Rockridge High School

Taylor Ridge, Illinois

Teacher: Barbara Downey

 

Election Process Reforms
By Ingrid Johnson
12^th grade 

 

The year is 1824, the popular election votes have been tallied, and the electoral votes have been cast.  The presidential candidate with the majority of the popular vote has been defeated.  Another presidential candidate with only 37 percent has been elected as the new President. This was the first of sixteen presidential elections that would result in the office of the president being filled by a man with less than a majority of the popular vote.  Most recently, in the 2000 election, Al Gore received the most popular votes but lost the election to George W. Bush, who received the most electoral votes.

How could a situation like this happen in a democratic nation, a nation ruled by its people?  This should never occur in a country proud of its democratic foundation, one which encourages citizen participation in the election process.  The election process is in need of reform.

Eliminating the winner-take-all system of the Electoral College is necessary to get an accurate reading of who the people of this nation want to lead our country.  In the existing winner-take-all system, currently used in all states except Maine and Nebraska, the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that specific state wins the total electoral vote of that state.  According to this system, it is possible for a candidate to win one hundred percent of the electoral representation even with a mere 50.1 percent majority.

Also, a winner-take-all system silences the voices of the third parties – minority political, religious, ethnic, and racial parties.  With this system, they cannot expect to even offer noticeable competition against Republican or Democratic parties.  No matter what party a voter chooses to support, each and every vote should have equal weight.

Another part of the Electoral College that needs to be reformed is the way the electors are allowed to vote.  As current legislation stands today, the electors are not restricted to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged. 

An example of these “faithless electors” occurred in 1968 when a Republican elector from Virginia voted for George Wallace instead of Richard Nixon.  In 1972, another Republican elector from Virginia sided with the Libertarian party candidate rather than Richard Nixon.  In 1976, a Republican elector from the state of Washington cast his vote for Ronald Reagan instead of Gerald Ford.  In a close race, these defecting electors could cause a lack of confidence in the electoral system.  The electors should be restricted to voting for whom they are pledged.

One solution would be the adoption of the Bayh Plan, introduced by former Senator Birch Bayh.  Voters would be able to vote directly for president and vice president without state electors getting involved.  The candidate running-mates who receive at least a forty percent majority of the total popular votes would be elected.  However, if no one pair of candidate running-mates receives at least a forty percent of a majority, then there would have to be a runoff election between the two candidate running-mates who received the most votes.

Also with the current Electoral College process there exists a possibility for an election to be decided by the House of Representatives.  If this were to happen, each state would be granted a single vote.  This would mean that the more populated states, such as California or New York, would have equal weight to the less populated states. 

Two cases of this occurred in 1800 and 1824.  Handing the election to the House of Representatives can be considered undemocratic.  It is not consistent with the one-person-one-vote system that is widely accepted across the country.  Also with each state only getting one vote, the selection may not replicate the electoral vote winner in that state in November.

Three reforms to the United States election process would restore voters’ confidence in the nation’s democratic system.  Two reforms to the Electoral College would include – the electors casting their votes exactly proportionally to the state’s popular vote, and the electors being restricted by law to vote as they pledge.  And hence, with the two Electoral College reforms, there would not be a need for the House of Representatives to select the President. 

The election process can also be improved with a campaign finance reform.  The Clean Money Campaign Reform (CMCR) provides many solutions to many of the campaign finance problems. CMCR allows the greatest reduction in cost of campaigns by eliminating the need for fundraising expenses and provides for free and discounted radio and television time.  It also combines candidate support with competitive and fair election financing by providing equal funding to qualified candidates.  Lastly, CMCR frees candidates from the burden of constant fundraising and allows them to spend their time on their campaign issues and duties.

It is imperative that the nation restores voters’ confidence in the election process by adopting these Electoral College and campaign finance reforms.  The nation once again will be taking seriously the one-person-one-vote principle by adopting these reforms.

 

Bibliography

Cain, Becky. “U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary.” 4 Sept. 1997. Online.  Internet. 28 Dec. 2000. Available
www.house.gov/judiciary/222313.htm

“The Electoral College.” 14 Mar. 1992. Online. Internet. 28 Dec. 2000. Available www.ksg.harvard.edu/case/3pt/electoral.html

“Clean Money Campaign Reform.” Online. Internet. 6 Jan. 2001. Available www.publicampaign.org/cleanmoney.html

 

Questions

 

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

 The first time that a president and vice president were elected from different political parties was in the election of 1796.  John Adams, a Federalist, and Thomas Jefferson, a Republican, were elected as President and Vice President of the United States, respectively.  House of Representatives elected Thomas Jefferson after a tie occurred between him and Aaron Burr.  These two incidents in the presidential election of 1796 led to the writing of Amendment XII.  This amendment states that electors shall vote separately for the offices of President and Vice President.

 

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

  There were four election proposals made between the years 1808 and 1846.  These plans include the automatic plan, the district plan, the lot plan, and the direct-vote plan.  In the automatic plan, which keeps the winner-take-all system, all of a state’s electoral votes automatically are cast for the candidate who received the majority of the popular vote.  The district plan collects the popular vote by state subdivision; four regions take turns on a rotating basis.  Originally the lot plan involved the candidates to be chosen by lot were to come from retiring Senators; in later proposals the states were each to elect a native-son candidate.  The direct-vote plan suggests aggregating the popular vote by the whole nation.

 

3.     Name five United States Presidents who were elected with less than a popular vote.

  There have been several United States Presidents to win the presidency with a popular vote that was less than a majority.  The first man to become president with a less than majority popular vote was John Quincy Adams, in 1824, with only 37 percent of the popular vote.  In 1844 James Polk became president with 49.6 percent of the popular vote.  Zachary Taylor, in the election of 1848, had a popular vote of 47.3 percent.  James Buchanan took 45.6 percent of the popular vote in the election of 1856.  In 1860 Abraham Lincoln received only 39.8 percent of the popular vote, but he, too, still won the presidency.

 

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

  In the winner-take-all system, the candidate who receives the most popular votes wins representation.  According to this system, it is possible for a candidate to win 100 percent of the representation even with a mere 50.1 percent majority.  Every state in the United States uses the winner-take-all system except for Maine, in which a district plan was adopted.

 

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

  Electors vote on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.  The basis for selecting this date is stated in Article II Section 1:3 in the United States Constitution.  In January the votes are counted in the Congress.  Once the votes have been tallied, the results are officially made known.

 

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

    If a direct popular vote were to substitute for the Electoral College, there would be a clearer reflection on how the minority citizens stand.  The winner-take-all system in the Electoral College would no longer exist.  The third party candidates they support would take a higher standing, a standing that truly represents the voice of more United States citizens.

 

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

    Direct-vote elections may ensure the candidate who receives the majority of the popular vote would attain the office of presidency.  It may also allow for more equality of votes and representation.  It also could reduce the chance of fraud while increasing participation in the voting process.  Also, it would not be a concern whether or not the electors vote differently than the people their supposed to be representing.  A direct-vote system would strengthen the national government.

    However, the power of the states would be weakened by a direct-vote system.  State borders would become irrelevant.  Majority fraud would be hard to reduce since the majority party would be in charge of counting the votes.  And although third parties may achieve higher percentages of votes, they could still have difficulties obtaining a majority of votes because of the two current dominating majority parties.  A candidate could win just by supporting a special interest group.  Still, a direct-vote system would have an unfavorable impact on the two-party system.

 

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

   The district plan says that the popular vote should be aggregated by state subdivision.  With a winner-take-all plan, the candidate who receives the majority of the popular votes receives total representation, yet the minorities are left under-represented.  Unlike the winner-take-all plan, the proportional plan encourages the third parties and the representation becomes more evenly distributed.  It divides the Electoral College votes by popular votes.

 

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

   On February 6, 1969, sixteen experts convened to determine what an ideal election system would consist of.  They concluded that the election system has the need for a speedy decision and clear-cut winner.  Also, the peoples’ choice winner of the most popular votes should elect the winning candidate.  The third point was that the elected president should have a mandate to govern, a legitimacy that comes from a good margin of victory.  Finally, the two-party system shall not be undermined by this ideal system.

 

10.Write a paragraph describing what is meant by one of the following: The people most likely to be under-represented in the winner-take-all system refer to the minorities (religious, ethnical, racial, or political). 

    In this system, the majority selects who will receive total representation, while the minority group’s votes are not heard.  As it was stated in the reading, “The present system has been designed to reflect broad interests, not to merge minority interests into the vast majority.”  The winner-take-all system does not encourage minority parties to get involved.

 

Back