#67: Big Problems of the US Election (PART 2)

【Congressional】
Thankfully, the presidential election held last month honored one person, one vote as the candidate with the most votes won. As basic as that may sound in a democracy, let alone in an American democracy, it’s truly a relief to see that every single vote was recognized as a rightful voice of a real person.
 
Nonetheless, the terrible truth is that the electoral votes were on the verge of tipping the other way, yet again, despite Biden now topping 7 million more votes from the American people.
 
In order to do away with this unnecessarily confusing and frustratingly twisted electoral system, a Constitutional amendment is required. To do so, it calls for a two-thirds vote by the members in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, as well as the approval by three-fourths of the states.
 
So, how difficult is that in reality?
 
To answer this question, we must first understand that the House allocates its representatives to each of the 50 states based on population, whereas the Senate allocates 2 senators per state without any regard to population. This disproportionate allocation of senators undermines the democratic principle of one person, one vote. Let’s explain this a bit further.
 
For example, the state of California boasts the largest population among the U.S. states at roughly 39.52 million, compared to the state of Wyoming with the least population at 0.58 million. Because 39 million more people live in California than Wyoming, or 68 times more, the House allocates its representatives reflecting this difference more or less proportionately by entitling 53 representatives for California and 1 for Wyoming. In this way, the democratic principle of one person, one vote is achieved by allocating the number of representatives based on population.
 
On the contrary, Senate entitles 2 senators per state without any regard to population as written in Article One of the US Constitution ratified 230 years ago. This means that the voice of a California senator representing 19.76 million people carry exactly the same weight in the Senate as the voice of a Wyoming senator representing 0.29 million people.
 
Essentially, a Wyoming resident is granted greater voting strength than a California resident, by a whopping 68 multiple, despite democracy requires the government weigh the vote of citizens as equally as possible. This disproportionate allocation of senators is a far cry from humbly recognizing that every vote is a rightful voice of a real person that must be heard.
 
Based on these facts, it’s fair to say that a two-thirds vote in the Senate has diverged too far from the democratic principle of one person, one vote. 
 
What this essentially means is that the fundamental principle of democracy – that is, to make decisions based on the most votes – isn’t true in America when it comes to amending the twisted political systems such as allowing the electoral votes to determine the winner of the presidential election, or allocating 2 senators per state without any regard to population.
 
In fact, numerous nationwide polls conducted over a 20-year period show that roughly 60% of Americans favor a direct popular vote for presidential elections instead of an electoral vote. Nevertheless, the disproportionate allocation of senators is blocking America from making this sensible change.
 
The closest the U.S. has come to replacing the Electoral College with a direct popular vote was in 1969, when the House overwhelmingly passed a proposed Constitutional amendment by a vote of 339 to 70. Regrettably, without the support of numerous senators of less populous rural states, the proposal never made it through the Senate.
 
What’s more, the other requirement for a Constitutional amendment is the approval by three-fourths of the states, which would be 38 states today. Likewise, as this requirement also disregards the variance in population from state to state, it again serves to diverge far from the democratic principle of one person, one vote. 
 
Based on these unfortunate facts, we can’t help but draw a regrettable conclusion that a Constitutional amendment is quite unlikely, even when the majority of Americans demand the change.
 
The residents of the less populous rural states wield disproportionately larger power than one person, one vote to influence the political decisions for the entire country. The troubling truth is that our Constitution, of all things, grants them that power to subvert our democracy.

Read Next: Big Problems of the US Election (3)【Gun Policy】
Read Previous: Big Problems of the US Election (1)【Presidential】
 
Complete Series: Big Problems of the US Election (1)～(3)
[1]   [2]   [3]  ​

Read Theme: Perspective