Testing Democratic Politics

Even in a democratic society, it is possible to locate some unfair tyrant rules. Human beings are naturally self-bias when it comes to political ideas, which shape the world in their favor. It is likely that people who live together would want to support each other and ignore an individual from a different environment or of a different belief. It is also more likely for people of one ethnic group to support each other in political matters. In a scenario where one ethnic group outnumbers the several other ethnic groups, a single community might become the tyrants in a democratic world. Even the law that regulates a democratic society has its shortcomings. What is legal might not be ethical; the law is further adjusted in free worlds to balance between ethics and legislation.
Background
The societies consist of an individual of various shortcomings. Within the society, we have the powerful and the weak, the skilled and the unskilled, the learned and the illiterate. The list of weaknesses exists in every human environment. It is these shortcomings that make some individuals if not all vulnerable to exploitations and power and feels the need to be protected. Therefore people team up to appoint a leader who would protect them. However, the sense of insecurity still exists under the suspicion that the ruler might still exploit them. At this juncture, people teamed up to invent rules that would limit the excessive use of their powers.
Democracy and the law
Rules are the tools used to manage human behaviors.

Among the controversial laws in America are the rules governing elections and voting system and those managing the excess use of powers. Rules relating to politics are crucial. It concerns every interest groups in democratic society. They affect the elite, the average, the migrants and the natives. Most of the problem that people have with the political law is understanding and interpretation. Most importantly the average citizens seem only to concern themselves with political laws after the election results or during elections. Many are the cases in democratic countries where disputes over election results erupt.
Limits of Democracy
The United States federal laws foresaw the circumstances when Democracy would be limited. The Majoritarian Democracy is more like another form of the dictatorship of majorities over minorities. The case scenario in American elections seems to suggest that the average citizens (who are the majorities in most states) have the least independent influence when it comes to shaping public policies. In most cases, the average citizens or the median voters would be swayed to think in one direction. Mostly this scenario takes place in developing states (Martin and Benjamin, 572-573). Martin and Benjamin (573), suggest that two-thirds of voters participate in elections either by an understanding of the central policy in concern or just following the public wishes. In American politics, two thirds of the electorate elect leaders because of the political parties and not political agendas (Martin and Benjamin, 573). This kind of majority thinking is faulty and likely to drag the performance and growth of a democratic nation.
The primary concern with majoritarian thinking patterns is the casual inference. For instance, consider the issue concerning economic policies. Even if the majority of the populations are elites, very few among these elites will favor economic elites. Suppose voters were to decide on economic policies how many of these majorities would be choosing over the issue they understand? Ideally, the majority of the electorate would be an outcome of minority influence. If the matters are to be decided upon the wish of the public majority then how would we determine that these “public majority” understand the policies they vote? Without a doubt relying on the popular majority is more like accepting the evils of the minority in the custody of majorities. The majority are not free thinkers, to cover up for the mistakes of Democracy by majorities must be tamed. It is only the law that can tame the inefficiencies of majority democracy.
Framers who introduce electoral colleges were bright individuals who foresaw a scenario where a single family with many members would take control over twenty families just because of the numbers. Electoral colleges were initiated to regulate the adverse effect of popular majority rules. This study reflects on the importance of electoral colleges in a democratic country like the USA.
It is common to have a dispute over election results in Electoral College votes. The scenario recently occurred when in the 2016 election and 2000 (Grofman and Feld 1-18). However, the disputes are minimal when it comes to popular votes. Winning a share of one candidate vote in an electoral college supersedes winning popular majority votes. In a scenario where popular majority votes would decide the winner, chances of having ties are minimal. However, in such a scenario if the difference between the loser and the winner is small, the chances are likely that one of the candidates would appeal for a recount of ballot papers. Given a situation where a presidential candidates order for a recount of votes, tension and countrywide stress may be induced. The situation gets worse if recounting of results takes long. Such a scenario is common in developing countries presidential elections, in most cases, violence erupts. In theory, the American system of voting the president helps in curbing election-related violence. Even though there could be a demonstration, it is less likely to get chaotic like in some developing countries because the law clearly defines the loser.
This study does not advocate for tyranny politics. It enlightens scholars on the available check balance to avoid cruel tyranny by uninformed pluralism. The framers also saw the need of keeping the majority rule while maintaining its balance. The Electoral College is mostly preferred to pluralism in the United States because it is composed of elites who understand policies and cannot be swayed.
Political Factors for Democratic soundness during elections
Everyone’s President
The system of electoral colleges dictates that presidential candidates should have a transgression appeal. It does not encourage a national leader who won an election from one region where there are most voters (Grofman and Feld 1-18). Majority rule is vague in the definition; take for instance if Texas had as many voters as all other states, then Texas would have the autonomy to choose a president for all other 51 states. If this were the case, most candidates would only seek the favor of Texas and disregard the rest of American Citizens because they have the numbers. Arguably, this is political discrimination of the highest order, which popular majority votes propagate. The system of Electoral College promotes concern for states with fewer voters who may be otherwise be undermined. The method is recommendable since it encourages value for minority groups in the country.
Swing States
The victor take-all strategy for granting discretionary votes prompts the competitors to center their crusade on the hurl up states. Voters in hurl up states will probably consider the contending hopefuls. Such rules become the focus on realizing that they will decide the presidential race. They are probably going to be the keenest voters, and the most attentive voters ought to be the ones to choose the decision (Anderson, N.P). This scenario is what scholars call the dictatorship of majority rule. There is the likelihood of growth disparity because most political candidates and leader who would want another term in office will please the voters with the voice. Thanks to Electoral; colleges in America, some states could have been cast for lack of sufficient electors.
It can be contended that the Electoral College strategy for selecting the president may kill potential voters for an applicant who has no trust of conveying their state—Democrats in Texas, for instance, or Republicans in California. Knowing their vote will have no impact, they have less impetus to focus on the battle than they would have if the president were picked by public vote (Meffert et al. 804-815), for then the condition of a voter’s lifestyle would be superfluous to the weight of their vote. Voters in administrative decisions are individuals who need to express a political inclination as opposed to persons who surmise that a person vote may choose a race. Even in uneven states, there are votes for the aspirant who is satisfied not to convey the state. Therefore, I question whether the Electoral College has a lot of a mood killer impact. What’s more, if it does, that is exceeded by the explanations behind holding this apparently old organization.
Majority dictatorship is as bad as any other dictatorship government which has been witnessed in other nations. Majority rules are also prone to failures the best cure for such illness is giving minority their voice. The framers of American constitution must have been brilliant fellows to foresee the possibility of breaking the country in the name of democracy. The system Electoral colleges are the best antibiotic to keep democracy in check. The human behavior which reflects inefficiencies requires control in a stable Democracy like the USA.
Work CitedAnderson, Mike. “Human Behavior And Its Relationship To Political Systems”. Mikeandersonsoc.blogspot.co.ke. N.p., 2011. Web. 9 Dec. 2016.
Grofman, Bernard and Scott L. Feld. “Thinking About The Political Impacts Of The Electoral College”. Public Choice 123.1-2 (2005): 1-18. Web.
Martin and Benjamin I. Page. “Testing Theories Of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, And Average Citizens”. Perspectives on Politics 12.03 (2014): 564-581. Web.Meffert, Michael F. et al. “More Than Wishful Thinking: Causes And Consequences Of Voters’ Electoral Expectations About Parties And Coalitions”. Electoral Studies 30.4 (2011): 804-815. Web.