Rockridge High School

Taylor Ridge, Illinois

Teacher: Barbara Downey

 

Our American Duty
By Jessica Hyink
12^th grade 

 

          Is this the time for change in our election system?  Would a direct election be favorable to that of our current system, the Electoral College?  Has the election of 2000 proven that it is time to remove the Electoral College?  There is a simple answer to these questions.  No.  Candidates of the direct election win on votes of special interest.  A direct vote would give control to largely populated states, taking away the voice of less populated states.  Under a direct vote the power of states would be weakened while strengthening the federal government.  With these points in mind, the Electoral College is preferable to that of a direct election.

          In a direct election candidates could win on votes of special interest.  That is to say, a candidate might win on the labor vote or the pro-life vote.  If this happened, a special interest group could conceivably elect a president by providing “soft money” (that which is given to a party for the promotion of issues).  The newly elected president would then be required to follow the policies of this special interest group, because their votes would have been the driving force for that president to win the office.  The issue of “soft money” has led to many proposals for campaign reform.  The most recent was proposed in 2000 by John McCain.

          Through our current election system, a voice is given to less populated states (such as Wyoming, Montana, and Alaska with only three electoral votes a piece).  If we take away the Electoral College and replace it with a direct election, the power to elect the president would be given to the largely populated California and New York.  Because a direct election elects the candidate with the most votes (the popular vote), candidates would not need to campaign as much in states such as Iowa or Alabama, which have a medium size population, and candidates would not even need to campaign in any of the smaller populated states.  They would only need to concentrate on the two states where much of the population of our country is centralized (California and New York).  This may be good for California and New York, but our country consists of fifty united states, not two.  Trying to give a voice to every vote through a direct election will only cause the inverse of that which we seek to achieve: equality.

          Not only would a direct election take away the voice of smaller states, but it would also weaken the power of the states and strengthen the national government.  Because each state would not have its own decision in the election, borders eventually would become nonexistent.  The popular vote of the people as a whole would be the only determining factor in the election.  One might wonder what the problem would be if states lost their control and the federal government had all or much of the power in decisions effecting our country.  If states lost their power, the federal government would determine issues on which many states are divided, such as abortion and the death penalty.  Each state does not require the same needs, so local governments are better capable of providing for those needs.  Also, when power is concentrated into one area and given solely to the federal government (as with a direct election), there becomes a greater chance to lose individual rights.  Our country is not one run as a pure democracy where the majority rules but is one that is run as a democratic republic by representation with a system of checks and balances.  State governments are the checks that keep our federal government in balance so that the people of this country might have the freedoms they demand.  Changing our election process to a direct election would most assuredly weaken our state governments until they become ineffective.

          The Electoral College should remain in effect because a direct election would allow candidates to win votes by special interest groups, would take away the voice of small-populated states, and would weaken the power of states and strengthen the national government.  As Americans, how can we allow our freedoms and the freedoms of our fellow Americans to be taken away along with our trusted Electoral College?  As Americans, we cannot do this.  It would be against all that our country has stood for and fought to achieve.  How could any American allow our Electoral College to be discarded on the basis that the direct election will always elect the president with the most votes when there have only been three elections when a candidate won an election with fewer votes than the opposing candidate?  Our duty as Americans is clear.

 

Questions to be answered after the required reading has been completed

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 U.S. Constitution, Article 11 Section 1:2 stated that the candidate who received the most votes would become president and that the candidate who had the second highest votes would become vice president.  However, in 1796 a problem was created when John Adams, a Federalist, was elected President and Thomas Jefferson, a Republican, was elected Vice President.

 

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

A proposal was suggested in 1808 to choose the President by lot first.  Candidates were to come from retiring Senators.  In 1844 and 1846, this proposal was put forward for consideration again, except, states were to elect a native-born candidate.  A direct vote plan was presented in 1816.  During 1822, the automatic plan suggested that the President should be chosen by four regions on a rotating basis.  The automatic plan was proposed in 1826, which meant that all of a state’s electoral votes would be given to the candidate who had the greatest amount of votes.

 

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

John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Richard Nixon, and John Buchanan were all elected with less than a popular vote.

 

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

The winner-take-all system is a part of the Electoral College which gives all the votes of the electors to the candidate with the popular vote within the state, except for a few cases when an elector has decided to vote against the popular vote.  Every state, with the exception of Maine, uses this system.

 

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

Electors vote on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in January.  The votes are counted before both houses and the results are officially announced in January.

 

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 substituted for the Electoral College, third party candidates would be encouraged to run for the office of President.  In the Electoral College, candidates can only win the votes of a state by having the popular vote within that state, meaning that a candidate would have to campaign nationally to get a majority of states.  In a direct popular vote, a candidate would only need to campaign on a regional basis in an area where much of our country’s population is located.

 

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

Four arguments for the direct vote system are as follows: the candidate with the greatest popular vote would win the presidency, each vote would be given equal weight, the chance of fraud would be reduced, and greater participation would occur, placing the election in the people’s hands.  Opponents believe that the direct vote system would encourage minor parties, would allow a candidate to win on the votes of special interests, would weaken the power of the states and strengthen the national government, and would give control to largely populated states, taking away the voice of less populated states.

 

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

The district plan would determine the total amount of electoral votes by dividing the state into subdivisions and giving those votes to the winner of the subdivision; minor party candidates would be encouraged to run for office.  If a proportional plan were to be put into effect, then the electoral votes would be divided among candidates, proportional to that of the popular vote.  All the electoral votes of a state are given to the candidate who has the popular vote of that state through the winner-take-all plan.

 

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

In 1969 experts agreed the following four points should be included in an ideal plan for electing U.S. Presidents: the need for a quick decision and clear-cut winner, the victor should be the peoples’ choice winner of the most popular votes, the president-elect should have a mandate to govern, a legitimacy which comes from a good margin of victory, and the ideal system should not undermine the two-party system.

 

10. Write a paragraph describing what is meant by the following: Americans prefer pragmatists to ideologues.

Political analysts have said that Americans prefer pragmatists to ideologues.  What does this mean exactly?  Well, a pragmatist is someone who is not interested in whether a proposal is correct but is interested in whether or not it works.  However, an ideologue is more concerned that a proposal is right, rather than if it can work.  This must mean that Americans prefer someone who makes a proposal work instead of making a proposal right.

             

Back