By Ashley Austin

The Electoral College is an inaccurate way of determining the next President of the United States. While each state is entitled to equal representation of the votes according to population, each vote cast should be counted.

South Dakota is allotted only three Electoral College votes. These electors are chosen at their states’ Party Convention. Then the voters in each state choose the electors on the day of the general election.

During this past election, no Presidential candidates campaigned in the state of South Dakota. The candidates campaigned in states with the largest number of Electoral College votes, thus avoiding states with few Electoral College votes. These smaller states have concerned citizens who want their voice to be heard as well as the larger states.

It is possible that the elector could ignore the results of the popular vote. The popular vote has no legal significance in the United States proving it is possible that the electoral votes could produce a different result than the nation wide popular vote. There is not a federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the state’s popular vote. However, there are some states that have laws requiring electors to cast their votes according to the popular votes of the state. I feel that it is only fair to have the same law passed in every state that uses the Electoral College votes. Otherwise the individual state’s decision on the popular vote should not even be counted if the electors do not even vote the way the state voted. If we are going to keep the Electoral College, then a similar law should be passed through every state making each state have equal significance.

Another problem with the Electoral College is it relief on the census to calculate the number of electoral votes each state gets. The census is often inaccurate when conducted in the smaller rural areas. It is nearly impossible to formulate an accurate count because they cannot resonably go door to door in the secluded areas.

It is also not fair to American citizens who move to either Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands or America Samoa, because they could not even vote in the Presidential Election. The Electoral College does not provide for those United States territories.

Many different proposals to alter the presidential election process have been offered over the years, such as direct nation-wide election by the American people, but none have been passed by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. You need two-thirds of the majority of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Also it has to be voted on and accepted by three-fourths of all the states.

It is extremely difficult to alter the Constitution. This factor makes it difficult to support the Electoral College. The Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution. It would be necessary to pass a Constitution amendment to change this system.

Over the past 200 years, over 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. Public opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58% in 1967; 81% in 1968; and 75% in 1981.

An effective method of change is called “Allocating the Electoral Vote.” In this method the states hold a popular election and the electoral votes are allocated by percentage. Thus if a state had ten electoral votes, and candidate A received 70% of the popular vote, and candidate B received 18% of the vote, and candidate C received 12% of the vote, then candidate A would receive seven electoral votes, B would get two electoral votes, and C would get one vote. In a worse case scenario, a President could be elected with a minimum of 42% of the popular vote. While this is not as accurate as a real direct vote, it is much more accurate than the current general ticket system.

I also believe that a majority of electors should not be required, just a system of whoever has the most votes wins. If there is a tie, I think that there would have to be a re-election with only the two candidates that tied. It is also possible to just redistribute the votes using only the two main candidates and then recount the votes.

I think that the best strategy to getting a change in a 200-year-old system is to start small, test out a new system on a smaller basis, and if people like it, it will spread and eventually it will take over the national policy. At that time it would become an amendment. But no matter how change comes about, there is only one way to get that change. It is to get involved. Every American that believes that the president election system is wrong, needs to speak up and get it changed. I personally would start at the state but no matter where someone starts, they will only get one step closer to a change and it does not hurt anything at all to try to get a change.

Required Questions

1. The United States elected a president and vice president of different parties in the election of 1796, which resulted in the election of John Adams, a Federalist, as president, and Thomas Jefferson, a Republican, as vice president. Originally, Article 11 Section 1:2 of the U.S. Constitution provided that the candidate with the highest number of votes should be president and the runner up should be vice-president.

2. Between 1808 and 1846 the four ways suggested to elect President were:

-In 1808 the proposal to choose the President by lot first surfaced.

-In 1816 the first direct-vote plan was proposed.

-In 1822 it was proposed that the president be chosen by regional elections.

-In 1826 the automatic plan was first introduced.

3. Examples of five U.S. Presidents who were elected with less than a majority of the popular vote were John Quincy Adams, A. Lincoln, Z. Taylor, G. Cleveland, and R. Nixon.

4. The winner-take-all system is where all of a state’s votes would automatically be awarded to the ticket that carried that state’s popular vote. The winner-take-all system is used in every state but Maine.

5. Electors vote on 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. Substituting a direct popular vote for the Electoral College encourages the third parties. Under the proportional plan, urban areas lose power, as they would with any plan other than the current winner-take-all system.

7. An argument for a direct vote system states that 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. Also for the plan states that the direct vote system would give equal weight to every vote.

An argument against a direct vote system states that opponents could not accept the unfavorable impact that the direct vote plan would have on the two-party system. The direct vote would encourage minority parties because there would be a greater probability that two major parties would not receive a majority. Also against the plan states that the direct vote would weaken the power of the states and strengthen the national government.

8. There are several differences between the district plan, the proportional plan, and the winner-take-all plan. The district plan the electors are chosen on a statewide popular level. The number of each state’s congressional districts determines the electors. The district plan says by state subdivision. Under the proportional plan says by party votes by state and the direct-vote plan says by the nation. Proponents say this plan is the only electoral reform measure that would preserve the existing national-state relationship and at the same time reflect the popular vote outcome more closely. They are correct about the federal system but wrong in saying that the plan would assure victory to the popular vote winner. The margin of victory of every president would decrease. With the winner-take-all system gives too much leverage to few popular votes in low turnout states, and others who tend to congregate in urban area, power beyond their numbers in presidential elections. Also in winner-take-all system in direct elections would dilute this leverage and the minority vote could be lost. The proportional plan does not satisfy any group; the district plan satisfies conservatives better and our present system already occupies the middle ground.

9. Sixteen experts gathered on February 6, 1969, to discuss the ideal system of electing the president. They agreed on the following points: (1) the need for a quick decision and clear-cut winner; (2) the victor should be the peoples’ choice winner of the most popular votes; (3) the president-elect should have a mandate to govern, a legitimacy which comes from a good margin of victory; and (4) the ideal system should not underdetermine the two-party system. All agreed that the method of electing the president holds broad implications for the political systems as a whole.

10. Democrats claimed that some of the votes in Florida had never been counted, not even once. They felt this way because the ballots were very confusing and easy for the voters to get off a line when voting. So, they assumed that some of the people did not get their correct vote counted towards the correct party they intended to vote for. Also, some of the ballots were not punched accurately, making those votes not count at all. Democrats thought it would be worth it to recount the votes of Florida to only make it fair.

Republicans claimed that some of the votes in Florida had been counted two or three times. They felt this way because the voting is done the same way every year and it is only fair to leave the vote count the way that it turned out in the first place. Why is only Florida allowed to recount their votes? What about all the other states that used the butterfly punch ballot? Why didn’t they get the chance to recount their states votes also? That is what I didn’t understand. I agree with the Republicans though. I feel like Florida was making it unfair to every other state by recounting their votes. We never had to worry about recounting votes every other election year. The votes are counted fair and square, whatever the outcome turns out to be, it’s final. Whichever party had the most votes is the new president, and it was done the same way every election, fairly!

11. I think that Florida politicized their decisions. I think that they wanted Gore to win, so they demanded a recount of their votes. The U.S. Supreme Court was not politicizing their decision to stop the recount. They were going along with the fairness. Bush won fairly when they counted the votes the first time. They didn’t think that it was fair to let Florida’s votes be recounted not because they wanted Bush to win and they were not stopping the recount because they did not want Gore to win. The Supreme Court just wanted to make it fair to both parties.

12. The election of 2000 makes me both proud and ashamed to be an American because it shows that our country cares who our President is and that they were expanding their options of making sure that every ones votes get counted correctly and accurately. But, it also makes me ashamed that some of our highest ranked judges could not decide whether or not Florida should be allowed to recount. They should have decided much better without all the publicity and uproar about it.

[Back]