Rockridge
High School
Taylor
Ridge, Illinois
Teacher: Barbara Downey
Reforming
The Electoral College
By
Danielle Widdon
12th grade
As
Hodge states, “I think that the reasons for having the Electoral College are
gone. The population is well
informed about the presidential candidates and there is no reason to have a
group of electors making these decisions.”
The Electoral College has many people wondering if the Electoral
College is the best for the United States of America.
The
Election of 2000 has undoubtedly added fuel to the debate over the proper way
to elect the chief executive of the United States.
On the surface it seems logical enough that a candidate who wins the
popular vote should be the president; anything else would be undemocratic.
However, this issue is not that simple; if it were, the Electoral
College would have been eliminated down centuries ago.
The reactionary consensus seems to be that a horrible injustice has
occurred, but the national rush to judgment seems to be missing the point
entirely. Because the Electoral
College has worked for many decades, America should think twice before
changing the Electoral College.
When
the framers wrote the Constitution more than two centuries ago, they were
extremely concerned about the protection of minority rights and regional
interests in a large national democracy.
Though regional interests in the United States are not what they once
were, the country is visibly divided along political lines.
Further, deep concern about specific issues tends to be concentrated in
certain areas of the country.
Abolishing
the Electoral College would not be a smart thing to do.
It has worked for many years with no problems.
The Electoral College gives the public of the United States of America
better representation. The
Electoral College system forces candidates in a closely contested race to
address the issues that matter to undecided voters in battleground states.
In these states, a handful of voters, often those representing a small
minority group, will decide the outcome of the election based on issues of
concerns to them.
In
Iowa, for example, farmers represented the crucial swing voters that Gore
eventually won over to capture the state.
In Pennsylvania and Michigan, Gore was able to convey a strong
pro-union message, rallying support from socially conservative blue-collar
workers. In Ohio and West
Virginia, however, the Democrats failed to show any major differences between
the two candidates, and Gore paid the price.
In Florida, where the election was decided by a swing of just 150
votes, the crucial minority proved to be senior citizens.
As
campaigns become less and less issue-oriented and as candidates increasingly
use generic television spots to expose their brave positions, the public is
seeing less and less of the true person in a candidate.
The need to accumulate electoral votes tends to emphasize these
regional differences and ignites issue debates that the candidates would
otherwise avoid.
George
W. Bush, as reported in Government Reform September 30, 2000, wanted to ban
soft money and impose fewer restrictions on individuals.
Bush has no interest in changing campaign finance rules.
He raised a record amount of money, more than one hundred million
dollars (only a small amount from soft money, eighty-three million came from
individual donations and five hundred thousand dollars from Texas
legislative). Bush’s campaign
reform would raise the limit on individual donations from one thousand to
thirty-four hundred in each election; introduce “paycheck protection,” by
which union members would have to give approval for their dues to be spent on
political activities; and introduce weekly Internet disclosure of all
contributions.
Soft
money should be banned from any election because the soft money in many ways
is wrong. The amount of money
spent by the election candidates this past election year was numerous and
unnecessary. The election
candidates spend several hundred millions of dollars for a three hundred
thousand dollar job. That’s
ridiculous! A lot of the money
was not spent to show what the candidate was like but rather the flaws his
opposition has. The electors
should take stands and make compromises in an effort to attract undecided
voters while not alienating their bases.
The
problems that we face in America these days are not due to the type of
election we hold, but rather due to the number of people who vote and actually
care and want to know what is going on in their country.
I firmly believe that as a country, we have to educate young adults
about the importance of understanding our American government. As a Union, we
should stress the importance of the Presidency and look for good qualities in
a man/woman of this position. Voting
is an American citizen’s responsibility.
Sources
Peirce,
Neal R. The People’s President.
New York: Simon and Schuster, 1968.
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
1787 our Founding Fathers originally wrote Article II Section 1:2 of the U.S.
Constitution provided that the candidate with the highest number of
votes should be president and the runner up, vice-president.
In the 1796 election John Adams, a Federalist, became President, and
Thomas Jefferson, a Republican, became Vice-President.
2.
Describe
four ways that were suggested to elect the President between 1808 and 1846.
In
1808 the proposal to elect a president by lot first surfaced.
Originally candidates chosen by lot were to come from retiring
Senators; later each state was to elect a native-son candidate.
In 1816 Senator Abner Lacock of PA proposed the first direst- vote
plan. In 1822 it was proposed
that four regions on a rotating basis choose the president.
In 1826 Representative Charles Hayes of GA first introduced the
automatic plan, where all of the states electoral votes would automatically be
cast for a candidate who received the highest popular vote.
3.
Name
five U.S. Presidents who were elected with less than popular vote.
1824 John Quincy Adams
37%
1876
R. Hayes
47.9%
1888
B. Harrison
47.8%
1916
W. Wilson
49%
1960
J. Kennedy
49.7%
4.
Describe the winner-take-all system. Which
states use this system?
Winner-take-all
system is when a candidate receives all the electoral votes by getting
majority of the population votes in that state.
Maine is the only state that does not use the winner-take-all system.
5.
When
do electors vote and when are the results known?
The
electors vote on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.
In January the votes are counted before both Houses and the results are
officially announced.
6.
What
affect would substituting a direct popular vote for the Electoral College have
on the third party candidates? Why?
The
direct vote would encourage minority parties because there would be a greater
probability that two major parties would not receive a majority.
7.
Give
four arguments for and against a direct vote system.
This
would make population more important than actual voting and would give less
voice to the poor non-voters. A
candidate could conceivably win on the votes of special interest.
It would weaken the power of the states and strengthen the national
government. State borders would
be irrelevant in elections and probably federal standards of eligibility would
eventually be determined to make the presidential choices uniform.
Federal employees would end up tallying a national vote, and all
election officials would end up working for federal rather than state
governments.
8.
Describe
the differences between the district plan, the proportional plan, and the
winner-take-all plan.
The
district plan is where districts within the various states allocate electoral
votes. The proportional plan
allows states to divide the electoral votes by the margin of victory by three
candidates. Winner-take-all
system is used when the candidate with the most votes wins all the electoral
votes.
9.
State
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.
Write
a paragraph describing what is meant by Shrinkage Phenomenon.
The Shrinkage Phenomenon, is a mysterious effect that diminishes prospects’ stature as soon as they enter the race. The ideas and candidates do not sound as good as they do now. Senator McCain is a good example of someone whose ideas were glorified during the fall campaign because he was not in the presidential race. He could freely speak about how he felt and what he believes in because he had nothing to lose.
Back