Rockridge
High School
Taylor
Ridge, Illinois
Teacher:
Barbara Downey
Give
The Power Back To The People
By Tony Frakes
12th grade
I
can imagine my ancestors coming across the Atlantic Ocean excited about coming
to America: the land of promise, the land of freedom, the land of democracy.
Our forefathers had such grand plans for our country, a land where
people would have a say in every major decision made by its government.
Slowly, however, our government has taken that power from the
people’s hands. Our nation’s
highest office should be run by a person that the majority of people have
chosen. With the election process
of today, however, I feel that the people are getting cheated out of this
right. Our country should move to
a direct popular vote to decide the presidency.
One
of the members of the Electoral College from the state of Illinois is from the
Quad Cities. Here is a man who
does have a vote in who the president will be, and he agrees one hundred
percent with the abolition of the Electoral College.
He says that the people do not respect the decision of the Electoral
College, because they actually have no say in it.
Another
reality of the Electoral College is the possibility of faithless electors.
In twenty-four states electors are not bound to cast their vote for a
specific candidate. In the
remaining twenty-six states the electors must automatically cast their vote
for the popular vote winner. So
why wouldn’t the other twenty-four states switch to the automatic plan?
If they did, why would there be a need for the Electoral College?
The answer and solution seem to be simple.
There have been over seven hundred attempts to do away with the
Electoral College. Three fourths
of the states have to ratify it, and those twenty-four states apparently are
not going to change anytime soon.
Every
election year you turn on your television and you hear two different things:
who is winning the popular vote and who is winning the actual election.
I find it hard to believe that the candidate with the most popular vote
can end up losing the election. Yet,
this past year that very thing happened.
Al Gore, the winner of the popular vote, lost the election to George W.
Bush. For the next four years the
man running or country will not be the majority’s choice.
One might ask these electors how they could cast their vote for the
candidate that the majority of the people do not want.
However, with the Electoral College there is that possibility.
Our
country has always prided itself on the fact that we are a true democracy.
Ask yourself though: is the Electoral College truly a democracy?
Webster’s dictionary defines democracy as: “a government where the
supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them through
representatives involving periodically free elections.”
When a man or woman cast his/her vote, he/she is really voting for the
electors, hoping they will cast their votes in the people’s favor.
If this is what is meant by free elections, then I will have to agree
with the Electoral College. But,
I strongly believe that a “free” election would be best represented by a
direct popular vote.
The
Electoral College is not the only thing wrong with today’s election.
Presidential candidates are now raising money that is in excess of
millions of dollars. Bill
Bradley, an outside democratic shot for president, believes that: “It [big
money] is like a great stone wall that comes between the people and their
representatives, a great wall that prevents one from hearing the other.”
Bradley believes soft money contributions should be banned and public
funding is the way to go. Bradley
proposes doubling the government’s one-to-one matches of small individual
contributions that are two hundred and fifty dollars or less.
He also calls for free television time sixty days before the election
for candidates. I feel that too
much money is a factor in presidential campaigns.
This past election every time you turned on the television, you saw a
commercial by Gore mudslinging Bush or vice versa.
The people want to hear about their candidate’s good things, not the
opponent’s downfalls. Less
money would force the candidates to reconsider their tactics, because there
would be limited opportunities for publicity.
I
am sure my ancestors were anything but disappointed when they arrived in
America. The nation they
experienced was more democratic then anything they had ever had before.
I also know that our nation today is in many ways very democratic.
However, as citizens and patriots we must always look for ways to
better our nation. I am
thoroughly convinced that a direct popular vote is the way to achieve this.
It is highly unlikely that the voting process will change anytime soon,
but we can only hope to make strides little by little.
Then someday I will vote, confident that my vote will actually count!
Works
Cited
Arnold,
Laurence. “Bradley Proposes
Reforms.” 23 July, 1999: 15
Dec, 2000. www.texnews.com/abilene2000/elec/Brad0723.html.
Glennon,
Micheal J. “On Politics Free Media.” 18 Dec, 2000.
Questions
1.
How and when did the U.S. elect a president and vice president of
different parties? Name them and their respective parties.
In
the election of 1796, John Adams (Federalist) was elected president and Thomas
Jefferson (Republican) was elected vice president.
This happened because the pres. and vice pres. were chosen based on
numbers 1 and 2 in electoral votes.
2.
Describe four ways that were suggested to elect the president between 1808 and
1846.
1.
In 1808 a proposal by “lot” first surfaced.
2. In 1816 the first direct vote was proposed.
3. In 1822 it was proposed the president be chosen by four regions on a
rotating
basis.
4. In 1826 the automatic plan was proposed.
The winner in popular vote would
get the electoral votes automatically.
3.
Name five U.S. Presidents who were elected with less than the popular vote.
1. A. Lincoln n 1860
2. R. Nixon in 1968
3.
J. Kennedy in 1960
4.
W. Wilson in 1912
5.
J. Q. Adams in 1824
4.
Describe the winner-take-all system. Which
states use this system?
Every
state but Maine uses this system. The
state cannot divide up its electoral votes.
The winner gets all the electoral votes.
5.
When do electors vote and when are the results known?
Electors
vote on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.
In Jan the results are officially announced.
6.
What affect would substituting a direct popular vote for the Electoral College
have on third party candidates? Why?
It
would enhance the third party. All
their votes would count. They
would have more of a chance.
7.
Give four arguments for and against the direct vote system.
For: 1. The most popular vote always wins.
2. Equal weight to each vote.
3. Minority votes are encouraged.
4. It encourages greater voter participation.
Against: 1. Candidate could win on special interests.
2. Gives less voice
to poor voters.
3. Borders would be
irrelevant.
4. Weakens the
powers of the state.
8.
Describe the differences between the district plan, the proportional
plan, and the winner-take-all plan.
The
proportional plan divides the Electoral College.
The Winner-take-all plan gives the electoral vote to the popular vote
winner. The district plan adds
the votes by district not by state.
9.
State four points experts in 1969 agreed should be included in an ideal
plan for electing U.S. Presidents.
1.
Need for a quick decision and a clear-cut winner.
2. The victor should be the people’s choice with the most popular
vote.
3. A good margin of victory and mandate to govern.
4. Should not undermine the two party system.
10.
Write a paragraph describing what is meant by one of the following:
Shrinkage Phenomenon, Americans prefer pragmatists to ideologues, The people
most likely to be under represented, and Crisis is opportunity.
Laurence
Barrett said the shrinkage phenomenon was an effect that diminishes
prospects’ stature as soon as they enter the race.
To me, this means a very distinguished and respected gentleman could
seem like the perfect candidate when outside the picture.
Once he joins in, however, he seems just like the other “lesser”
candidates scurrying after votes and donations.
They get caught up in the propaganda and their stock plummets with the
people who supported them to begin with.