Political Science

The 2000 controversial presidential results in the US in which Democratic candidate, the then Vice president Al Gore won the popular vote with 50,999,897 votes against his close opponent Republican governor George W Bushs 50,456,002 yet the latter went on to become the 43rd president of the US exposed the irony of democracy, and more so American democracy, as conceived by our founder-fathers. Suffice to say that by the postulates of the US Constitution, and the allegations of electoral fraud or any other electoral malpractice thereof notwithstanding, George W Bush won the elections but by the dictates of most democratic ideals, Al Gore was supposed to win (or he did win) the elections So why and how come there is this paradox between the desired democratic tradition and the entrenchments in our Constitution The answer lies in the misgivings our-founder fathers had in the common people.

It is imperative to realize that even though common people in the US were granted a lot of discretion to participate in certain activities or enjoy certain liberties or rights that even people in their contemporary democracies such as England never got to enjoy, most citizens of the US still never got to vote on the basis of their not having certain amount of property or by their class, gender or color. Our founder fathers had less belief in the common people.

Our founder fathers, though believers in Republicanism, federalism and other important tenets of a democracy such as freedom of the press and personal liberty, didnt really believe in the capability of the people to make rational decisions. The people, the founder fathers reasoned, were likely to be led by emotional whims and prejudices rather than logic and sobriety.  In fact in those days, when absolutism was at its zenith, democracy was associated with mob-rule thanks in large part to Greek philosopher Aristotle. However, it is important to note that the literacy levels during Aristotles time or even during the 18th century were very low compared to todays levels.

In the US presidents are not really elected by the people but electoral colleges. This is the body that elects the president each state is represented by the same number of members as in its congregational delegation. Originally, the members of the Electoral College were selected in the manner prescribed by their legislatures and had some discretion in making their choice. Not anymore. Now the 538 or thereabout members have mainly a pro forma function and each state delegation is bound to vote as a bloc and for the presidential candidate who received a plurality of the state votes. So the electorate still matter after all, at least in most of the elections that have been conducted in the US.

Indeed, the whole logic behind the formation of the Electoral College to elect the commander-in-chief of the US armed forces contravenes the very fundamentals of democracy democracy is rule by the people, or to Abraham Lincolns words-it is the government of the people, by the people and for the people. Of course the people may delegate that authority to govern to certain elected representatives. This does not in any way mean that democracy permits the people to abscond their power.  The people, for example, have the ultimate decision to overthrow these officials if they feel that these representatives are not serving them satisfactorily. In fact, if there is an elementary factor in democracy that is never contested is that the people have a right to directly elect their representatives, inclusive of the head of state or government (unless otherwise stated).

During the Democratic nominations that saw Senator Barack Obama (currently president) trounce Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton (currently US secretary of State), Clinton won the popular vote but Obama who got the most delegates went on to become the Democrats presidential candidate in the 2008 presidential elections. Clintons team had at some point protested that Obama by not winning the popular vote had not got the peoples mandate. They reasoned that even if Obama went on to be the partys flag bearer he would be an easy defeat for the Republicans. However Obama went on to capture the presidency by defeating the Republican senator John McCain. What is more interesting is that Obama won the popular vote by such a narrow margin that would it be in a different democracy a re-run would have been called.

Fortunately our tradition has been that generally the candidate with the most popular vote gets to win in a given constituency as the electors align their choice with that of the people. Unfortunately this is not guaranteed in the Constitution, an elector is still free to vote as heshe deems right.  Exceptions to this tradition include such instances as the 2000 presidential elections.

Nonetheless, it is many Americans opinion that we should rescind the provision that puts such vital decision making process in the hands of some few individuals. As I have said, Americans are highly informed today, and as such they can always make wise decisions. Indeed, with regard to the controversial 2000 elections, some people have argued that George Bush had such a pathetic legacy because he did not have the peoples blessing. It may or it may not be right, but we have to put the mandate to decide who is to be president on the people and not the Electoral College. It can be right that in the event that an amendment is instituted the Electoral College is retained to affirm the decision as they have been doing it in principle.