform as this would in turn limit constitutional rights

B - This is because under the bill of rights, restricting campaign finance would result in restricting the first amendment of Freedom of Speech

Therefore, Limiting campaign finance is extremely difficult as a consequence of the fact that the current Supreme Court considers financial contributions free speech, protected by the 1st Amendment, as we have seen with the In Citizens United v FEC (2010), the Supreme Court supported this view.

C - However, it is far stronger to argue that campaign finance allows wealthy individuals and special interest groups can exert disproportionate influence on the political process through large financial contributions. This can lead to a system where policies favour the interests of a few rather than the broader public good

Parties require huge sums to run effectively and have a chance of winning.
The 2020 US Presidential election , with an estimated $14 billion spend by candidates, parties and support groups
. The 2024 election was the most expensive US election in history, with spending reaching around $16 billion,

A recent example illustrating concerns about the influence of wealthy individuals in US politics is Elon Musk's significant financial support for Donald Trump's 2024 campaign. Musk contributed around $277 million to pro-Trump efforts, primarily through the America Super PAC, which played a crucial role in voter outreach and campaign advertising. Musk was then given a role in the newly-created Department Of Government Efficiency.

Critics argue that such influence may skew the political process in favour of affluent donors. Super PACs can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations, unions, and other groups. They can accept unlimited contributions from any non-foreign source, including corporations and unions.

D - Therefore, it is evident in US politics that wealthy individuals are able to ‘buy’ political influence which therefore undermines democracy - evidence that campaign finance requires reform

A - it can be argued that there should not be greater regulation of campaign finance, as doing so is extremely difficult and leads to loopholes being exploited and unintended consequences. Those with money will always find a way to influence politics in the US and regulating campaign finance is practically impossible.

B - The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) was a law meant to limit how much money individuals and PACs could donate to political campaigns. Individuals could only donate $2700 per candidate per election, while PACs could donate $5000 per candidate per election.It also created a maximum expenditure limit for each candidate in the presidential election. Therefore, this problem has been legislatively addressed previously to what the SCOTUS deems as exceptable

C - However, Another key argument that campaign finance requires reform is the lack of transparency and huge amounts of money in campaign finance lead to distrust in the electoral system. Voters may feel that elections are unfairly influenced by hidden financial powers, undermining the democratic principle of equal representation.

The concept of 'dark money' and the use of 527 organisations allow for significant sums to be spent without full disclosure.

The Lincoln Project spent over $67 million in the 2020 election without full transparency about their funding sources.

D - This transparency is essential for building trust in the democratic process and ensuring that voters are fully informed about who is trying to influence their opinions and votes. Therefore, it id evident that campaign finance requires reform yet the existing loopholes make this near impossible.