Rockridge High School

Taylor Ridge, Illinois

Teacher: Barbara Downey

 

Is The Electoral College For Us?
By Shane McKeag
12^th grade 

                           

           Our forefathers decided that an election by the people could have traumatic effects because of the people's lack of knowledge on the candidates.  So our forefathers decided to have an election where each state is given a certain number of electoral votes that is calculated by the population of the state.  This is known as the Electoral College and, whether we agree with it or not, is our way of electing the President of the United States.  But with the change in times and the coming of age with computers and television, we, the voters, now know where candidates stand on important issues regarding our country's well being.  So with the use of technology voters are more educated about whom to vote for than the voters who voted for Lincoln or Washington were; therefore, the Electoral College should be replaced with a more direct election.

 

          In today's Electoral College each state is allocated a number of electors equal to the number of its United States Senators, which is always two, and the number of its United States Representatives, which is based on the size of each state's population.  Before each election political parties in each state submit a list of individuals pledged to their candidate for President and equal in number to the state's electoral vote.  From there the caucuses and primaries are held for each party in which the candidates try to win their party's vote to run for President.  Once each party has chosen its Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidate at their national convention, it is time for the election.  On election day, which is held on the Tuesday following the first Monday of November, the people of the United States cast their ballots for the party slate of Electors representing their choice for President and Vice-President.  Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the state wins that state's electoral votes with the exception of Maine and Nebraska.  After the election each state's Electors, on the Monday following the second Wednesday of December, cast their electoral votes for one President and for one Vice President.  Those votes are then read before both houses of Congress on January sixth, and the winner of the election is sworn in on January twentieth.

 

          To make our election process less confusing a direct election would have to become our means of electing a President.  A direct election is simple in that the candidate with the most popular votes wins the election and becomes the President.   The question at hand is whether or not people are ready for a direct election, and the answer is yes. People of today, unlike the people who voted over 200 years ago, are ready to take on the responsibility of the direct election.  People today are more educated on the candidates issues as well as the candidates' themselves and they can elect the candidate who they feel will run the country the best.  But just like any other method of voting a direct election has its pros and cons.

 

          There are many pros to a direct election.  For example, it would put more power into the people's hands as well as give the individual voter more of a reason to vote.  Voter turnout would increase and no votes would be thrown away.  In the Electoral College votes are thrown away because one party receives the most popular votes and therefore all of the state's electoral votes.  With a direct election the candidate who wins reflects the national popular will.  Instead of keying on certain states with the most electoral votes, candidates will have to campaign in every state to get the individual votes.  As seen in the last election, everyone thought that Florida was Bush's because his brother is the Governor; with a direct election there will be no need to predict the outcome because it is unknown whom each person will vote for.  A direct election would also eliminate the hassle of recounts.  After seeing the recent election, a direct election would have eliminated the struggle and the heartache over the presidency and would have made Gore the winner of the election.

 

          Along with pros there are some cons to having a direct election.  A direct election weakens the status of minority groups, which in the Electoral College could make the difference between winning all of a state's electoral votes or none of them.  A direct election no longer promotes a two party system that protects from an unwanted party that could win the presidency.   

 

          Besides the issue of whether the Electoral College should stay or not is the issue of campaign finance reform.  Too many candidates use "soft money," and putting restrictions on how much they receive and spend would make the playing field level between the candidates.  By eliminating the use of "soft money" we can eliminate the perception that money, rather than ideas and leadership, governs the country. 

 

          During this year's primaries, Senator John McCain talked about campaign finance reform as it is linked to free airtime.  To reduce the amount of wasteful spending Senator McCain introduced free airtime for candidates so that money spent on advertisements would be free, thus decreasing the amount of money wasted on advertisements.  By allowing free airtime candidates do not divert money from their campaign funds for commercials on television but rather spend it in other ways of campaigning such as traveling from state to state trying to encourage voting.         

 

          In conclusion, the Electoral College should be replaced with a direct election in order to give back power to the people and to individual voter.  People are ready for the responsibility of a direct election and should have their vote count.  Along with eliminating the Electoral College we should also eliminate the use of "soft money."  By making these changes we can restore some faith in our political system.

 

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.

          Whoever won the popular vote became the president and who had the second most popular votes became the vice president in the 1796 election.  John Adams, a Federalist, became the president and Thomas Jefferson, a Republican, became the vice president.

 

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

          Four ways that were suggested are: Choose the president by lot which basically meant Congress elected the President, a direct vote plan which meant the people elected the President, and an election by the various state governments which in time became the Electoral College.  In 1826 Charles Haynes suggested the automatic plan which kept the Electoral College but eliminated the winner take all provision.

 

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

          R. Nixon, John Kennedy, Harry Truman, Woodrow Wilson, and Grover Cleveland are only five of now sixteen after the recent election.

 

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

          The winner-take-all system means that all of the electoral votes would be awarded to the ticket that won the popular vote of the state and the only state that uses this system is Maine.

 

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

          Electors vote on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December and the results are know in January.

 

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

          They would receive move votes and possibly have a better chance of winning the election.  With the winner-take-all plan, if A gets 40% of popular vote, B gets 35% and C gets 25%, A wins and 60% of votes are disenfranchised.

 

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

          With the direct vote system the candidate with the most popular votes always wins.  A direct vote system gives equal weight to every vote, it does away with the faithless electoral problem, and it encourages greater voter participation. The direct vote system also weakens the power of state, makes actual voting more important than population, and gives less voice to poor non-voters.  A candidate could also win on votes of special interests.

 

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

          In the winner-take-all plan the electoral votes go to the ticket that wins the popular vote of the state.  In a proportional plan the electoral votes are divided according to the popular vote.  In a district plan the electoral votes are allocated by districts within the various states.

 

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

          The need for a quick decision and clear-cut winner as well as the winner should be the people's choice winner of the most popular votes are two points. The other points are that the president-elect should have a mandate to govern a legitimacy that comes with a good margin of victory and this system should not undermined the two-party-system.

 

          10.  Write a paragraph describing what is meant by one of the following:

          Crisis is opportunity:  In the past when our nation was in crisis, the president who led us through that crisis ended up being one of the most remembered presidents throughout history.  For example, when Lincoln became the sixteenth president, our nation was on the brink of becoming two separate countries and even though that happened, it was Lincoln who brought this country back together.  Basically crisis gives the president a chance to prove to the people that he has good leadership qualities and that he should be the president.

             

Back