Concordia High School
Concordia, Kansas
Teacher: Timothy Berger
The Reign of the Electoral
College
By Ashley McMillan
12th grade
Will what worked then work now? This is a common question that can deal with many issues. However, the most significant issue it deals with today is that of the American voting system. The current system of Electoral College voting has had many supporters and oppositionists. Many Americans favor shifting the practice of the Electoral College to the practice of direct voting. Although this may seem like an advantageous way to do things, when looking at the history of the electoral college, the detrimental effects of direct voting, the advantages of the electoral college, and the campaign finance reform possible with the electoral college, it is clear that the current system is a better way to elect leaders in accordance with the best interests of the American people.
The Electoral College was started by the founding fathers of the United States in 1787. They did this because of their past knowledge which did not favor direct power. They thought that it would lead into a tyrannical state forcing the democracy into republic. They believed that no one branch of the governmental system, the people or the government, should have ultimate unlimited power. Their top priority was the separation of powers principle that still guides the U.S. The founding fathers believed that the electoral college would allow the people direct power in voting without most of the disadvantages of direct vote .1 Since the beginning of America, the electoral college has reigned as the country’s choice in election policies. The country has now evolved with that looming question: Will what worked then work now?
Many oppositionists would reply that the old system doesn’t work. These groups are in favor of the direct popular voting system. The major groups in favor of this system are minority groups. Direct popular voting may seem to have one major advantage in that it would ensure a pure or direct democracy. However, this would come with a price. The direct voting system has many flaws in it. The first major problem is that direct voting would increase majority fraud. This system would allow the majority party to count the votes. Another problem that would occur would be that the race would be swamped with candidates. This would occur because it is possible under the direct democracy to win in a minority party. Another major fault in the direct voting system is that the tallying would be tedious because a close race could depend on absentee ballots and would trigger a nation-wide recount if the race were close .2 In this year’s close race, the recount of votes has been crucial in the state of Florida. If it were a direct voting system, the entire nation would’ve had to recount ballots. There are many flaws in the direct system of voting.
The Electoral College has many benefits but can be even better with a few alterations. The Electoral College was chosen by the founding fathers because it would allow the United States to have a president that was just not voted on by popularity. It also ensured that the president wouldn’t become too powerful.3 They wanted the presidential race to be more than just a popularity contest. The Electoral College is also good because it obligates the candidate to gain support in more than one region of the United States. Instead of campaigning in only the most populated area of the country, a candidate must win state by state. Although the system seems to work fine, there is one problem that plagues the system. It is possible for a candidate to win without having a majority of the votes. This upsets a lot of Americans because if a candidate wins on a slim margin in California, they are one fifth of the way to the 270 votes needed to win presidency.4 The best way to reform the Electoral College would not be to completely get rid of it, but to revise it by eliminating the winner-take-all policy. This would ensure that there would be a clear vote for each state and the candidate who would win the majority, would win the election. This policy would have the benefits of both the Electoral College and the direct voting system without having the disadvantages of both policies also.
Another problem with the current system is the way candidates finance their campaigns. Al Gore supported a very popular campaign finance reform in the 2000 year. That reform is called the bi-partisan McCain-Feingold reform proposal.5 This proposal would ban unlimited contributions to parties and would regulate campaigning from outside groups. This policy would regulate government spending and eliminate the process by which candidates could buy votes. The problem of soft money is becoming more of an issue. Even Al Gore is guilty of this although he claims to be against it. The term soft money means that the money gained to support the election is coming limitlessly from a private source. This way of funding campaigns makes it hard for an unknown candidate to get their foot in the door and basically limits the race to rich people.
The Electoral College has stood the test of time with only minor disadvantages. This is amazing considering the overwhelming changes that have evolved since the eighteenth century. The process of direct voting would not only be detrimental in terms of tallying votes and majority fraud, but could also lead to a very powerful president that resembled a dictator. A reformed electoral college without the winner-take-all policy would be the best way to ensure true, problem-free democracy in America. By using the McCain finance reform proposal, the country would be in even better shape. So, does what worked then work now? Obviously it does work but can work even better with a few changes.
Works Cited
1 “Why Keep the Electoral College? Opinion part 2: Is America a democracy or not?” by Robert Longley. About © 2000 http//www.aa102200b.htm?Iintelliseek&terms
2 “Direct Election of the U.S. President: “Unacknowledged Perils” Avagra 1999 www.avagara.com/e_c/ec_directdanger.htm
3 “Electoral College ‘Why don’t they…?’” Avagra © December 5 1996 www.avagara.com/politics/ec_zine/ec_qa/
4 “Time to Reform the Electoral College” by Ellen Sung. Policy.com-News & Events July 27th 2000 www.policy.com/news/dbrief/dbriefarc770.asp
5 “Q&A” by Al Gore. Gore 2000: Town Hall-Finance Reform July 19th 1999 www.algore.com/townhall/th_finance_reform.html
- How and when
did the United States elect a president and vice president of different parties? Name them and their respective parties.
In 1808, John Adams, a Federalist, was elected president while Thomas Jefferson, a Republican, was elected vice president. This happened because a Federalist elector voted for Thomas Jefferson.
- Describe four
ways that were suggested to elect the President between 1808 and 1846.
The first way suggested to select the president came in 1808. It was called choosing by the lot. This meant that candidates were to be retiring Senators or a native-son candidate. Another proposed way came in 1816 and that was the direct vote plan. In 1822, the idea was derived to have the president become chosen by four regions on a rotating basis. Representative Charles Haynes produced a fourth way to elect in 1826. He proposed an automatic plan that derived the idea of winner-take-all.
- Name five U.S.
Presidents who were elected with less than a popular vote.
Five presidents who were elected with less than a popular vote include JFK, Nixon, Abe Lincoln, Truman, and Garfield.
- Describe the
winner-take-all system. Which states use this
system?
The winner-take-all system merely means that if a candidate wins the majority of the electoral votes in a state, all electoral votes for that state are automatically changed to that candidate. Every state participates in this system except Maine.
- When to
electors vote and when are the results known?
Electors vote the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. The results are known in January.
- What affect
would substituting a direct popular vote for the Electoral College have on third party
candidates? Why?
The affect of a direct popular vote would boost the consideration of third party candidates because it would be easier to gain political standing with citizens voting. Minority parties would have a better chance of winning. Under the Electoral College, a candidate has to outright win twice while in a direct vote, only once therefore boosting their chance of winning.
7. Give four arguments for and against a
direct vote system.
A direct vote system would be advantageous because it would ensure that the most popular candidate, the one the people want more, would be elected into office. It would give equal weight to every vote and would reduce the chance of fraud. It also would encourage more participation of voters. The disadvantages to the direct vote would be that the system would be swamped with candidates. There would be tedious tallies, citizens would be left out, and majority fraud is a possibility.
8.
Describe the differences between the district plan, the proportional plan
and the winner-take-all plan.
The district plan is a policy in which two electors are chosen by statewide popularity and one is chosen from each congressional district from the state. The proportional plan is one that calls for a division of every state’s electoral votes by looking at the popular vote received by either party. The winner-take-all plan merely states that whomever wins the most electoral votes in one state receives all of the electoral votes for that state regardless of the formal decision.
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; the victor should be the peoples’ choice winner of the most popular votes; the president-elect should have a mandate to govern, a legitimacy which comes from a good margin of victory; the ideal system 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
Crisis is opportunity
Crisis has always been an opportunity for all great leaders. During the depression in Germany, Adolph Hitler realized that by using that crisis, he could easily take over the country. At weak points in a country’s life, the people will follow anyone who’s willing to lead. For instance, the civil war was a crucial time in the United States’ history. Abraham Lincoln, not a very popular man, was president during that time period. This skyrocketed Lincoln’s fame and eventually made him one of the greatest leaders of all time. President Roosevelt developed a plan called “the New Deal” to solve the crisis of the depression. This made him a very powerful and influential leader. Many people today are reluctant to run for president because a recession is due to our booming economy. Candidates should jump at the chance to become president solely on this reason. That crisis could become an opportunity for our next greatest leader of all time.