Procedures For Electing Presidents/Members Of Congress Is Not Fit For Purpose

Question 1

Weaker, is fit for purpose through stage 2

Answer 1

• stage 2 of election process, primaries and caucuses
• participation of electorate in choosing party candidate and thus increased legitimacy
• 1968 11% of registered voters voted
• 2008 30% after the reform of voting for leaders
• 2024 largest republican primary turnout of 300k in New Hampshire
• candidates with most votes almost always win candidacy

Question 2

Is not fit for purpose through stage 2

Answer 2

• produce wide spread apathy and boredom especially when incumbent candidate is involved which reduced turnout
• Iowa caucus 2020 9% turnout
• Biden announce candidacy for 2020 558 days before election, foregone conclusion of winner thus won’t vote, other candidates have no chance
• process is also very long, boredom, Trump announced 2024 candidacy in 2022
• never ending cycle of elections, house of rep elections every 2 years

Question 3

Stage 4 fit for purpose

Answer 3

• national party conventions, candidates can set the narrative and define key elements of their campaign and platform
• Harris stance on womans right to an abortion
• stating Trump would bring in a nation wide abortion ban
• as a result Harris led by 4% in polls

Question 4

Stage 4 not fit for purpose

Answer 4

• use of sound bites, speeches contain little detail about policy and statements are reduced to small clips
• 2024 debate Harris misleading claims against trump
• trump wasn’t going to sign national abortion ban or limit access to birth control, instead this was a research group (Heritage Foundation) who wanted trump to implement

Question 5

Stage 7 is fit for purpose

Answer 5

• electoral college promotes a two horse race
• winner wins more than 50% most of the time
• 27/40 elections since 1860s

Question 6

Stage 7 is not fit for purpose

Answer 6

• electoral college creates a winner takes all system
• many have resulted in minority win or the candidate with the least votes but more ECV winning
• 9 elections since 1970s argued to have a undemocratic distorted result
• 1992 Clinton 43% popular vote 70% ECV,
• 2012 Obama 51% popular vote 61% ECV
• famously 2016 Trump 46% popular vote 57% ECV, won despite Clinton having 3 million more votes