scholarly journals The Continuing Validity of the Electoral College: A Quantitative Confirmation

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Audrey Lynn
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Models ◽  
Electoral System ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Constitutional Convention ◽  
Electoral Vote ◽  
The People ◽  
Mathematical System ◽  
Essential Questions ◽  
Unique Approach ◽  
The Will

Debates over the merits of the Electoral College historically have been characterized by philosophical arguments and arcane statistical models. In light of growing efforts to undermine or discard the electoral system, the nation needs objective answers about how the Electoral College affects presidential elections. Using accessible quantitative techniques, this Article answers three essential questions: what was the electoral system intended to do, what has it done, and what is the best (or worst) it can do? It answers these questions using a unique approach that measures the electoral system’s success and potential in terms that correspond to its raison d'être, parameterizing the problem in terms of satisfaction and population instead of voters. Also in contrast to traditional expositions, this Article dispenses with “highly stylized” and voter-based statistical models. It instead correctly recognizes the Electoral College as a discrete mathematical system and applies much simpler and more meaningful descriptive and predictive techniques to actual election data. The result is that the system’s effect on elections is quantified, related to historical data, and reliably forecast for the foreseeable future. This is the type of substantive analysis long needed to confirm or disprove the system’s merits. Part I first examines records of the Constitutional Convention seeking to determine what the Framers’ purpose was in choosing the algorithm they did. Concluding that their purpose was to provide a president who would be representative of people across the country, the Article proceeds with a focus on people and places to examine whether the system has achieved its goal. Beginning with the first election in which there was a registered popular vote, Part II briefly describes the few discrepancies there have been between the popular and electoral vote in order to fairly characterize the basis for controversy. Its novel contribution, however, is to propose and apply a framework for assessing whether the Electoral College results in an effective expression of the will and interests of the People that is consistent with the legitimizing principles of our government. Part III concludes with a mathematical analysis that proves that there are specific, calculable limitations on the size and distribution of a prevailing minority and illustrates that there is a continuing likelihood that winning candidates will be selected by states comprising a majority of the population.

Our Bungling Electoral System

1917 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 685-710
Author(s):  
Joseph Cady Allen
Keyword(s):  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Majority Vote ◽  
State Legislatures ◽  
Electoral System ◽  
Vice President ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Present System ◽  
The People

According to popular parlance, we elect a President and vice-president, on the Tuesday following the first Monday of November of each fourth year, by vote of the people. It is well known however that, technically speaking, we do not choose these officers on that day or at any time by popular suffrage. Instead of that, we choose in each state a committee that is called the electoral college; and these electors meet on the second Monday of January and elect the President and vice-president by ballot. The theory of the Constitution is that these electors are not to be pledged or obligated to vote for any particular person, but that they and not the people shall really make the choice.But, practically from the start, and contrary to the expectation of those who framed the Constitution, the choice of President and vice-president was seized by state legislatures and afterwards transferred to the people, through the device of appointing electors that were virtually pledged to designated candidates. So the electoral colleges have failed of their purpose and become a useless complication. And not only are they useless, but objectionable also and dangerous in many and serious ways.This paper will endeavor to show that our present system of presidential election is bad in every step of the process, viz. in a. the appointment of the electors, b. the membership and proceedings of the electoral colleges, c. the count of the vote in congress, d. the interval between the election and the time when the President takes office, and e. the election by the house of representatives in case the electors fail to give a majority vote to any candidate.

scholarly journals PEMILIHAN PRESIDEN 2000 DI AMERIKA SERIKAT

2002 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Harun Alrasid
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
The People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Will

Mengulas pemilihan presiden di Amerika Serikat pada tahun 2000, dengan menekankan pada pembahasan sistem electoral college. Sistem pemilihan dibuat sedemikian rupa sehingga presiden terpilih benar-benar merupakan aspirasi rakyat yang sejati. Kontroversi suara pemilih yang menentukan terpilihnya seorang calon menjadi presiden. yang menentukan hasil Pemilihan Presiden 2000 bukanlah kemauan Rakyat (the Will of the People) tetapi keputusan Hakim (the Decision of the Supreme Court).

The concept of types of popular representation

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-46
Author(s):  
Dmitry Kireev
Keyword(s):  
Electoral System ◽  
The State ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
Parliamentary Elections ◽  
The People ◽  
The Will ◽  
Party Composition ◽  
The Government ◽  
Legal Mechanism

Democracy has many appearances. The principle of democracy is implemented in republics as well as monarchies, unitary states and federations. This article proposes a new dimension of democracy – the type of popular representation – which depends on the electoral system used in national parliamentary elections. The ownership of power in the state by the people is ensured by the functioning of a representative body elected by citizens and having exclusive authority to pass laws that are binding on all. In addition, the parliament participates in the formation of bodies of other branches of power and approves the budget. Thus, research into the manifestations of the institution of popular representation is important not only for countries with a parliamentary government, but also for all other states. The direct dependence of the composition of the legislature on the will of the people guarantees that the actions of the state are subordinated to the interests of this entity. An electoral system is used to identify this will of the people. However, the significance of this legal mechanism is not limited to the role of a guide between votes and parliamentary mandates alone. The electoral system is a “double-edged” instrument that can influence the exercise of power by the people. The purpose of this article is to analyse this influence and demonstrate the existence of three types of popular representation formed by different categories of electoral systems. Types of people’s representation arise as a result of the repeated application of a certain mechanism and the following establishment of the party composition of the parliament and party structure of the government. The established type of people’s representation is characterised by the varying degree of effectiveness of political parties in expressing and realising the interests of the people. In addition, the implementation of the principle of alternation of power and the functioning of the checks and balances are also dependent on the electoral system used. This article formulates a concept that makes it possible to differentiate the way democracy is developed in the state and to consider transparently the constitutional and legal consequences of the choice of the electoral system.

On the Will of the People: Notes on the Political “Theory” of Populism

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Claus Offe
Keyword(s):  
Ethnic Identity ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Political Rhetoric ◽  
The Political ◽  
The People ◽  
National People ◽  
The Will

The “will of the (national) people” is the ubiquitously invoked reference unit of populist politics. The essay tries to demystify the notion that such will can be conceived of as a unique and unified substance deriving from collective ethnic identity. Arguably, all political theory is concerned with arguing for ways by which citizens can make e pluribus unum—for example, by coming to agree on procedures and institutions by which conflicts of interest and ideas can be settled according to standards of fairness. It is argued that populists in their political rhetoric and practice typically try to circumvent the burden of such argument and proof. Instead, they appeal to the notion of some preexisting existential unity of the people’s will, which they can redeem only through practices of repression and exclusion.

Volkswille: Reale Substanz oder notwendige Fiktion?

Der Staat ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 371-396
Author(s):  
Shu-Perng Hwang
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
The Real ◽  
The People ◽  
The Will ◽  
Right Wing Populism ◽  
The Individual

Angesichts des markanten Aufstiegs des Rechtspopulismus in den vergangenen Jahren drängt sich die Frage immer wieder auf, ob oder inwiefern das Parlament den eigentlichen Volkswillen (noch) vertreten kann, und wie im Zeitalter der Globalisierung und Digitalisierung der eigentliche Volkswille überhaupt festzustellen und effektiv durchzusetzen ist. In dieser Hinsicht steht das Vertrauen in die Fähigkeit des Parlaments, den wahren Volkswillen herauszubilden und zu artikulieren, erneut vor großen Herausforderungen. Durch eine vergleichende Analyse zwischen den Demokratietheorien Böckenfördes und Kelsens zeigt der vorliegende Beitrag, weshalb und inwiefern das weitverbreitete Verständnis des Volkswillens und dessen Rolle in der parlamentarischen Demokratie gerade vor dem heutigen Hintergrund eine kritische Besinnung verdient. Es wird argumentiert, dass gerade in demokratischer Hinsicht nicht die Suche nach dem „wahren Volkswillen“, sondern nach wie vor die Gewährleistung der Menschen- bzw. Grundrechte der Einzelnen und insbesondere der Minderheiten von zentraler Bedeutung sein soll. In view of the spread of right-wing populism in recent years, the question as to how the will of the people is to be ascertained and expressed has attracted much attention in constitutional scholarship. In particular, the issue of whether or to what extent the parliament is (still) capable of representing and demonstrating the will of the people has been repeatedly discussed and debated. Through a comparative analysis of Böckenförde’s und Kelsen’s democratic theories, this article critically examines the problems of the widespread understanding of the will of the people as a real-empirical existence and its significance for the realization of democracy. Accordingly, it points out why and in what sense the reference to the so-called real will of the people would undermine rather than promote democracy. This article concludes by arguing that, precisely for the sake of democracy, what is crucial is not to determine what the “real will of the people” is, but rather to guarantee the freedom of the individual and especially of the minorities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document