Rockridge High School

Taylor Ridge, Illinois

Teacher: Barbara Downey

 

Time For A Change
By Chris Scott
12^th grade 

 “America is the most wonderful country in the world.  There are so many chances to succeed and so few problems to deal with.”  This is what foreigners might say when visiting our country, and they are somewhat right in their presumption; however, this is not the total truth. Many people like to believe that the United States of America is the greatest country in the world, that America is a problem-free country superior to all others.  The United States of America may indeed be more economically stable and peacefully united than many other countries, but it is far from problem-free.

The United States of America is constantly faced with problems: skyrocketing gas prices, spreading poverty, guns in schools; however, recently these problems have centered on our governmental elections.  First of all, reform is needed as to how a candidate can receive funds and how much money he/she can receive.  Secondly, I believe our Presidential election system is in extreme need of reform.

The elections that are run in this country tend to be swayed due to special interest groups contributing large sums of money to a certain party and/or candidate.  This gives one candidate more campaign money than all the others have.  He/she has more resources to make him/herself more well-known among the American people.  It also tends to increase the number of negative advertisements that do nothing but bad-mouth other candidates.  This “soft money” pollutes our political elections and increases unfairness in our government.  The recent “Clean Money Campaign Reform” should become law because it would be a great start in solving this problem.

Perhaps the most debated and controversial problem we are faced with today concerns how we run our presidential elections.  Do we continue the Electoral College system of choosing our country’s leader, or do we allow the people to vote for the President in a direct election process?

When our Founding Fathers met in 1787 to write this nation’s constitution, three methods of choosing a President were considered: election by Congress, election by various state governments, and election by the people.  It was not quite as easy as just voting on one of these, however.  One must understand that during those beginning years of this nation, America was faced with a huge problem; the individual states wanted to feel like they were in control.  We were still a weak and inexperienced nation, and the states were not about to give up their individual rights.  In an act of compromise, the Electoral College was formulated.  With the Electoral College, each state was allotted a certain number of electors, and these electors were the ones who actually voted for the President of the United States.  This made the states content because they were allowed to decide how their state’s electors were chosen.

The Electoral College was a great invention in its day because the people were not ready to choose a President.  They did not have the transportation or technology for everyone to even know who was running for the presidency.  Today, however, I believe that the Electoral College has overstayed its welcome.

By definition, Democracy is a “government by the people.”  The United States boasts of being a great democracy, yet the people are not even allowed to vote for their leader; the electors choose the President of the United States.  Some people are content with this because the electors traditionally vote for the candidate that their state or district supports.  It is possible, however, that an elector decides to go against the choice of the people and vote for a different candidate.  The electors are not bound by law to vote for the people’s choice!  Technically, the electors could get together and decide to vote anyone they wish into the Presidency of the United States.  How democratic is that?  The Electoral College also increases the possibility of corruption in our government.  It is very possible that an elector’s vote can be bought off by any organization or political party that has enough money.  Finally, many United States citizens have given up on our political system and refuse to vote.  Can you blame them?  Does their vote really even matter?  The Electoral College has left this country in a state of political uncertainty and unrest.

We should abolish the Electoral College and allow the people to vote directly for the President.  This is the only democratic choice for us to take.  This would force candidates to campaign throughout the whole United States, not just the states allotted the most electoral votes.  The direct election would erase state lines and unite us as one nation rather than fifty separate entities. This system would give the choice back to the American people.  Everyone’s vote would truly count, and because of this, I guarantee that people would become more active in our political process.

Many arguments exist on both sides of this political battle, and that is why no legislation is being passed for a change.  There is too much worry about what would happen to our nation if this change takes place.  One must look at the situation like this: change would probably bring problems; however, problems exist with our current system.  Would the problems hinder or improve our government?  No one truly knows, but no one will know until change has been made.  People must realize that the Electoral College is out dated and undemocratic.  Change is needed regardless of whether or not problems will follow.  This country has been through many difficulties and “pulled through” them many times before.  That is why the United States of America is one of the most stable and prosperous countries in the world.

In closing, I would remind you that reform is necessary for this country to remain strong.  We must not be content with what we already have and label it “tradition.”  As time progresses, we must move forward with it, not stay at a standstill. Campaign finance needs to be dealt with, eliminating “soft money” in our campaign process.  The Electoral College needs to be abolished and a direct election process put in its place.  This is the only democratic way of voting.  America already boasts of being “one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”  It is time to take a good look at our presidential election process and decide if we live up to these standards.

 

Bibliography

Glennon, Michael. “Constitutional law and Electoral College Expert.” 14 Dec. 2000: On-line. Internet. 17 Dec. 2000. Available http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/zforum/00/freemedia121400_glennon.htm

 

Required Questions

 

1.  How and when did the United States elect a president and vice president of different parties?  Name them and their respective parties. 

In the election of 1796, the United States of America elected John Adams, a Federalist, as president and Thomas Jefferson, a Republican, as vice president.  This was accomplished through the old system of presidential elections.  All candidates ran on one ballot.  The candidate with the most votes became president, and the candidate with the second most votes became vice president.

 

2.  Describe four ways that were suggested to elect the President between 1808 and 1846. 

      1) In 1808 it was suggested that the President be chosen by lot.  Originally the candidates to be chosen by lot were to come from retiring Senators, but later proposals suggested that each state elect a native-son to be their candidate.

      2) In 1816 the first direct-vote plan was proposed, but it was defeated 21 to 12.

      3) In 1822 it was proposed that the president be chosen by four regions on a rotating basis.

      4) In 1826 introduced the automatic plan.  In this plan, all of a state’s electoral votes would automatically be cast for the candidate who received the highest popular vote.

 

 3.  Name five U.S. Presidents who were elected with less than a popular vote. 

        1) 1824 John Quincy Adams 37%

        2) 1856 J. Buchanan 45.6 %

        3) 1860 A. Lincoln 39.8 %

        4) 1912 W. Wilson 42%

        5) 1968 R. Nixon 43.4 %

 

 4.  Describe the winner-take-all system.  Which states use this system? 

With the winner-take-all system, all of a state’s electoral votes go directly to the ticket that carries the state’s majority of popular votes.  Currently, every state uses the winner-take-all system except for Maine and Nebraska.

 

5.  When do the electors vote and when are the results known? 

Electors cast their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.  The votes are counted and announced in January.

 

6.  What effect would substituting a direct popular vote for the Electoral College have on third party candidates?  Why? 

In my opinion, if a direct popular vote system was substituted for our current Electoral College System, third party candidates would at least be encouraged to run for the presidency.  They would have more of a possibility of winning even though the chances would probably remain slim to none. 

 

7.  Give four arguments for and against a direct vote system. 

     Pros of a direct vote system:

1) This is a more “Democratic” system; it gives the people the power.

2) It unifies us as one nation and not fifty separate entities; it strengthens the federal government by doing away with state lines.

3) More popular votes always wins.

4) The minority vote is worth something unlike with the winner-take-all system.

     Cons of a direct vote system:

1) One could possibly win on special interest votes.

2) It weakens state governments.

3) It gives less of a voice to the poor non-voters represented by the weighted urban vote.

4) There is a greater probability that two major parties would not receive a majority.

 

8.  Describe the differences between the district plan, the proportional plan, and the winner-take-all plan. 

With a district plan, minority party candidates are encouraged.  They at least have a chance to get some of the electoral votes because the popular votes would be aggregated by state subdivision.  With a proportional plan, urban areas lose power and third parties are encouraged.  This plan divides each state’s Electoral College votes according to the popular vote received by each party.  With the winner-take-all system, people living in urban areas are given the power, and minorities have a tendency to get lost.  In this plan, the candidate with the most popular votes in each state receives all of that state’s electoral votes.

 

9.  State the four points experts in 1969 agreed should be included in an ideal plan for electing U.S. Presidents. 

     1) a quick decision with a clear-cut winner

     2) the winner should be the people’s choice (i.e. winner of the most popular votes)

     3) the president-elect should have a mandate to govern, a legitimacy which comes from a good margin of victory

     4) the ideal system should not undermine the two-party system

 

10.  Write a paragraph describing what is meant by one of the following:

Shrinkage Phenomenon, Americans prefer pragmatists to ideologues, The people most likely to be under represented, Crisis is opportunity   

 

CRISIS IS OPPORTUNITY:

Many people do not run for the presidency after the United States has had an expansion and a time of wealth and prosperity because they fear a recession is due.  They do not want to be the leader of this nation while it is going through a bad time and have their name linked with that failure.  On the contrary, I believe the best time to be the President of the United States would be when this country is going through a crisis.  Sure, it would be a challenge, but by bringing this country out of crisis, you would become somewhat of a hero.  Take a look at Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt.  They were both presidents during times of immense crisis, but they are looked at today as two of the greatest presidents that this nation has ever seen.