in the rotunda of the capitol are the words here sir the people govern those words were spoken by alexander hamilton when he asked what congress represented to the framers of the constitution the congress was the first branch of government the place where the people's representatives met to decide the people's business yet when the constitution was unveiled many leading americans were outraged one of them was richard henry lee of virginia who had been president of the continental congress during the revolutionary war richard henry lee said this constitution has very little democracy in it what he was objecting to was the fact that the people were not allowed to vote for the president or for members of the senate only the house of representatives would be chosen by vote of the people when henry clay of kentucky one of the great legislators of the 19th century left the senate to run for the house he said i prefer to serve in the people's chamber some critics today wonder whether that label still applies to the house they point to house elections which have become increasingly expensive it was not that long ago that these were relatively modest affairs funded largely by donations from people living in the district today it's easily the case that a house election can cost a million dollars or more with much of that money coming from wealthy individuals and groups from outside the district critics also point to redistricting the tendency of state legislatures to pack house districts with voters from a particular party thereby guaranteeing the election of that party's candidate in the fall so who's doing the electing is it the voters or is it the state legislatures and the wealthy donors those kinds of issues about self-government have been part of the american debate since the writing of the constitution over the course of american history few features of the constitution have been subject to more debate or more manipulation than its provisions for representative government in this session we'll look at the constitution's provisions for representative government a government in which the people rule through their representatives we'll start by examining the constitution's initial provisions for representation and then explain how and why they were changed we'll then turn to voting laws and how they have affected the public's role finally we'll look at a couple of current issues voter id laws and congressional redistricting before i start i have a question for you to think about in your view what's the bigger threat to how democracy in america is practiced is it public officials those who set the rules for elections or is it the people themselves who can weaken democracy by not bothering to vote or voting even when they're not eligible to vote i'm not going to answer the question for you i want you to think about it when the delegates gathered in philadelphia in 1787 to write the constitution they had a number of factors that had to be taken into account the first was that the states had their own governments and intended to keep them in addition the states differed greatly in size and wealth powerful states like virginia and new york were not interested in a union that failed to recognize their prominent role at the same time small states like rhode island and delaware were not interested in a union where their interests would be pushed aside there was also the question of the role the people would play under the nation's first constitution the articles of confederation members of congress were chosen by the states voters had no say whatsoever in the selection of their representatives that would not work under the new constitution the national government would have the power to tax the people they would likely rebel if denied all say in the election of federal representatives these considerations were resolved by what has come to be called the great compromise the decision to create a two-chambered congress the house and the senate the house would have members in proportion to each state's population elected by the voters to two-year terms this arrangement satisfied the larger states they would have a bigger share of house seats and also serve to satisfy those who believe the people should have a direct vote in contrast the senate would have two members per state chosen by the state legislatures for six year terms this arrangement satisfied the concerns of small states they would have equal representation in the senate it also modified those who wanted the states to have a say in the selection of federal officials state interests also figured into the method of choosing the president pennsylvania's james wilson twice proposed that the president be popularly elected twice the delegates voted him down a proposal to have congress choose the president was also rejected that method would have weakened the president's ability to act as a check on the congress congress would pick presidents who promised to do its bidding having pretty much run out of ideas the framers invented what has come to be called the electoral college each state would have as many electors as it had members of congress house and senate combined the state legislatures would choose the electors and the candidate with the majority of the electoral votes would become president thomas jefferson was 3 000 miles away when the constitution was written serving as u.s ambassador to france he admired many of the constitution's features particularly its separation of powers but jefferson worried that the people had been given too little power jefferson also thought officials should be term limited if not they might come to believe that public office was theirs by right other critics noted the contrast between the constitution's provisions and what the states were doing in nearly all states governors and legislators were chosen by direct popular vote why should the national government be any different in defending the constitution's provisions the framers argued that the history of unrestrained democracies was the history of tyranny where the many trampled on the rights of the few said james madison pure democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths the framers even had a homegrown example rhode island to prove their point in that state debtors had gained control of the legislature and concocted a scheme for getting rid of their debt they passed a law authorizing the use of paper money which was largely worthless to pay debts incurred by borrowing gold creditors were hunted down tied up in public places and people lined up to pay off their debts with the worthless paper money soon the rhode island economy was a wreck with inflation running at 800 percent most of its shops had shut down and creditors had fled the state a boston newspaper labeled the state rogue island the framers were so convinced of the dangers of democracy that they refused even to call the new government a democracy they called it instead a republic the people would have a voice in the government but it would be filtered through representative institutions only one of which the house would be subject to direct election the constitution said madison was a republican remedy for the ills of uncontrolled democracy now whether intended or not the constitution's provisions for representative government virtually guaranteed that the federal government would initially be controlled by wealthy or otherwise prominent americans through the first six presidents very few small farmers craftsmen or merchants were elected to congress or held high-ranking executive positions even though they made up the vast majority of the population that situation changed with the election of the seventh president andrew jackson raised in poverty by a widowed mother in the backwoods of carolina jackson won national fame as commanding general at the battle of new orleans where u.s forces defeated the british in the war of 1812. upon assuming the presidency jackson appointed ordinary citizens to executive office and pressured states to eliminate property ownership as a requirement for voting he tried but failed to get rid of the electoral college but then persuaded the states to tie their electoral votes to the popular vote jackson's system is the one we have today the winner of a state's popular vote receives its electoral votes giving the voters a decisive say in the choice of the president seven decades later the constitution was amended to provide for the popular election of senators the senate had become a corrupt institution powerful corporations had bribed and bullied state legislatures to choose senators who would protect their interests the ensuing scandals helped fuel the progressive movement which was the leading force behind the amendment the progressives also challenged the party machines that had taken over control of candidate nominations they succeeded in getting states to adopt primary elections or the voters rather than the party organizations chose the nominees as you might have noted these changes basically undid the work of the framers the presidency house and senate were now all subject to vote of the people who had two chances to be heard once in the primary and once in the general election this was a remarkable change at the beginning of the republic the people had a relatively small voice in their governing today as has been true ever since the progressive era the united states has more elections for national office than any other democracy lots of elections doesn't mean that americans vote regularly in fact the united states has nearly the lowest voting rate among western democracies as this chart indicates the voting rate in u.s presidential elections is roughly 60 percent below that of other leading democracies in some countries italy being an example the rate exceeds 80 percent to understand why the united states likes behind we need to go back to the writing of the constitution as originally written the constitution did not provide for the right to vote some americans were held in slavery and were denied even citizenship for their part women were thought not to have a rightful place in public affairs not until ratification of the 19th amendment in 1920 did women get the right to vote the original constitution had a single clause on voting it gave the states authority to determine voting eligibility in federal elections saying only that the state's restrictions on voting could not be greater than those placed on voting for members of the largest chamber of the state's legislature that clause seemed harmless at the time but it has turned out to be a source of mischief it has been used at times to deny some people the right to vote in the early history of the united states most states denied the vote to males without property a policy that ben franklin thought worthy of ridicule today rhode franklin a man owns a jackass worth fifty dollars and he is entitled to vote but before the next election the jackass dies and the man cannot vote who's the voter the man or the jackass by the 1830s urged on by andrew jackson nearly all states had dropped the property requirement the ugliest chapter in america's voting history began in the south after the civil war and lasted nearly a century the 15th amendment which was ratified soon after the war prohibits states from denying the vote on the basis of race or color when northern troops left the south a decade after the civil war ended the south's white majority governments concocted every trick imaginable to keep blacks from voting louisiana wiped clean its registration roles and required its residents to re-register the state made it so hard for blacks to re-register that less than one in 10 were able to do so throughout the south literacy tests and poll taxes were adopted in order to register to vote citizens had to pass a literacy test and pay a tax to ensure that white voters were not disenfranchised by these requirements a grandfather clause was placed in the law anyone whose father or grandfather had been eligible to vote was exempt from the requirements obviously no former slave or child of a slave qualified for that exemption the supreme court waited until 1915 before declaring the scheme unconstitutional white's only primaries were also devised the democratic party was in control throughout the south every governor every state legislature and nearly every member of congress was a democrat as a result the key election throughout the south was the democratic primary whoever won that primary was virtually assured of winning the general election blacks were prohibited from voting in primaries the supreme court waited until 1944 to strike down that practice the court refused however to strike down literacy tests and pull taxes and they effectively kept blacks away from the polls the literacy tests were so difficult that those administering them had to look up the answers and were given discretion in determining whether an applicant had passed whites routinely did blacks who scored as high or higher were frequently told they had failed in some places it's her courage even to apply for the vote the local newspaper would publish the names of those who had applied so that white employers would know which blacks not to hire in the entire state of mississippi fewer than 5 percent of eligible blacks were registered to vote even as late as the 1950s the voting rights act of 1965 brought an end to these tricks the legislation empowered federal officials to register voters in states and counties with histories of racial discrimination in less than two years black registration in mississippi had jumped tenfold in alabama it climbed from less than 20 percent to over 50 percent the voting rights act produced a regional split in congress not seen since the senate vote was 77-19 with all 19 no votes cast by southern senators every senator from outside the south republican or democrat voted for the bill the house vote also divided sharply along north-south lines once the law was in place southern states challenged it in court arguing it violated the constitutional clause that gives states the power to determine voter eligibility the supreme court rejected the challenge holding that another clause of the constitution the 14th amendment's equal protection clause took precedent the voting rights act also temporarily banned the use of literacy tests which were later banned completely by the supreme court ratification of the 24th amendment brought the poll tax to an end since passage of the voting rights act in 1965 black voting has edged deadly upward such that today the rate is not greatly different from that of white voters now if the politics of voting until the 1960s were largely the politics of race it has since been a case of party politics as the republican and democratic parties have jockeyed for voting regulations that might help them win elections a major target has been voter registration which is handled differently in the united states than in europe in european democracies government assumes responsibility for registering voters if a citizen moves to a new address for example the postal service will notify election officials to change the individual's registration the result is that over 90 percent of eligible european voters are registered by comparison only about 75 percent of vote eligible u s citizens are registered the difference stems from the fact that registration in the united states is the individual's responsibility eligible citizens must personally take the time to register where government comes into this picture is that it can make that process easier or harder if it lowers the barriers to registration you expand the electorate if it raises them you shrink it so which political party do you think would benefit from making registration easier the democrats the republicans both about equally it's the democrats voting in the united states tilts heavily toward those of higher income as you can see from this chart the voting rate among those in the top fifth of income is far higher than those in the bottom fifth income correlates with party preference upper income voters tend to cast their votes for republican candidates while those at the bottom of the income ladder tend to vote democratic as a result of the party's leadership on policies that benefit those of lower income such as welfare services and the minimum wage the arithmetic of voting has not been lost on the parties the democratic party has pressed hard to make voter registration easier its most notable success was the 1993 motor voter act the act requires states to offer voter registrations when they apply for a driver's license or public assistance the motor voter bill first passed congress in 1991 but a republican george h.w bush was in the white house he vetoed it the democratic-controlled congress passed it again in 1993. this time a fellow democrat bill clinton was in office and he signed the bill into law in the senate only three republicans backed the bill while all 59 democrats did so voting in the house also divided sharply along party lines with republicans overwhelmingly opposed and democrats overwhelmingly in favor studies of the motor voter act indicate it accounts for about a third of new registrants to the surprise of both parties however the number of new democratic registrants resulting from the law has only slightly outpaced the number of new republican registrants now the republican party has worked the other side of the fence seeking to hold down voter registration the centerpiece of this effort in recent years has been voter id laws in strictest form an applicant must have a government-issued photo id such as a driver's license or passport in order to register in other states with voter id laws other forms of identification are acceptable as long as they suggest the applicant is a citizen now the express purpose of these laws is to prevent voter fraud to keep people who are non-citizens from voting the real intent is different they are designed to make it difficult for those without a formal id to register about 10 percent of vote eligible citizens do not have a government-issued identification card and they are disproportionately young poor and minorities all of these groups tend to vote democratic the first voter id laws were enacted by the republican-controlled legislatures of georgia and indiana of the more than 30 states that have followed their lead all but two rhode island and hawaii had a republican-controlled legislature in a 6-3 ruling the supreme court upheld indiana's law all six judges in the majority were republican appointees and though they acknowledged indiana's law had a partisan purpose they said other purposes including the public's faith in the integrity of the ballot justified the id law the court said that the law should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators research indicates that voter fraud is extremely rare it appears that almost no one is willing to risk being arrested and fined for illegal voting sometimes it's even tough to get legal voters to show up at the polls research indicates that the suppressive effect of voter id laws has been smaller than many opponents of the laws had predicted the research has shown however that those who are disenfranchised by the requirement are disproportionately the poor and minorities in 2017 the supreme court invalidated north carolina's voter id law enacted by the state's republican legislature after a surge in registration by the state's black residents the law required registrants henceforth to have a government issued photo id the supreme court held that the law had a discriminatory intent concluding that its purpose was to suppress the black vote it's too early to tell whether the supreme court's ruling in the north carolina case might lead it to restrict voter id laws more generally finally let's briefly examine partisan gerrymandering a tactic used by both parties after the population census every 10th year house states are reapportioned to states on the basis of their populations the more populous the state the more house seats it gets california for example has 53 house seats while south dakota has only one under the constitution state legislatures have the authority to set the boundaries of house districts the majority party in these legislatures typically divides up the state in a way that will help its party's candidates a process called gerrymandering the safe way to do this is to pack targeted districts with enough of the party's voters to assure victory in the election the other party is also likely to receive safe seats this happens because if some districts are stacked to the top with the opposing party's voters there will be fewer such voters in other districts more than 85 percent of house seats today are uncompetitive virtually certain to be won by the candidate of the stronger party there are several reasons for this including the fact that some states are so heavily democratic or republican that it's hard to design competitive districts but gerrymandering is among the reasons that many house races are effectively decided before a single vote is cast now gerrymandering worked to democrats advantage until the early 1990s at which time an increasing number of state legislatures came under republican control republican legislatures did such a precise job of gerrymandering after the 2010 census that in the 2012 election they want a comfortable majority of house seats even though republican candidates receive fewer votes nationally than did their democratic opponents as gerrymandering has become ever more precise as a result of computers it has increasingly come under legal challenges in 2019 the supreme court refused to rein in the practice holding that courts do not have the authority to limit gerrymandering the case was decided by a five to four vote with all five republican appointed justices voting against placing limits on gerrymandering and all four democratic appointed justices voting to restrict it the five-member republican majority said that unrestrained gerrymandering may be incompatible with democratic principles but that judges lack a precise standard for determining when partisan gerrymandering has gone too far in their dissenting opinion the four democratic appointed justices said for the first time ever this court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation that deprives citizens of the most fundamental of their constitutional rights now a few states iowa california and montana among them have recently decided to place redistricting in the hands of a non-partisan commission it's unlikely that a great many states will follow their example given the fact that most state legislatures have signaled their intent to retain control of redistricting before wrapping up let me say a few words about the electoral college democratic elections are generally based on the principle of one person one vote the winner is the side that gets the most popular votes but in u.s presidential elections the winner is the candidate who gets a majority of the electoral votes now in most presidential elections the popular vote winner also wins a majority of the electoral votes but not always that's happened four times in american history two of them recent in 2000 al gore received half a million more votes nationally than did george w bush yet lost the election it happened again in 2016 when hillary clinton though receiving nearly 3 million more votes nationally than donald trump was defeated if the u.s constitution were being written today the idea of having the president selected through the electoral college would not be taken seriously the principle of one person one vote is now an established democratic practice yet the electoral college survives because of the difficulty of amending the u.s constitution it requires a two-thirds vote in the house plus a two-thirds vote in the senate plus ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures that's an imposing barrier to change there have been hundreds of unsuccessful attempts in congress to abolish the electoral college the reason is that some states benefit from it because each state regardless of size gets two electoral votes as a result of having two u.s senators the smallest states gain leverage from the electoral college the dozen smallest u.s states have 8 percent of the electoral vote even though they constitute less than 4 percent of the u.s population they have twice the voting power under the electoral college than they would under a popular vote system these states alone have nearly enough votes in the u.s senate to block an amendment okay let's wrap up what we've covered in this session we've focused on representative government as provided by the constitution it was noted that the voters originally had to say only in the election of house members a reflection of the framers determination to prevent a passionate majority from taking control and running roughshod over the minority with time due in part to the jacksonian and progressive movements popular voting came to include senate and presidential elections the adoption of primary elections an american invention also served to shift power to the voters today americans vote more often for more offices than voters elsewhere on the other hand the public's influence is diminished bipartisan gerrymandering and by the efforts of officials to manipulate the size of the electorate through control of the voter registration process although these recent efforts pale alongside those used in the past to keep black americans from voting they are a source of court challenges and intense partisan debate in other words representative government in america is still a work in progress you