Hey Everyone,
I submitted a paper for the SAIS review, and while they did not accept my application due to my age (had to be in graduate school), I thought I would share it on here. Hope you enjoy!
______________________________________________________________________________
Developed countries around the world have prided themselves on being bastions of democracy: exemplary models for the rest of the world to aspire to replicate. The founding of the United States of America was brought upon by a greater need by the English colonials for a voice in the laws and governance of the colonies. Upon the success of the revolution, creation of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, and decades of the US as an emerging world power, the first truly successful democratic nation across the world arose. Through the power of voting, citizens were afforded a means to express their own desires in running the country. This idea of a “democracy” eventually blossomed across Western Europe, including the United Kingdom1. While not exactly the same as the Republic found in the US, they were both independently created out of a desire from their own people to vote and express change. Nations such as Norway also borrowed from the American and French constitutions in the early 19th century, but such initiatives were taken not due to pressure from the people but through a desire for independence from Sweden by the nobility. The United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Norway all share very similar institutions, yet are different in the efficiency and functionality of their democratic systems. In these democracies, voters aren’t always entirely represented in their respective government bodies, begging the question of whether those nations’ voters do have a voice in shaping government policy. By examining these specific nations’ electoral systems, I will seek to answer the question of why certain developed countries have stronger democratic frameworks and how this translates to the people’s voting power.
The United States of America is known as the “Leader of the Free World”, and has been in the business of promoting democracy around the globe since the First World War; however, America’s republican system is not consistently representative of the people’s general wishes, consequently diminishing the powers of voters. Upon the success of the American Revolution, the “Founding Fathers” were at a crossroads on how to proceed with the creation of the nation, eventually agreeing on a Constitution and Bill of Rights. Elections for Congressmen would be chosen in a “first past the post” system, where the highest vote-getter wins a seat to the House or Senate, and the President would be chosen by an electoral college. At the time of the institution of the electoral college, most of America was rural and citizens identified with their own state rather than their country, necessitating each state have an equal voice as opposed to a popular vote which would disregard smaller populated states. Opting to provide power to a college of electors may have seemed a strong solution then, when only 6% of the total population was eligible to vote, but voting rights have significantly expanded since that time: property requirements in every state were abolished in 1856, race based discrimination in voting was eliminated in 1870, and the right for women to vote was given in 1920 with the 19th amendment among a plethora of other expansions2. Yet, the method by which the President is elected is still subject to the whim of the states rather than the entire US voting population. The best example of this disproportionate policy is California (55 electoral votes) and Wyoming (3 electoral votes). For every 712,000 people there is one electoral vote in California, while for every 195,000 votes in Wyoming there is one electoral vote3. This indicates a large deficit in the representation voters’ receive in the Presidential election. Furthermore, states which are highly competitive are prioritized by campaigns, meaning candidates spend much of their time trying to sway those individuals, ignoring voters in non-competitive states. This inconsistency is best exemplified in the voter turnout of certain competitive versus non competitive states. In the 2016 Presidential Election, New Hampshire, a swing state, recorded a 72.5% turnout, a significantly higher turnout than the 60% national turnout4. In comparison, Hawaii, a non-swing state, recorded a turnout of only 43%5. By promoting competitive states, and disregarding the predictable states, voters across the country are sidelined as they are deemed unnecessary in the electoral math for victory. The Electoral College does not provide voters the power and voice they require in self-rule, depriving the US of one of the most important tenants in a successful republic. Meanwhile, the House of Representatives is the only body consistently up for an election in every voting period. Lower Houses are common across Parliamentary and Presidential systems across the world, but in the United States, constituencies or districts, are created not by non-partisan means, but through partisan gerrymandering6 7. Gerrymandering is the process of state governments changing the boundaries of a district in order to benefit one party over another. The process of Gerrymandering is used extensively by both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The best examples of Gerrymandering lie in Maryland and North Carolina, a Democratic controlled state and Republican controlled state respectively. In Maryland, Republicans won 35% of the vote, but only 12.5% of the House Seats8, while in North Carolina, Democrats won 47% of the vote, but only 23% of House Seats9. Partisan Gerrymandering destroys the purpose of voting as voters in overwhelmingly safe districts of an opposing party are effectively silenced. Because the House of Representatives makes laws impacting the state itself as well as the entire nation, voters in Gerrymandered states are underrepresented in Congress, mitigating the purpose of a republic. Finally, the US Senate distinguishes itself from other Upper Houses across the world by being directly elected by the people of a state, as well as having more powers than the Lower House, such as the confirmation of Cabinet or other Federal Executive officials, and “advice and consent” on diplomatic treaties. The elections to the US Senate are staggered such that one third of the senate is up for an election every two years. Similar to the problems presented by the Electoral College, Senate elections are very sate specific, and while they are winner take all, this often means voters in “safe states” from the opposing incumbent party don’t have representation in the Senate. Because the institution does also legislate for the entire nation, the makeup of the election map can be unrepresentative of the general population. For example, in the 2016 election, the Democratic Party won 51% of the vote (adjusted for the inconsistency of the California Senate Election where two Democrats appeared on the ballot), but only had control of 48% of the Senate due to past election cycles.10 This method of a changing Senate map means voters will be unable to impact significant change in their state for at most another six years, and at the least two or four when their second Senator is up for reelection. Total turnout in the United States is also drastically less than other developed nations, totalling around 60% for Federal Elections and 40% for midterm elections11, indicating once more voters may not feel the need to vote as they believe their voice doesn’t matter if they are in a state which heavily supports one party or another. The United States’s campaign finance laws are similarly unequal as its electoral system. After the creation of the FEC in 1970 to regulate America’s finance laws, several additions and challenges to campaign finance have arisen in US politics12. The most significant piece of legislation came in the early 2000s with the McCain-Feingold Act, which attempted to limit soft money, unlimited, contributions to political committees13. Significant portions of the bill were later overturned in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case. US campaign laws limit the personal donations individuals are allowed to make, but allow for corporations or labor organizations to donate an unlimited amount to “Political Action Committees” or “PACs”.14 This aspect of American politics ensures politicians can be bought and sold with large campaign contributions by special interest groups or corporations, meaning politicians won’t have the interest of the voters at heart. PACs and other political committees extensively utilize advertisements in order to sway voters, forcing competitive races to boil down to who can control the air waves.
I submitted a paper for the SAIS review, and while they did not accept my application due to my age (had to be in graduate school), I thought I would share it on here. Hope you enjoy!
______________________________________________________________________________
Developed countries around the world have prided themselves on being bastions of democracy: exemplary models for the rest of the world to aspire to replicate. The founding of the United States of America was brought upon by a greater need by the English colonials for a voice in the laws and governance of the colonies. Upon the success of the revolution, creation of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, and decades of the US as an emerging world power, the first truly successful democratic nation across the world arose. Through the power of voting, citizens were afforded a means to express their own desires in running the country. This idea of a “democracy” eventually blossomed across Western Europe, including the United Kingdom1. While not exactly the same as the Republic found in the US, they were both independently created out of a desire from their own people to vote and express change. Nations such as Norway also borrowed from the American and French constitutions in the early 19th century, but such initiatives were taken not due to pressure from the people but through a desire for independence from Sweden by the nobility. The United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Norway all share very similar institutions, yet are different in the efficiency and functionality of their democratic systems. In these democracies, voters aren’t always entirely represented in their respective government bodies, begging the question of whether those nations’ voters do have a voice in shaping government policy. By examining these specific nations’ electoral systems, I will seek to answer the question of why certain developed countries have stronger democratic frameworks and how this translates to the people’s voting power.
The United States of America is known as the “Leader of the Free World”, and has been in the business of promoting democracy around the globe since the First World War; however, America’s republican system is not consistently representative of the people’s general wishes, consequently diminishing the powers of voters. Upon the success of the American Revolution, the “Founding Fathers” were at a crossroads on how to proceed with the creation of the nation, eventually agreeing on a Constitution and Bill of Rights. Elections for Congressmen would be chosen in a “first past the post” system, where the highest vote-getter wins a seat to the House or Senate, and the President would be chosen by an electoral college. At the time of the institution of the electoral college, most of America was rural and citizens identified with their own state rather than their country, necessitating each state have an equal voice as opposed to a popular vote which would disregard smaller populated states. Opting to provide power to a college of electors may have seemed a strong solution then, when only 6% of the total population was eligible to vote, but voting rights have significantly expanded since that time: property requirements in every state were abolished in 1856, race based discrimination in voting was eliminated in 1870, and the right for women to vote was given in 1920 with the 19th amendment among a plethora of other expansions2. Yet, the method by which the President is elected is still subject to the whim of the states rather than the entire US voting population. The best example of this disproportionate policy is California (55 electoral votes) and Wyoming (3 electoral votes). For every 712,000 people there is one electoral vote in California, while for every 195,000 votes in Wyoming there is one electoral vote3. This indicates a large deficit in the representation voters’ receive in the Presidential election. Furthermore, states which are highly competitive are prioritized by campaigns, meaning candidates spend much of their time trying to sway those individuals, ignoring voters in non-competitive states. This inconsistency is best exemplified in the voter turnout of certain competitive versus non competitive states. In the 2016 Presidential Election, New Hampshire, a swing state, recorded a 72.5% turnout, a significantly higher turnout than the 60% national turnout4. In comparison, Hawaii, a non-swing state, recorded a turnout of only 43%5. By promoting competitive states, and disregarding the predictable states, voters across the country are sidelined as they are deemed unnecessary in the electoral math for victory. The Electoral College does not provide voters the power and voice they require in self-rule, depriving the US of one of the most important tenants in a successful republic. Meanwhile, the House of Representatives is the only body consistently up for an election in every voting period. Lower Houses are common across Parliamentary and Presidential systems across the world, but in the United States, constituencies or districts, are created not by non-partisan means, but through partisan gerrymandering6 7. Gerrymandering is the process of state governments changing the boundaries of a district in order to benefit one party over another. The process of Gerrymandering is used extensively by both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The best examples of Gerrymandering lie in Maryland and North Carolina, a Democratic controlled state and Republican controlled state respectively. In Maryland, Republicans won 35% of the vote, but only 12.5% of the House Seats8, while in North Carolina, Democrats won 47% of the vote, but only 23% of House Seats9. Partisan Gerrymandering destroys the purpose of voting as voters in overwhelmingly safe districts of an opposing party are effectively silenced. Because the House of Representatives makes laws impacting the state itself as well as the entire nation, voters in Gerrymandered states are underrepresented in Congress, mitigating the purpose of a republic. Finally, the US Senate distinguishes itself from other Upper Houses across the world by being directly elected by the people of a state, as well as having more powers than the Lower House, such as the confirmation of Cabinet or other Federal Executive officials, and “advice and consent” on diplomatic treaties. The elections to the US Senate are staggered such that one third of the senate is up for an election every two years. Similar to the problems presented by the Electoral College, Senate elections are very sate specific, and while they are winner take all, this often means voters in “safe states” from the opposing incumbent party don’t have representation in the Senate. Because the institution does also legislate for the entire nation, the makeup of the election map can be unrepresentative of the general population. For example, in the 2016 election, the Democratic Party won 51% of the vote (adjusted for the inconsistency of the California Senate Election where two Democrats appeared on the ballot), but only had control of 48% of the Senate due to past election cycles.10 This method of a changing Senate map means voters will be unable to impact significant change in their state for at most another six years, and at the least two or four when their second Senator is up for reelection. Total turnout in the United States is also drastically less than other developed nations, totalling around 60% for Federal Elections and 40% for midterm elections11, indicating once more voters may not feel the need to vote as they believe their voice doesn’t matter if they are in a state which heavily supports one party or another. The United States’s campaign finance laws are similarly unequal as its electoral system. After the creation of the FEC in 1970 to regulate America’s finance laws, several additions and challenges to campaign finance have arisen in US politics12. The most significant piece of legislation came in the early 2000s with the McCain-Feingold Act, which attempted to limit soft money, unlimited, contributions to political committees13. Significant portions of the bill were later overturned in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case. US campaign laws limit the personal donations individuals are allowed to make, but allow for corporations or labor organizations to donate an unlimited amount to “Political Action Committees” or “PACs”.14 This aspect of American politics ensures politicians can be bought and sold with large campaign contributions by special interest groups or corporations, meaning politicians won’t have the interest of the voters at heart. PACs and other political committees extensively utilize advertisements in order to sway voters, forcing competitive races to boil down to who can control the air waves.
Differing from the United States of America, the United Kingdom adopted a Parliamentary system with its own successes and flaws. Historically, the UK’s democratic system came about through small concessions from the nobles and upper classes to the middle and lower classes, eventually culminating in the creation of two legislative bodies: the House of Commons (Lower House) and the House of Lords (Upper House). In comparison to the House of Commons, the House of Lords has limited powers during the legislative process, and while unable to prevent the passage of a law, they do serve as a check on the Lower House by delaying the passage of bills. The House of Lords is not directly elected, and is instead an appointed body, similar to other Upper Houses found across Europe15. Though not democratically elected, the House of Lords does not have the capacity to decide policy, and therefore does not need consent from voters as much as other Upper Houses such as the United States Senate. In the Lower House, Members of Parliament (MPs) are elected in constituencies, similar to House districts in the US, by a "first past the post" system16. These constituencies are created by a non-partisan board, but they aren't made to be competitive or representative of the entire population. The UK Boundary Commission, a non-partisan organization in charge of shaping the UK’s constituencies, have several goals in the creation of these boundaries, most of which revolve around population requirements17. Voters, like those found in the US, who are packed into “safe constituencies” are denied a voice in Parliament due to "first past the post" voting. This is best illustrated with the recent 2017 election in the UK. The Conservatives secured 48% of seats in the House of Commons while only winning 42% of the vote18. Likewise the Liberal-Democrats won 7% of the vote, but only accounted for less than 2% of parliament. Contrarily, the Labour Party won exactly 40% of the vote as well as 40% of the seats19. Districts found in the United Kingdom are at least more representational than those found in the United States, but the process is still flawed. Midterm elections are nonexistent for the legislative body in the UK, causing general elections to take place every five years, a prolonged amount of time in which both demographics and voter opinions can change dramatically. These prolonged terms may misrepresent voters intentions by preventing the electorate from a means to check incumbent parties in power. In comparison to the United States, however, the UK produces significantly higher voter/or election turnout. As mentioned before, turnout hovers between 40-60% for US elections20 while the UK maintains a significantly larger turnout rate of about 65%-68%21. In the analysis of the success of any republic, turnout numbers are essential to study, as we may conclude UK voters believe they have more of a voice in their government than do American voters. In terms of campaign finance laws, the United Kingdom continues to make strides in removing interest groups and “bought” votes during general elections. As part of the Political Parties, Elections, and Referendums Act of 2000, political parties have a spending cap per district ($42,000), amounting to a total expenditure cap of around $26 million during the election cycle, while individual candidates have a spending cap of around $10,000.22 Parties are also heavily regulated in paid advertisements, unable to buy air time until the very end of the election period.23These campaign finance and advertisement restrictions are to the great benefit of British voters and politicians, who instead of being bought by interest groups and wealthy benefactors, must focus on concrete issues as there are a limited amount of resources available for use.
Finally, Norway distinguishes itself from both the United States and the United Kingdom
as a republic which accurately and fairly represents its voters.
Unlike the two previous examples, Norway’s constitution was not created due to civil instability, but instead as a means by which to gain protection. The 1814 Constitution’s purpose was to recreate a union between Norway and Sweden, and at the time, was one of the most radically liberal constitutions, providing land owning farmers the ability to both vote and run for office; this unique coalition between farmers and the upper class necessitated the system be more equitable to the governing powers24. Therefore, the political system of Norway reflects this voting dynamic, providing citizens the power to shape policy and the organization of government25. Unlike both the US and the UK, Norway utilizes a proportional algorithm in its constituencies as opposed to "first past the post"26. Constituencies are created based on both geography and population size, but partisanship is an unnecessary concern in the creation of such districts due to the proportional representation. Candidates from all parties run on party lists in a constituency; voters will then vote for their party of choice, and the party will win an amount of seats equal to the percent of votes received (i.e winning 20% of the vote results in winning 20% of the seats). This form of proportional representation is the most advantageous in ensuring voters attain a voice in their own government, as it is the most direct measure of their will. Nationally, the turnout reaches close to 78%, one of the highest in the world and significantly outpacing that of the United Kingdom and United States27. This is a strong example of voters feeling confident their views will be properly expressed in the legislative process. Furthermore, because the Norwegian Parliament is allocated proportionally, parties must work in conjunction, forming coalitions in order to secure a ruling government, thereby promoting bipartisan collaboration among parties, ensuring voters across the political spectrum are represented in some way in the executive branch and in policy28. In terms of Norway’s campaign finance laws, over 74% of political parties’ funds come from public funding, while the remaining private donors must be reported in annual reports.29 An independent body administers the campaign finance of Norway’s political parties, adjudicating penalties for failure to abide by the law30. In 2006, Parliament passed the “Broadcasting Act”, outlawing political advertising on TV, and eventually removed advertisements on radio31. By limiting advertisement, voters are forced to both pay closer attention to party manifestos, and parties can reject beholdenment to private enterprises seeking to influence policy. Norway’s democracy is more representative of its voters, and grants them the suitable powers to check the incumbent government.
Unlike the two previous examples, Norway’s constitution was not created due to civil instability, but instead as a means by which to gain protection. The 1814 Constitution’s purpose was to recreate a union between Norway and Sweden, and at the time, was one of the most radically liberal constitutions, providing land owning farmers the ability to both vote and run for office; this unique coalition between farmers and the upper class necessitated the system be more equitable to the governing powers24. Therefore, the political system of Norway reflects this voting dynamic, providing citizens the power to shape policy and the organization of government25. Unlike both the US and the UK, Norway utilizes a proportional algorithm in its constituencies as opposed to "first past the post"26. Constituencies are created based on both geography and population size, but partisanship is an unnecessary concern in the creation of such districts due to the proportional representation. Candidates from all parties run on party lists in a constituency; voters will then vote for their party of choice, and the party will win an amount of seats equal to the percent of votes received (i.e winning 20% of the vote results in winning 20% of the seats). This form of proportional representation is the most advantageous in ensuring voters attain a voice in their own government, as it is the most direct measure of their will. Nationally, the turnout reaches close to 78%, one of the highest in the world and significantly outpacing that of the United Kingdom and United States27. This is a strong example of voters feeling confident their views will be properly expressed in the legislative process. Furthermore, because the Norwegian Parliament is allocated proportionally, parties must work in conjunction, forming coalitions in order to secure a ruling government, thereby promoting bipartisan collaboration among parties, ensuring voters across the political spectrum are represented in some way in the executive branch and in policy28. In terms of Norway’s campaign finance laws, over 74% of political parties’ funds come from public funding, while the remaining private donors must be reported in annual reports.29 An independent body administers the campaign finance of Norway’s political parties, adjudicating penalties for failure to abide by the law30. In 2006, Parliament passed the “Broadcasting Act”, outlawing political advertising on TV, and eventually removed advertisements on radio31. By limiting advertisement, voters are forced to both pay closer attention to party manifestos, and parties can reject beholdenment to private enterprises seeking to influence policy. Norway’s democracy is more representative of its voters, and grants them the suitable powers to check the incumbent government.
While the United States, United Kingdom, and Norway all share similarities in both their constitutions and political structures, they vary in how much powers they give to their own voters. The United States, a nation which prides itself on promoting democracy across the world, is less representative of its own voters than other developed nations across the world. The United Kingdom similarly does not represent its people as strongly as a parliamentary political system could. Norway, a nation fairly quiet and less boastful about its democracy, is considerably more representative of its people, affording voters a voice, and subsequently, greater powers in policy making. Voting is a vital right afforded to citizens of these countries, and ensuring this right is adequately protected and fully representative is of critical interest to any self described republic.
1 While the United Kingdom is technically a Constitutional Monarchy and not a Republican Presidential system like the US, the parliamentary systems found in the UK is Republican in its nature.
2US Voting Rights Timeline." Northern California Citizenship Project, 2004, 1-3. doi:10.3897/bdj.4.e7720.figure2f.3Lu, Denise. "Is the electoral college fair?" The Washington Post. Dec. & jan., 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/how-fair-is-the-electoral-college/.4"Voter Turnout Data." United States Elections Project. http://www.electproject.org/home/voter- turnout/voter-turnout-data.5 Ibid6"Gerrymandering in the US." History Learning Site. https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/american- politics/gerrymandering-in-the-us/.7 Note: California and Arizona have non-partisan committees which draw congressional districts
8“Election Statistics, 1920 to Present." US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives. Accessed February 23, 2018. http://history.house.gov/Institution/Election-Statistics/Election-Statistics/.9“North Carolina 2016 Statewide Results." NC SBE Contest Results. http://er.ncsbe.gov/?election_dt=11%2F08%2F2016&county_id=0&office=FED&contest=0.
10“Election Statistics, 1920 to Present." US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives. Accessed February 23, 2018. http://history.house.gov/Institution/Election-Statistics/Election-Statistics/.
11"Voter Turnout ." Fair Vote . http://www.fairvote.org/voter_turnout#voter_turnout_101.
12"The FEC and the Federal Campaign Finance Law." Federal Election Commission . https://classic.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml.
13Gitell, Seth. "Making Sense of McCain-Feingold and Campaign-Finance Reform." The Atlantic. July 01, 2003.https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/07/making-sense-of-mccain-feingold-and- campaign-finance-reform/302758/.14"The FEC and the Federal Campaign Finance Law." Federal Election Commission . https://classic.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml.
15"What is the House of Lords?" UK Parliament. http://www.parliament.uk/education/about-your- parliament/mps-lords-monarch/what-is-the-house-of-lords/.16"The work of the House of Commons." UK Parliament. http://www.parliament.uk/business/commons/what-the-commons-does/.
17“About the Boundary Commission.” Boundary Commission. https://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/about-us/
18"Results of the 2017 General Election." BBC News. http://www.bbc.com/news/election/2017/results/england.19 Ibid20 “Voter Turnout ." Fair Vote . http://www.fairvote.org/voter_turnout#voter_turnout_101.21"General election turnout 1945 – 2017." Voter turnout at UK general elections 1945 – 2017 | UK Political Info. http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm.22Feikert, Clare. "Campaign Finance: United Kingdom." Campaign Finance: United Kingdom | Law Library of Congress. April 01, 2009. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaign-finance/uk.php.23“Broadcasting Act of 1990”. The National Archives, 1990, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/42/contents
24Holmoyvik, Eirik and Nagel, Anne-Hilde,“The Norwegian Constitution 1814: From Autocracy to Democracy”. University of Bergen. November 28, 2013. http://www.uib.no/en/news/48544/1814- autocracy-democracy25Adams, Ben and Smith, Alexander “Norway is the ‘World’s Best Democracy’ - We Asked Its People Why”. NBC News, February 22, 2017. https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/trumps-address-to- congress/norway-world-s-best-democracy-we-as ked-its-people-why-n720151
26“OSCE/ODIHR Election Expert Team Report: Norway Parliamentary Elections” Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. December 4, 2017 https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/norway/360336?download=true27DeSilver, Drew. "U.S. trails most developed countries in voter turnout." Pew Research Center. May 15, 2017. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/15/u-s-voter-turnout-trails-most-developed- countries/.
28Llanos, Mariana “Explaining Coalition Performance in Presidential Systems: The Importance (of a Parliamentary-style) Coalition Management”. Institute for Iberoamerican Studies, German Institute for Global and Area Studies Hamburg, 2006.
29“OSCE/ODIHR Election Expert Team Report: Norway Parliamentary Elections” Office for Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights. December 4, 2017
https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/norway/360336?download=true
30 Ibid
31“Broadcasting Act 1990.” Legislation.gov.uk, Statute Law Database www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/42/contents.
30 Ibid
31“Broadcasting Act 1990.” Legislation.gov.uk, Statute Law Database www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/42/contents.
