Rockridge High School

Taylor Ridge, Illinois

Teacher: Barbara Downey

The Direct Election: A More Just System
By Kristy L. Gray
12^th grade 

As each presidential election goes by, the question as to whether our present system is justifiable is developing into a larger issue.  Citizens are outraged and some do not even vote because they simply do not understand how the system works.  According to the American Bar Association, “The Electoral College method of electing a President of the United States is archaic, undemocratic, complex, ambiguous, indirect and dangerous.” 

There are two main problems with this system.  Presidents can be elected to office even if it is not what the people want, and electors are not punished for being unfaithful to what they have pledged.  We, as citizens of a democracy, need to strive to adopt a better system.  What is a better proposal?  Currently, the plan for a direct popular election is widely favored among most.  This plan has been around for quite some time but has been rejected by legislators throughout history because of issues that are no longer a problem today.  A direct election is relatively simple.  It solves nearly all of the problems associated with the Electoral College.  After some thorough researching, I strongly propose that the voting system of direct election is a better and more just choice for the United States of America.

          Under a direct election system the popular votes are added nationwide, and the winner is the candidate with the most votes over a certain level.  The proposed level normally varies from forty to fifty percent of the total, although others may set none, meaning that the election goes to the winner of a simple plurality.  This takes away the possibility of a candidate winning the presidential office without winning the popular vote.  The president-elect is also the person that a fair majority of the people want to run this country.  It seems rather unfair and corrupt that a person can become President when a noticeable majority of the citizens do not even want him or her to be in charge.  Another fairer concept under this system is that a public run-off election is held between the top two candidates if no one reaches the set percentage.  This allows citizens to still have a say in who will be the next president instead of regretfully relying on faithless electors to decide the fate for the whole nation.  I strongly believe that the votes of the citizens are more important than a House full of politicians.

          In a direct election everyone’s vote is important, and party organizers are prompted to get all potential voters to vote.  This helps to insure that the votes of citizens in small states (the states that candidates often seem to forget about because they are too worried about the larger states) will count, and their voices will be heard and not taken lightly.  This also helps to discourage candidates from just brushing them off as if they are of little or no importance because their vote is worth more.  Although minorities fear the loss of power under a direct election, they can actually transfer their voting strength to the national level.  This has the potential to cause the building of a more powerful voting bloc which would primarily be a shock to political parties in the beginning.

          Under our present system electors representing each state in the United States are supposed to cast their votes for the President in January.  They are also supposed to vote for the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state which they are representing.  However, electors have the right to ignore the citizens’ votes and vote for whomever they personally want.  This is corrupt and undemocratic.  The electors have the power to possibly change the person who the whole nation believes will be their next president.  A direct election eliminates faithless electors, allowing citizens to rely on the fact that their vote will count and can not be changed.  This factor also allows the election to remain in the hands of the people, where it belongs. 

          During the 2000 election, Vice President Gore made his new campaign-finance reform proposal a large issue.  Vice President Gore’s proposal consisted of putting a regulation on the amount of soft money contributions unions, corporations, and individuals can give to campaign support systems.  It is also mentioned in his proposal that labor unions should receive written consent from members before using their dues for political purposes.  I strongly agree with this proposal because it is morally indecent for a corporation, union, or individual to be able to bribe a candidate for a large sum of money.  Something definitely needs to be changed in the urgent future.  If  there is any politician who would not accept this proposal, he or she does not deserve my vote or others.

          As stated by Brian Houser, “The direct election is the only proposed method which assures popular and electoral vote, since there are no electors.  Local corruption would be less apt to cause much change in national results.”  It is a proven fact that in our nation change is difficult, but if the Electoral College system does not support our main focus, the principle of equality, then we must try to reform the unjust system that we presently have.  I agree with Brian Houser: “States by their own accord, may adopt the District Plan, giving more equality to votes, and ultimately, we, as the United Sates of America should replace the Electoral College with a direct popular election.”

 

Bibliography

Houser, Brian K.  “The Electoral College: Not a School, a Problem.”  Available www.members.home.net/bkhouser/writings/electora/.htm.

York, Anthony.  “Salon Politics 2000: Gore and Bush jostle over reform.”  Available www.salon.com/politics2000/feature/2000/03/28/

 

Answers To Questions To Required Reading

 

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

In the election of 1796, John Adams, a Federalist, wound up being president, and Thomas Jefferson, a Republican, wound up being vice president.  The 1796 election was marked by another first:  a Federalist elector bolted and voted for Thomas Jefferson.  The person who won the popular vote became President and the second person became Vice President.

 

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

In 1808 the proposal to choose the President by lot first surfaced.  Originally 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.  In 1816, the first direct-vote plan was proposed by Senator Abner Lacock of Pennsylvania and was defeated 21 to 12.  In 1822 it was proposed that the president be chosen by four regions on a rotating basis.  In 1824 four candidates received Electoral College votes, but none a majority:  Andrew Jackson = 99, John Quincy Adams = 84, William Crawford = 41, and Henry Clay = 37.  The House awarded Adams 13 states and Jackson 7, which meant that although Jackson got more popular votes and a plurality of Electoral College votes, Adams wound up with the presidency.  In 1826 Representative Charles Haynes of Georgia first introduced the automatic plan whereby all of a state’s electoral votes would automatically be cast for the candidate who received the highest popular vote.  The automatic plan keeps the winner-take-all provision of our present system but abrogates the office of presidential elector.

 

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

The following five presidents received less than a majority of the popular vote:  John Quincy Adams (37%), Abraham Lincoln (39.8%), Grover Cleveland (48.5%), Woodrow Wilson (42%), and Richard Nixon (43.4%).

 

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

Some experts believe the winner-take-all system gives too much leverage to a few popular votes in low turnout states, small states and large pivotal states, which in turn gives ethnic minorities, and others who tend to congregate in urban areas, power beyond their numbers in presidential elections.  This influences candidates toward liberal domestic policies and makes them more internationalist in foreign policy.  The winner-take-all system is used in every state but Maine.  The person with the most popular vote wins all of the state’s electoral votes.

 

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

According to Article II Section: 3 of the Constitution, “The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.”  That day has been set as 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 effect would substituting a direct popular vote for the Electoral College have on third party candidates?  Why?

The Electoral College endangers the two-party system and encourages third party strategy to win concessions from major candidates.  The direct popular vote would extend the one person one vote principle, and enhance the two-party system.

 

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

Advocates of direct elections claim such a system would always ensure that the candidate with the greatest popular vote would win the office of president, that it would give equal weight to every vote, it would do away with the faithless elector problem, it would also reduce the chance of fraud, encourage greater participation, and place the election more fully into the hands of the people where it belongs.  Opponents could not accept the unfavorable impact the direct-vote plan would have on the two-party system.  They thought the direct vote would encourage minority parties because there would be a greater probability that two major parties would not receive a majority.  They maintained it would make actual voting more important than population and would give less voice to the poor non-voters represented by the weighted urban vote.  William Sayre and Judith Parish claim the direct vote 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 proportional plan calls for a division of each state’s Electoral College votes according to the popular vote received by each party.  Under the proportional plan, urban areas lose power; as they would with any plan other than the current winner-take-all system, and third parties are encouraged.  The district plan encourages minor party candidates, giving them a chance to get at least a few electoral votes, and elevates local leaders at the expense of national party officials.  The winner-take-all system gives too much leverage to a few-popular votes in low turnout states, small states and large pivotal states, which in turn gives ethnic minorities, and others who tend to congregate in urban areas, power beyond their numbers in presidential elections.  This tends to influence candidates toward liberal domestic policies and makes them more international in foreign policy.  Existing Electoral College and the proportional plan say the popular vote should be aggregated by party vote by states and the district plan says by state subdivision.