Anti-Federalists Were Justified in Criticizing the Constitution

In 1789, the United States Constitution became the cornerstone of American society. Before its adoption, however, the drafters of the Constitution had to formulate a system of government that would exist in the United States for years to come. The country's forefathers did not initially agree upon the system of government that would control the new country. Some believed that the new system would not provide the people with enough power. These Anti-Federalists were correct in criticizing the lack of democracy in the Constitution's provisions. Non-democratic qualities, such as election procedures, lack of equality, and a powerless minority are parts of the Constitution.

Many people believe that the general population is adequately represented through the process of voting for an Electoral College. The people are represented by those who are supposed to look out for the common good. It is insinuated that the public's sometimes-uninformed votes may cause damage to the government. They could "accidentally" vote for a something that would eventually cause a degeneration of society just because they were not aware of the issues.

However, others are justified in their claim that the Electoral College is not sufficient representation. The fact that Al Gore, the winner of the popular vote in the 2000 presidential election, did not win a majority of the electoral college votes, and therefore did not become president, shows that there are flaws in the election process as put forth in the Constitution. In the view of our forefathers, this probably should not have happened. The winner of the popular vote should have become President, but because we use the system of representation, George W. Bush won larger states, which have more electoral votes.