Page 161 - Freedom in the world_Neat

might. In addition, to maximize their influence over the selection of the president, states
have an interest in maintaining a winner-take-all system, allocating all their electoral votes
to a single candidate; 48 states currently do so. This creates a structural bias that also
heightens the influence of “swing states,” where party preferences are about evenly
divided, and whose Electoral College votes would essentially cancel one another out if they
were allocated proportionately to each candidate.

Four times in U.S. presidential election history (1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000), the winner
of the popular vote has failed to win the White House. There have only been 54
presidential elections to date. Therefore, almost 8 percent of the time, the Electoral College
system has led to the election of a candidate other than the one who received the most
votes nationwide—a modest, but by no means insignificant, proportion. However,
candidate and voter behavior under a system without the Electoral College would likely be
different in ways that are not entirely predictable. For instance, the perceived closeness of
the presidential contest in a particular state currently has a significant impact on voter
turnout in that state.44 It is unclear how turnout would be affected if every vote in the
country were counted equally.
Even when the structural biases of the Electoral College are not sufficiently significant to
change the outcome of the election, they may still have considerable impact on substantive
representation. Election-minded first-term presidents, for instance, are much more likely to
be responsive to the interests of voters in swing states than those in noncompetitive
states. The Electoral College endures, however, because it is generally understood to be a
part of the federal inheritance, in which states are seen as historically sovereign entities
rather than mere administrative divisions. Proponents, moreover, often argue that the
Electoral College obliges candidates to marshal popular support in multiple parts of the
country, preventing the victory of those who rely on the exploitation of regional interests
or prejudices. The system also discourages third candidates, which, all else being equal,
results in more stable, centrist policies than alternative frameworks.

Voting Administration and Equal Access

A major issue of concern is equality of access to and influence over the political process.
Despite universal suffrage and the great strides made in protecting individual voting
rights, not all citizens in today’s America have an equal voice with which to influence
government decision-making. The problem starts with access to the ballot. In recent
election cycles, observers reported what are, at best, inconsistent practices regarding the
purging of voter rolls and voter registration. The updating of voter lists and the vetting of
incoming registration cards are necessary to maintain the integrity and manageability of
the electoral process. But the improper purging of voter rolls, inequitable distribution of
voting machinery, unreasonable rejection of provisional ballots, and unlawful voter
intimidation tactics effectively suppress voter turnout at critical times and places—and do
so disproportionately along ethnic, partisan, and socioeconomic lines.

Page 161 of 168