Broken & Abused: A vote for me or a vote for thee
The voting system of the most powerful democracy on earth is broken, as it can be easily manipulated by politicians to disenfranchise those who would vote to remove them from power. The electoral college degrades the leverage of the majority of voters. By placing the most power over elections in the hands of a few voters from swing states, the electoral college disincentivizes political participation for the bulk of citizens. In states with densely populated Democratic cities, like my hometown of New York, that always end up voting blue, Democratic votes become diluted and cannot make any election contribution greater than that of New York State’s electors.
For Republican voters in states like New York, there is little motivation for political participation, as their votes can never shift New York’s electorates red. In a state like Wyoming, there is also little motivation for Republican political participation as Wyoming will always go red. And for the few Democratic candidates living in Wyoming there is no hope that their vote will shift Wyoming’s electores and have any impact on the outcome of the election. This system constructs a grim reality for the most powerful Democratic country on earth, where the votes of citizens have little impact on the outcome of elections.
For many people the system of the electoral college quashes the motivation to vote completely. Historically young folks have always had the lowest voter turnout. In 2016 the 18–29 age group had about 10 percent less voter turnout then the 30–44 age group and about 30 percent less than the 60 plus age group (McDonald, nd). In fact there was barely 40 percent voter participation for the 18–29 age group in 2016 (McDonald, nd).
Even ignoring how the electoral college disincentivizes voter participation outside of a few purple states, it is still a system fraught with issues for any enthusiast of democracy. Gerrymandering, the manipulation of the boundaries of an electoral constituency in order to favor a particular party, is one of the most glaring flaws in U.S politics. Every decade states redraw the boundaries of their congressional districts after the release of new population records from the census. While it might be cause for moral concern it is perfectly legal to redraw a state’s congressional map in efforts to maintain a party’s political power. But in an era when race and political affiliation are often deeply intertwined many will question the legality of recent Texas redistricting.
Flaws within the electoral college allow states like Texas to remain red despite the influx of larger populations of color that have the potential to turn texas purple. People of color makeup 95 percent of the population growth in Texas over the last ten years but this year’s redistricting has weakened the impact of these voters (Boschma et al., 2022). After the census reported 4 million new residents over the last ten years, Texas gained two seats in the house (Boschma et al., 2022). White Texans represent a miniscule fraction of that 4 million, just 5 percent (Boschma et al., 2022). However the redrawn map of Texas adds 3 districts where whites represent a majority. The number of hispanic majority districts remain the same. The number of districts with no racial majority decreased by 1 (Boschma et al., 2022).
Recently, in terms of population, hispanic people make up 39 percent of Texas while white people make up 40 percent of the population (Boschma et al., 2022). Under the new map 42 percent of districts are white majority while only 26 percent of districts are hispanic majority (Boschma et al., 2022). Simply put, this means white voters in Texas have more leverage than their hispanic counterparts. How is it possible for redistricting like this to take place in a fair democracy? Because the electoral college is easily manipulated by corrupt individuals whose goal is to disenfranchise colored folks (that are almost no longer the minority) and political opposition.
After polls close, local election officials are the first point in the post election process. These folks are responsible for counting the ballots, after doing so they will do what is called a canvas, where they double check results and send them to the state (Democracy Docket, 2021). Elections are then certified at the state level by either a state board of elections or the state’s chief elections officer. Most commonly a state’s chief elections officer is the secretary of state. While the canvas confirms the ballot counts, the secretary of state is usually who will finalize these results through their certification (Democracy Docket, 2021). The particular procedures vary by state but election officials, the secretary of state or governor must sign a certificate of ascertainment for presidential results to be finalized (Democracy Docket, 2021). So what would happen if local or state officials refused to correctly certify the results of an election? Democracy would fail. Here we see one of the biggest vulnerabilities in the U.S Democratic process.
After failing to steal the 2020 election through claims of falsehood, Trump’s losing camp learned from their mistakes, but not in terms of realizing their campaign did not connect with the majority of voters. Instead Trump’s camp would target political positions key to democracy. While Joe Biden won Michigan in 2020 by more than 150,000 votes, the election was nearly not certified in his favor (Politico, 2021). Under the direction of Donald Trump, Republican members on a bipartisan canvassing board initially refused to certify election results in Michigan (Democracy Docket, 2021). These members later reversed their decision. However, a Republican member of the state’s board of electors refused to certify the election results by abstaining (Democracy Docket, 2021). Luckily there was another Republican member on the board who was not dishonest, allowing the board to reach its three fourths threshold that was needed in order to send the results to the governor and secretary of state for an official signature. While the worst case scenario did not unfold in Michigan in 2020, it illustrates a clear vulnerability in our Democratic system, as it is possible for politicians not to correctly certify the election results of their states.
One of the keys Trump would need in order to steal future elections is secretary of state positions. In 47 of the 50 states, secretary of state is a state-level position (BallotPedia, nd). In 35 of these states voters will directly elect the secretary of state, in the remaining 12 the position is appointed by the governor or the state legislature (BallotPedia, nd). While responsibilities vary from state to state, in 37 states the secretary of state has ultimate oversight over state elections and voter registration (BallotPedia, nd). Clearly the secretaries of state will have crucial roles in the certification and management of the 2024 presidential election. So it is of great concern that in at least 11 states the Republican nominee for the position questions the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election (Dale, 2022). Wes Allen, the Republican nominee in Alabama, firmly denies the validity of the 2020 presidential election. Wes Allen publicly approved the legal effort to get the Supreme court to overturn Biden’s victory in several states (Dale, 2022). Allen has also vowed to remove Alabama from a 31 state consortium that John Merill (the current but departing Republican secretary of state for Alabama) dubbed as an important election security tool (Dale, 2022). The Wyoming Republican nominee Chuck Gray is also an avid election denier. Gray has made baseless claims to CNN that Biden’s win was illegitimate, that the 2020 election was fraudulent and that Trump absolutely won (Dale, 2022). Gray also urged his state’s politicians to join the same legal effort Wes Allen supported, to overturn Biden’s victory through the supreme court (Dale, 2022).
At first glance, one might think having politicians like Wes Allen or Chuck Gray occupy Secretary of State positions can’t make much of a difference in states as red as Alabama and Wyoming. As, even though these folks are willing to be dishonest about elections, Wyoming and Alabama would never vote blue anyway, so ultimately what’s the harm? Firstly, having baseless claims regarding election fraud so widely preached by politicians can weaken the faith that citizens have in democracy and lead to tragedies like the January 6th insurrection.
It’s also alarming that Trump is aiming to install loyalist election deniers into swing states as well. Mark Finchem, who has been outspoken in his belief of a number of conspiracy theories, has made repeated claims that Biden did not win the state of Arizona in 2020. Finchem also recently won the Republican primary for secretary of state. Finchem has made tweets in support of those involved in January 6th, he was also photographed outside the capitol building that day (Dale, 2022).
In June, Jim Marchant won the Republican primary for Nevada secretary of state. In an interview with the New York Times, Marchant claimed he began his bid after receiving the encouragement of Trump allies (Corasaniti, 2022). Marchant has also stated that, had he been in office in 2020, he would have refused to certify the election results in Biden’s favor (Dale, 2022). The 2020 election isn’t the only race Marchant baselessly claimed was fraudulent. Marchant has stated “In Nevada and maybe places all over the country — we haven’t in Nevada elected anybody since 2006. They have been installed by the deep state cabal” (Dale, 2022).
Arizona and Nevada are both key battleground states with the potential to go left or right in presidential elections. Having election deniers in states like Alabama and Wyoming may ultimately pose little threat to having legitimate elections. However, having folks like Finchem and Marchant hold the secretary of state in swing states certainly poses a threat to U.S democracy.
Originally the electoral college was established as a compromise between the two parties. It served as a middle ground between holding elections through the popular vote or solely through congress. At the time folks who opposed the popular vote voiced concern about uneducated masses, most of whom could not read or write, having the most leverage in elections, while rural states with less populations would have no political influence. Things have changed greatly since the electoral college was established. Today the majority of Americans are reasonably educated, able to read and write, and have a coherent understanding of politics. They are able to comprehend political campaign material and make educated votes. There is no reason to have an election system that devalues the leverage of any of these voters, be they democrat or Republican. The current election system does just that. The electoral college is a broken, crumbling, dated system, it is not at all sustainable.
Today, critics of the popular vote might claim a popular vote system has the potential to fall into mob rule. However, utilizing a popular vote system does not mean we forgo political institutions altogether. Ultimately, the purpose of political institutions is to serve the will of the people, the electoral college prevents this from happening as it weakens the vote of most citizens thereby, preventing politicians who would carry out the people’s will from being elected. Today there are many people that have lost faith in the U.S Democratic process completely. Deciding elections through the popular vote has the potential not only to incentivize Democratic participation but to regain the faith in American democracy many have lost. While the electoral college may have been founded as a way to make sure rural districts have political representation, it is now widely abused, as a means for shrinking political minority groups to cling to power in areas where they are losing support. What mob rule looks like is losing politicians directing their followers to storm the U.S capitol and use violence as a means of impeding the peaceful transfer of power, after election results have been determined through a legitimate Democratic process.
Bibliography
Boschma, J., Rigdon, R., Manley, B., & Cohen, E. (2022, Aug 5th.). Texas redistricting 2022: Congressional maps by district. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2022/politics/us-redistricting/texas-redistricting-map/
Corasaniti, N. (2022, June 15). Jim Marchant, a trump loyalist, is G.O.P. voters’ choice to be Nevada’s top election official. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/us/politics/jim-marchant-nevada-secretary-of-state.html
Dale, D. (2022, August 19). At least 11 Republican nominees for state elections chief have disputed the legitimacy of the 2020 election | CNN politics. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/11/politics/fact-check-republican-secretary-of-state-nominees-2020-election/index.html
McDonald, M. P. (n.d.). Voter turnout demographics. United States Elections Project. http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics
Vestal, A. J., Briz, A., Choi, A., Jin, B., McGill, A., & Mihalik, L. (n.d.). Live election results: 2020 Michigan results. POLITICO. https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/michigan/
After Election Day: The Basics of Election Certification. Democracy Docket. (2021, November 9th). https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/after-election-day-the-basics-of-election-certification/
Secretary of State (State Executive Office). Ballotpedia. (n.d.). https://ballotpedia.org/Secretary_of_State_(state_executive_office)
