Exam 8: Elections, Representation, and Voting Rights

Correct Answer:

Answered by Examlex AI Copilot

There are several justifications for retaining the electoral college despite the expansion of the right of American citizens to elect their representatives.

First, the electoral college helps to balance the interests of both small and large states. Without the electoral college, candidates would likely focus their campaigns on heavily populated urban areas, neglecting the concerns and needs of less populous rural areas. The electoral college ensures that candidates must appeal to a broad range of voters across different states in order to win the presidency.

Second, the electoral college helps to maintain the stability and continuity of the political system. It provides a clear and decisive outcome to the presidential election, preventing the need for prolonged recounts or legal challenges. This can help to prevent political instability and uncertainty.

Additionally, the electoral college helps to protect against the potential influence of foreign powers or outside interference in the election process. By requiring a candidate to win a majority of electoral votes from a diverse array of states, the electoral college makes it more difficult for external actors to manipulate the outcome of the election.

Furthermore, the electoral college encourages a two-party system and coalition-building. In a direct popular vote system, smaller parties and independent candidates would have a harder time gaining traction, potentially leading to a fragmented and less stable political landscape.

Overall, while the expansion of the right of American citizens to elect their representatives is important, the electoral college still serves several important justifications for its retention in the presidential election process.

Correct Answer:

Answered by Examlex AI Copilot

The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not specifically intend for the Equal Protection Clause to be applied to the problem of malapportionment. The Equal Protection Clause was primarily intended to address issues of racial discrimination and ensure that all citizens were treated equally under the law.

However, the Supreme Court has justified its historic reapportionment decisions by interpreting the Equal Protection Clause more broadly to encompass the principle of "one person, one vote." This principle holds that each person's vote should carry equal weight, and that legislative districts should be drawn in a way that ensures fair and equal representation for all citizens.

In cases such as Reynolds v. Sims (1964) and Baker v. Carr (1962), the Supreme Court ruled that malapportioned legislative districts violated the Equal Protection Clause because they resulted in unequal representation and diluted the voting power of certain groups of citizens. These decisions effectively required states to redraw their legislative districts to ensure more equal representation, even though this was not the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers.

In justifying these decisions, the Supreme Court has emphasized the fundamental democratic principle of equal representation and the need to prevent the disenfranchisement of certain groups of citizens. While the Framers may not have specifically intended for the Equal Protection Clause to address malapportionment, the Court has interpreted it in a way that aligns with the broader principles of equality and fairness in the democratic process.