Rockridge
High School
Taylor
Ridge, Illinois
Teacher:
Barbara Downey
Meeting
America’s Needs
By Kelly Gierlus
12th grade
Over
200 years ago the Founding Fathers had the difficult task of creating an
election process that would meet the new Americans’ needs. The thirteen
states envied each other's rights and power but were suspicious of any central
national government. The country consisted of about four million citizens
spread along a thousand miles of the Atlantic Coast, making national
campaigning impractical. Also, the citizens were afraid that any sort of
political parties would lead to a corrupt government. Lastly, most people
believed that if you were a gentleman, you should not campaign for an office,
but others would choose you. What kind of election process could work in a
country with so many conflicting views?
The
first idea was to have Congress decide on the president. It was turned down
because the authors of the constitution feared it would result in Congress
being divided against each other. The second idea was for the president to be
selected by the state legislatures but that would take away from the federal
authority. Then they considered having a direct election. It was rejected
because they feared that the people would not have enough information about
the candidates from other states and would just vote for the candidate from
their own region. Also, the president would end up being decided by the states
with the larger populations. Finally, the Founding Fathers proposed the
president be indirectly elected through the College of Electors. This was not
a new idea, but was very similar to the way the Roman Catholic Church selects
the Pope and also similar to the Centurial Assembly system that was used in
the Roman Republic. The idea was that the most knowledgeable and informed
people would be selecting the president. Since then America’s needs have
changed, but the election process has evolved along with it so that it still
works well. Some people are now calling for an elimination of the Electoral
system, but I believe that the Electoral College should not be discarded;
instead, it should be reformed.
One
big advantage of the Electoral College system is that in order to be elected,
the candidate’s support must be distributed over a large part of the
country. Without the Electoral College the election would be controlled by the
regions with the highest populations. The way it is now no region has enough
electoral votes to give a candidate an absolute majority. This forces the
candidates to be supported by people from all over the nation. The one
downfall is that if the race is very close, a candidate with fewer popular
votes could end up with more electoral votes and win the election. In that
case, though, it is likely that either candidate would be as effective as the
other, so it seems right that the election would go to the one with the best
distribution of votes.
Without
the Electoral College the two party system would dissolve, affecting the
country’s political stability. With the Electoral College it is almost
impossible for a candidate from a minor party to win the election, because
they cannot get enough votes in enough states to get a majority of the
Electoral votes. This protects the government from any radical or severe
changes. Instead, the minor parties are forced to join one of the major
parties. This helps the major parties by giving them more support. At the same
time the minor parties are forced to compromise their more extreme views. On
the other hand, a direct election would make it easier for a third party
candidate to win. The numerous political parties and their radical changes
would lead to an unstable political system.
The
Electoral College system also maintains the balance of national and state
power. For example, the House of Representatives represents the states
according to their population, and the Senate represents each state equally no
matter what their population. The Electoral College system is a combination of
the two ideas, because each state is given the number of electoral votes equal
to the number of their Representatives plus Senators. If we decide that we
want to go with popular majority, should we not do away with the Senate, also,
and fix the distortions in the House of Representatives? Then what we have
done is completely change our system of government. Our federal system of
government was designed with the opinion that individual state viewpoints are
more important than the national population’s viewpoint as a whole. To do
away with the Electoral College would ruin the balance of state and federal
government in our country.
However,
our election process does have its weaknesses. The Electoral College system
distorts the nation’s popular votes. Because the number of Electoral votes a
state has is equal to the number of their Representatives (which is based on
population) plus their Senators (which is two for every state), the smaller
states end up being over represented. Their individual votes carry more weight
than the individual votes in a larger state. The winner-take-all system
further distorts the popular votes. In this system the candidate who wins the
most popular votes in the state receives all of the states electoral votes.
Another
area of the election process that causes problems is campaign finance. I think
that the Clean Money Campaign Reform should become a law. It would fix the
problem of campaigns being too expensive by putting a limit on the amount of
money the candidate could spend. The candidates are not allowed to take
special interest money, so that would take away their influence. It would
eliminate the need for politicians to spend their time trying to raise money.
Most importantly, it would give everyone an equal chance financially.
The
fact is that the election process that we use today has been used for over 200
years and 50 elections without any disastrous problems. It guarantees that the
president has plenty of popular support and a distribution of that support so
he can govern effectively. It maintains our government by encouraging the two
party system and balancing the state and federal power. Although the Electoral
College has had its weaknesses, by discarding it we would ultimately face many
more problems.
Bibliography
Cantrell,
Timothy. "The Electoral College." 8 August 1997. On-line. Internet.
5 Jan. 2001.
"Clean
Money Campaign Reform." On-line. Internet. 5 Jan. 2001. Available www.publicampaign.org/cleanmoney.html
Kimberling,
William. "The Electoral College." On-line. Internet. 5 Jan. 2001.
Available www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf
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
1796 John Adams, a Federalist, won the most votes and became the President.
Thomas Jefferson, a Republican, was the runner-up and became the
Vice-president.
2.
Describe four ways that were suggested to elect the President between
1808 and 1846.
In
1808 they suggested electing the President by lot. Candidates would be chosen
from retiring Senators, or possibly each state would elect a native-son. In
1816 it was suggested that the election be by direct vote. In 1822 it was
proposed that four regions could rotate in choosing the President. In 1826 the
automatic plan was proposed. It was similar to the Electoral College system,
except the actual electors would be eliminated and the states’ votes would
automatically go to whichever candidate.
3.
Name five U.S. Presidents who were elected with less than a popular
vote.
Nixon,
Lincoln, Kennedy, Harrison, and Truman all received less than a popular vote.
4.
Describe the winner-take-all system. Which states use this system?
In
the winner-take-all system each state has a set number of electoral votes and
whichever candidate receives the most votes gets all of the state's electoral
votes. Every state uses this system except for Maine and Nebraska.
5.
When do electors vote and when are the results known?
The
electors vote on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December and the
President is known officially in January.
6.
What effect would substituting a direct popular vote for the Electoral
College have on third
It
would give third party candidates a better chance because they wouldn’t have
to worry about getting the majority of votes in as many different states.
7.
Give four arguments for and against a direct vote system.
First
of all, the candidate with the most popular votes would always win. The votes
would all count equally. The problem of faithless electors would be solved.
Finally, it would encourage voting participation. Part of the downside would
be that it would weaken state power. It would be possible for a candidate to
win on the votes of a special interest group. It would give power to third
parties. Also, the urban vote would be weighed.
8.
Describe the differences between the district plan, the proportional
plan, and the winner-take-
In
the district plan the state is divided into congressional districts and each
district votes for which candidate they want their electoral vote to go to. In
the proportional plan, the electoral votes are split proportionally to the
popular votes. In the winner-take-all plan the candidate with the most popular
votes receives all of the states electoral votes.
9.
State the four points experts in 1969 agreed should be included in an
ideal plan for electing
First,
there should be a quick decision and clean-cut winner. Second, the President
should be the candidate with the most popular votes. Third, the winner should
win by a good margin of votes. Last, it should uphold the two party system.
10.
Write a paragraph about: Crisis is opportunity.
Although
being the President during a time of crisis would be difficult, it could be a
good opportunity to make a man remembered as one of the great presidents. If
he works with the country and come up with a plan to help, he will not be
forgotten in the history books. An example would be Abraham Lincoln. He was
the president during the time of the Civil War and because he did a good job
of keeping things together, he is considered one of our best presidents.
Back