Concordia High School
Concordia, Kansas
Teacher: Timothy Berger
Reasons For A Direct Election
By Ken Keil
12th grade
Currently, the Electoral College is used to elect the President and Vice-President. Since its creation, numerous attempts have been made to reform the election system. There are many reasons to abolish the Electoral College and install a direct election for the presidency.
The Electoral College was included in the Constitution to elect the president and vice-president. The framers of the Constitution chose the Electoral College over a direct election because, in the eighteenth century, communication and travel was difficult, and there were no national political party organizations. The framers of the Constitution opposed a direct election. They feared it would split the vote among several regional candidates1. “’I consider the Electoral College a brilliant eighteenth century device that cleverly solved eighteenth century problems,’ Akhil Amar told the House Judiciary Committee in a hearing on Electoral College reform in 19972.” As we enter the twenty-first century, these eighteenth century problems no longer exist. Drastic improvements in nation-wide communication and traveling, and the up-rise of national political party organizations make a direct election a fair and practical way to elect the president.
The Electoral College is based on a winner-take-all system. Currently, most states follow a winner-take-all system. The candidate who wins the plurality of a state’s popular votes receives all of that state’s electoral votes. This system has three major downfalls: the President can be elected without winning a plurality of the popular vote, third party candidates are discriminated, and representation is unequal.
First, under the current election system, it is possible for a presidential candidate to lose the popular vote, but still win the presidency. In two past elections, a presidential candidate has lost the popular vote but won the majority of the electoral votes. In 1876, Samuel J. Tilden received 4,284,757 popular votes and 184 electoral votes, while Rutherford B. Hayes received only 4,033,950 popular votes and 185 electoral votes. Consequently, but not rightly, Hayes won the election. In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received only 5,444,337 popular votes and 233 electoral votes compared to Grover Cleveland, who received 5,540,050 popular votes and 168 electoral votes. Harrison was elected President3. The 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore may have a similar outcome. The outcome of the election is still undecided, but election results forecast that Bush retains an Electoral College majority while Gore has slightly more popular votes than Bush4. The winner-take-all system allows a candidate to win the election but still lose the popular vote. That is a clear violation of our democracy. A person that doesn’t receive the plurality of our votes shouldn’t govern us.
Second, the Electoral College isn’t designed to accommodate a third-party candidate. ”The reason no third party candidate can get elected to the White House is simple: the electoral college is set up to guarantee that no third party can win.” In the Electoral College, there are no third-party electors, only electors for the Republican and Democratic candidates. Then, why would a Republican or Democratic elector vote for a third-party candidate? In 1992, third-party candidate Ross Perot received nineteen percent of the popular vote, but ended up with zero electoral votes3. The winner-take-all basis of the Electoral College clearly discriminates against third-party candidates and their respective voters.
To win the presidential election, a candidate must receive a majority of the 538 electoral votes. Now, if a third-party candidate were ever to win a large minority of the electoral votes, a serious problem would arise. The 538 electoral votes would be divided between the Republican, Democratic, and third-party candidates and no candidate would receive the required majority of 270 electoral votes. If no candidate receives an electoral majority, the House of Representatives elect the president and vice-president3. In such a case, the political party with the majority in the House of Representatives would directly influence the outcome of the presidential election. Third-parties have no representation in the House of Representatives, so a third-party candidate would be at a great disadvantage. A direct election would provide a level playing field for all candidates, regardless of their party affiliation.
Last, but not least, representation of voters isn’t equal in the Electoral College. With the winner-take-all system, a candidate only needs to win a slim majority of popular votes in the eleven most populous states to capture the electoral majority and, the presidency. The winner-take-all system mocks the theory “that every vote counts1.” Voters in the thirty-nine smaller states and voters who selected the losing candidate are left disenfranchised. Every American’s vote should count and only a direct election would guarantee equal representation.
The escalating cost of running a presidential campaign has justified reasons for campaign finance reform. Campaigns are financed primarily by Political Action Committees (PAC’s) and soft money. PAC’s contribute to those already in office to buy political influence. Soft money is unlimited amounts of money raised by political parties for general purposes. The contributions of PAC’s must be disclosed, while soft money contributions are kept confidential. Disclosed or not, soft money is corrupting the campaign process. “’Soft money is corrupting the process and making it harder for those without financial backing to participate,’ said Pamela Garfield, a spokeswoman for the New Jersey chapter of Common Cause5.” The corruption brought by soft money explains why such contributions should be banned. Soft money contributions, from special interest groups, attempt to buy political influence in the United States government. “’Big business and big labor are accomplices working together to protect and advance the cause of big government,’ says John McCain6.” The idea, of special interest groups controlling our government, undermines democracy and shouldn’t be tolerated.
Today, our election process is an eighteenth century device that discriminates against third-party candidates and doesn’t guarantee voters equal representation. The method of the electing the U.S. president must be changed to ensure a more representative government. Abolishing the Electoral College and installing a direct election for the presidency will provide a more representative government for the voters.
Works Cited Page
1Wires, Justin. “Every Vote Counts?” Editorial. The Salina Journal 26 Oct. 2000: A7
2”Time to Reform the Electoral College?” Policy.com 16 Oct. 2000 www.policy.com/news/dbrief/dbriefarc770.asp
3”Why a Third Party Presidential Candidate Can’t Get Elected.” Devvy Kidd Page. 16 Oct.2000 www.devvy.comthrdprty_20000303.html
4Fournier, Ron. “Election 2000- Gore: Let’s Make a Deal.” The Salina Journal
16 Nov. 2000: A1
5Vekshin, Alison. “Congressional Challengers Face Tough Road in Defeating Incumbents.”
State News Service 1 Nov. 2000
6McCain, John. “Campaign Finance Reform Must Not Be Ignored.” USA Today
March 2000:10
Questions
and Answers
1. How and when did the United States elect a president and vice president of different parties? Name them and their respective parties.
In the election of 1796, John
Adams, a Federalist, and Thomas Jefferson, a Republican, were named president and
vice-president respectively. The original
electing system provided that the candidate with the highest number of votes should be
president and the second highest should be vice-president. Well, Adams received the
largest number of electoral votes and was named President, while the runner-up, Jefferson,
was named vice-president.
2.
Describe four ways that were suggested
to elect the President between 1808 and 1846.
Between the years of 1808 to 1846, it was repeatedly proposed to choose the president by lot. The first proposal stated that the candidate chosen by lot should come from retiring Senators. The later proposals called for each state to elect a native-son candidate. In 1816, Pennsylvania Senator Abner Lacock proposed a direct-vote plan. The direct-vote plan would be solely based on the popular vote. The people would directly elect the president and the vice-president. In 1822, it was proposed that the president be chosen by four regions on a rotating basis. Under this plan, the United States would be divided into four “voting” regions and the delegated region would have the right to directly vote for the president and vice-president. Georgia Representative Charles Haynes first introduced the automatic plan in 1826. The automatic plan proposed that a state’s electoral votes would automatically be cast for the candidate who received the majority of the state’s popular vote. Of the four plans proposed between 1808 and 1846, none were approved and the Electoral College remains today.
3.
Name five U.S. Presidents who were
elected with less than a popular vote.
John
Quincy Adams, James Polk, Abraham Lincoln, Harry Truman, and Richard Nixon.
4.
Describe the winner-take-all system. Which states use this system?
The “winner-take-all” system is used in every state but Maine. If a candidate wins the largest number of popular votes in a “winner-take-all” state, that person receives all the state’s electoral votes. Such a system allows a candidate to lose the popular vote, but still win the presidential election, by winning the majority electoral vote. Experts believe the “winner-take-all” system gives ethnic minorities and those in urban areas, power beyond their numbers in presidential elections.
5.
When do electors vote and when are the
results known?
The
electors cast their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. The results of the presidential election are
officially announced in January.
6.
What effect would substituting a direct
popular vote for the Electoral College have on third party candidates? Why?
Substituting a direct popular vote for the Electoral College would have a positive effect on third party candidates. A direct vote would encourage third party candidates to run for office. If the third party candidates receive a small to moderate sized minority, it would be difficult for the two major political parties to yield a majority popular vote. Such an election presents a level playing field for all parties and carries a greater chance for the third party candidates to win the election.
7.
Give four arguments for and against a
direct vote system.
There are several reasons for a direct vote system. First, a direct election lets the voters directly
elect the president and vice-president. Second,
a direct election eliminates the unfair “winner-take-all” system. The winner-take-all system does not account for
the voters of the losing candidate. A direct
vote would get rid of such a problem. Third,
a direct vote system controls the over-representation of low turnout states, small states,
and large pivotal states. Fourth, a direct
election would provide a level playing field for all political parties. The Electoral College tends to discriminate third
party candidates, but the direct vote system gives all candidates a fair chance.
There are several reasons to not change to a direct vote system. First, a direct vote destroys the principle of federalism. The direct vote eliminates the powers of the states and spreads the election over a national level. Second, a direct election may jeopardize the political stability of the United States. The U.S. government has been politically stable with the Electoral College, so why should it be changed. Third, candidates would campaign differently with the direct vote. They would maximize their efforts in densely populated areas and downsize their efforts in low populated areas. The media would be constantly overflowed with presidential campaigning in order to gain a political majority. Fourth, a direct vote would distort the candidate’s platform. The platform of the candidate would be based on the opinions of the majority population. Candidates would flip-fop key issues to win the majority vote.
8.
Describe the differences between the
district plan, the proportional plan and the winner-take-all plan.
The district plan
divides the state into “voting” districts.
Each district contains a fraction of the state’s total electoral votes. The district plan allows candidates to win a part
of a state. In turn, the district plan would
encourage minority party candidates, by giving them a chance to receive a few electoral
votes, and would elevate local leaders at the expense of national party officials. The proportional plan splits the electoral votes
to each candidate according to the proportion of popular votes received. The proportional plan serves as a compromise
between the district plan and the winner-take-all plan.
The proportional plan lets the state vote as a whole, but accordingly divides the
electoral votes to the candidates. The
proportional plan encourages serious third party candidates but eliminates other minor
candidates. The winner-take-all plan awards
all of the state’s electoral votes to the candidate with the majority popular vote. This plan does not account for the rest of the
minority vote. The candidate who received the
minority vote is rewarded no electoral votes. Third
party candidates have little opportunity in such a plan, since they rarely receive a
majority popular vote.
9.
State the four points experts in 1969
agreed should be included in an ideal plan for electing U.S. presidents.
First,
they stated the need for a quick decision and clear-cut winner. Second, the victor should be the people’s
choice winner of the most popular votes. Third,
the president-elect should have a mandate to govern, a legitimacy which comes from a good
margin of victory. Fourth, 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
Americans prefer pragmatists to ideologues. Our
country is full of voters who appeal to candidates who offer ideas and policies that will
work. The United States is based on the
pragmatist idea. We are concerned if the
proposal works, not if it is consistent or right. Contrary,
ideologues believe that if something is against tradition, it cannot work, even if
appearances show otherwise. Keeping a
pragmatist attitude has led to our country’s great success.