Rockridge High School

Taylor Ridge, Illinois

Teacher: Barbara Downey

 

A Revised Electoral College
By Christina Crowl
12^th grade 

          With the election of 2000 just passed, we have many questions about our national government.  Where is the economy headed?  How will public education benefit from a new president?  How will gun control be handled?  Is there a tax decrease in the future?  What will become of Medicare?  Will farmers receive protection from outside competitors? Will a new campaign finance reform be passed?  Will a newly elected Congress decide to do away with the Electoral College?  With many uncertainties in our future, there is no doubt that a few issues will linger, haunting our new president-elect George W. Bush.

Many people believe that the Electoral College is outdated and that the United States should use a direct popular vote.  Indeed, the Electoral College is outdated, but it should not be completely thrown out.  The Electoral College lets the smaller and less populated states have a say in how the government is run.  However, the elector casting an electoral vote should be required to vote the will of the people. States should appropriate their electoral votes, not just use the winner-takes-all system. Campaign finance is also a current issue. The archaic Electoral College needs to be revised.

Twenty-four states do not require that their electors vote the will of the people.  This allows electors to vote for whom they personally believe should be president.  States should be obligated to demand their electors vote the will of the people.  This would give people the satisfaction that their votes do count. 

Maine and Nebraska give their electoral votes to the presidential candidates based on what percentage each candidate receives in popular votes, while other states use a winner-takes-all system. With the election of 2000, Florida had a close race between George W. Bush and Albert Gore. The voters of Florida were split with a 500-vote margin.  Since Florida uses the winner-takes-all system, half of the constituency votes were not counted, because Bush received all of the electoral votes.  The winner-takes-all system does not give each voter a voice in the election process.  States need to come up with a fractional based system, thus giving each candidate their fair share of electoral votes. This would work well in Illinois, as Chicago and its surrounding areas are a highly Democratic region. In the other areas of Illinois Republican voters may feel that their votes are disregarded, since Chicago is the most populated area, giving them more say.

          There are some campaign finance reforms being proposed today.  The most well-known reform proposal is the McCain-Feingold bill.  McCain and Feingold would like to ban soft money contributions, money donated to national parties. Political candidates would not be able to accept any overseas contributions.  They would like a “leveled playing field,” as mentioned by McCain and Feingold.  If one candidate does not abide by the spending limits, the other candidate would be permitted to accept individual contribution up to $2,000, PAC donations up to $5,000, and additional party funds.  Political action committees would only be able to provide $2,500 to each candidate.  Candidates that raise 60 percent of their funds from in-state sources, and who agree to limit their own spending … would be granted 30 minutes of free TV time; reduced costs for advertising; and breaks on direct mail costs.

          Any campaign reform plan that is proposed to the United States Congress will be hard to pass. Parties would like restrictions based on how the other parties obtain their campaign funds.  The Republican party is in favor of restricting unions from donating their compulsory union dues.  This would highly limit donations that the Democrats receive, since many of their constituents are union members.  Both parties would like to limit or restrict donations from political action committees.

           The government provides federal funding if a party receives 5 percent of popular votes in a national election.  This needs to be changed.  A small party needs money to become well known and to be able to receive 5 percent of votes in a national election.  The Green Party, a newly formed political party, hardly received any media coverage in the 2000 election.  As a result, The Green Party only received 3 percent of popular votes, not enough to receive federal funding.  The government should give federal funding based on how many registered constituents each party has, allowing new parties to gain public awareness. 

          If the Electoral College were to be amended, there might not be as many complaints.  Currently, it is left up to the states on how their electors vote.  The federal government needs to change this. States should require their electors to vote the will of the people.  States should appropriate their electoral votes based on popular vote.  Our nation’s electoral college needs to be revised. The federal government should closely regulate campaign reform.  The electoral college and campaign reform debates will be heated arguments during the next four years. These issues are sure to play a major factor in George W. Bush’s presidential era.

Bibliography

  “Campaign Reform” 1997: n. pag. On-line. Internet. 10 November 2001. Available  http://www.cnn.com/allpolitics/1997/gen/resources/infocus/refom/index3.html

 

“Where Do You Stand?”: n. pag. Online. Internet. 10 Jan. 2001. Available WWW: http://www.destinationdemocracy.org

 

Questions

 

1.     In the beginning of the new country, the United States elected their presidents and vice presidents from different parties.  John Adams, a Federalist, won the presidency and Thomas Jefferson was the Republican vice president. Thomas Jefferson then won the presidency with a tie in the 1800 election and Aaron Burr was his vice-president. The 12^th Amendment was added in 1804 which mandated that electors vote separately for the President and the Vice President.

 

2.     In 1808 it was proposed that the Presidential candidates be chosen from a lot of retiring senators or that states were each to elect a native -son candidate.  The second plan on how to elect a president was considered in 1816, which was to use the direct-vote plan. The plan was proposed by Senator Abner Lacock. In 1822 it was proposed that the president be chosen by four regions on a rotating basis. The fourth plan was introduced by Representative Charles Haynes of Georgia. He wanted an automatic plan. This would give the presidential candidate, with the highest percentage of popular votes, all of a state’s electoral votes. This is the winner-takes-all system, used in every state expect Maine and Nebraska.

 

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

1.)   John Quincy Adams with 37% of the popular vote in 1824.

2.)   J. Polk in 1844 with 49.6% of the popular vote.

3.)   B. Harrison with 47.8% of the popular vote in 1888.

4.)   W. Wilson in 1912 with 42.0% of the popular vote.

5.)   J. Kennedy  with 49.7% of the popular vote in 1960.

 

4.     The winner-takes-all system is used in every state expect Maine and Nebraska. The winner-takes-all system gives the presidential candidate, with the most popular vote, all of the state’s electoral votes.

 

5.     The electors vote on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. In January the votes are counted in front of the congress and the results are officially announced.

 

6.     A direct popular vote would encourage the third parties, giving neither of the two major parties a majority of the votes.

 

7.     Four arguments for the direct vote:

1.)   The candidate with the greatest amount of the popular vote would receive the presidency.

2.)   The direct vote would give equal weight to every vote.

3.)   It would do away with the elector problems.

4.)   The direct vote would do away with fraud.

        Four arguments against the direct vote:

1.)   It would make the population more important than voting.

2.)   The direct vote would give less voice to the poor or the minority groups.

3.)   Candidates would receive votes based on special interest groups.

4.)   Direct vote would weaken the states’ powers and strengthen the national government;     

                   direct vote would make state borders irrelevant.

 

8.     With the district plan, electoral voters are allocated by districts within the various states. It would encourage minority parties and give them a chance to receive electoral votes. The proportional plan would have states divide electoral votes among candidates based on the margin of victory. The winner-takes-all system is when a candidate wins the popular vote and receives all of a state’s electoral votes.

 

9.     The four points experts in 1969 agreed should be included in an ideal plan for electing U.S. presidents:

1.)   The need for a quick decision and clear cut winner.

2.)   The victor should be the peoples’ choice 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. I do believe that crisis is opportunity for American Presidents. However, when turmoil starts, the current president does not have opportunity. Opportunity is given to the next president. Herbert Hoover was not able to overcome his crisis. Since the crisis started in his presidency, no one reelected Herbert Hoover. Franklin Roosevelt became the next president and he made the crisis his opportunity.

 

Back