Concordia High School
Concordia, Kansas
Teacher: Timothy Berger
The Election Process
By Kim Lauer
12th grade
Elections are a fundamental part of the American system of government, which was founded on the principle that the power to govern depends on the people’s choice. Elections provide the means by which the American people delegate their power to elected representatives. By voting for government officials, the public makes choices about the policies, programs, and future directions of government action. At the same time, elections make government officials accountable to their essentials. Elected officials must conduct themselves in a responsible manner and take into account popular interests and the wishes of those they represent. Otherwise they risk being voted out of office. This system depends primarily on the voters. The electoral process can only work if people participate. In the United States, elections are held at regular intervals. National presidential elections take place every four years. Congressional elections occur every two years, and state and local elections usually coincide with national elections.1 In addition to elections for office, many state and local ballots include referendums and initiatives, which allow the people to directly determine a government policy. The one principle to contemplate is whether to leave the way we elect our officials to stay as the Electoral College or change it to the direct election.
The definition of Electoral College is the collective name for the electors of the states who choose the president and vice president of the United States. The electors comprise from other state’s electors who are selected by the voters. Each state is entitled to a number of elections equal to the total number of senators and representatives it sends to the U.S. Congress. Thus, each state has at least three electors.2 At this point in time we use the winner-take-all system. In which case, the candidate with the highest number of votes from one state gets all the votes. For example if one candidate gets 35 of California’s 54 votes then the candidate with the 32 votes gets all 56 over the one with only 19 of the 54. The key to this system is for the candidate to obtain a minimum of 270 (a majority of the total 538) electoral votes.
When the founding fathers designed this system for election of Presidents they had no idea of how chaotic this system would become. This system was designed before political parties originated. It was also before very many people had the right to vote. Until the 1820’s most states chose their electors in the state legislatures. In the 1820’s and 1830’s, a political reform movement swept the country and led to several changes in how we nominated and elected a President.2 The most important of these changes were the extension of the right to vote to the common man and the national convention system of nominating candidates for President.2 In the early Twentieth Century, during the Progressive period, a new system of selecting delegates emerged. It became the dominant method by the 1970’s. 1 This new method was called the Presidential Primary in which there’s two main political parties running against each other, both President and Vice President from each party, then all registered citizens vote for the best pair to represent their nation. Electoral College appears to be the best election process available. Direct Election would cause less populated states, such as Kansas, Montana and Nebraska, to have an unfair disadvantage. It is also believe that single-issue candidates or “fringe” parties would be given more strength in an election as such.
Campaign Reform has always been a big issue when dealing with elections. Should there be a limit? Or should we just allow all candidates pay as much as they want to “buy” our vote whether it’s through soft money or their own money? According to John McCain soft money should be banned from a political race. John McCain challenged Senate candidate Rick Lazio over the banning of soft money. Lazio, after several days of media filled chaos, made a deal to stop using soft money to fund campaign advertising.3 Campaign financing has been revised numerous times by the Supreme Court. Laws include restrictions at reducing the political power of large contributors and of large corporations, labor unions and so-called “special interest” groups in American society.4 Funds have also been subjected to being tied to quotas. In October 1973, letters suggested that if the Administration put quotas on imported products, such as dairy products, Nixon could expect up to $2 million in campaign contributions from the Associated Milk Producers, Inc.5 Which, was unfair to the other candidate.
The Electoral College adversely assists in electing the officials we want to meet our demands and needs resulting in them coming true. The outcomes of elections often have important consequences for governmental programs and policies. In the United States, elections have had their greatest impact during times of “critical realignment” which is the period when the balance of power between the major parties shifts.1 Many don’t realize how important our government is to us all, its fidelity affecting our lives tremendously. Electoral College is the most efficient and influential way to represent our government officials.
1 Wikman, Eric. The Electoral College: Then, Now, and Tomorrow. 16 October 2000
http://www.wikman.com/eric/electoralcollege.html
2 The Constitution Community
Lesson Plan: The Electoral College.” National
Archives
and Record Administration Online. 16 October 2000 http://www.nara.gov/education/cc/electcol.html
3 “McCain Backs Lazio on Campaign Reform in New York.” ABC News Online.
2000. ABC News Channel. 18 October 2000
http://dailynew.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000925/pl/campaign_newyork_dc_34.html
4 Alexander, Herbert E. Financing Politics: Money, Elections, and
Political
Reform. Washington D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1980. 25-40.
5 Sobel, Lester A., ed. Money and Politics: Contributions, Campaign
Abuses and the
Law. New York: Facts on File, Inc., 1974. 141-168.
Answers To Required Reading
1. How and when did the United States elect a
president and vice president of different parties? Name
them and their respective parties.
Under its provisions, members of the Electoral College, who were chosen by the states, voted in February 1789 to choose a president and vice president. At that time, each elector cast two votes. When the votes were tallied, the person who got the most votes became president and the runner-up became vice president. The election of 1796 brought about the elected officers of different parties for president and vice president. The two candidates were then John Adams, a Federalist, and Thomas Jefferson, a Republican, as vice president.
2. Describe four ways that were suggested to elect
the President between 1808 and 1846.
The lot was first proposed to choose the President in 1808 in which retired Senators chose who would be candidates to run for office. In later proposals the states were each directed to choose candidates that were born native to that state. The second way was the direct-vote plan, proposed in 1816, in which the people voted and chose who they wanted be President, then the candidates with the highest percentages were elected. The third way was the President chosen by four regions, proposed in 1822. The four regions were selected by where they were located in the U.S., Midwestern states, Western states (including Alaska and Hawaii), Southern states and Northeastern states. The final way was proposed in 1826 where the additional plan was reviewed. All the states electoral votes were automatically directed to the candidate who was voted highest among the popular vote.
3. Name five U.S. Presidents who were elected with
less than a popular vote.
Five of the many Presidents who were elected with less than a popular vote were John Quincy Adams, James Polk, Zachary Taylor, Abraham Lincoln and James Garfield.
4. Describe the winner-take-all system. Which states use this system?
For most of America’s history, a competitive
two-party system has prevailed, and third parties have been the exception. This is a
result of the U.S. electoral system in which the winner takes all. In the
winner-take-all system, the electoral vote of a state is always
unanimous, but the popular vote may be very close. It is possible for a candidate to
acquire a majority of the popular vote but then, by losing certain key states with large
numbers of electoral votes, may fail to win a majority in the Electoral College. Since there is no proportional representation,
losers get nothing. All states in the U.S.
use the winner-take-all system except Maine.
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 ballots are then counted and the results announced before both Houses in January.
6. What affect would substituting a direct popular
vote for the Electoral College have on third party candidates? Why?
There might be a paralyzing delay in determining the ones who come out on top, and the president-elect and vice president-elect could be members of opposing political parties. If a third-party candidate carries enough states to prevent an electoral vote majority for any candidate, the House, voting by state delegation, might be prevented from reaching an absolute majority. Which in turns throws off the election, so they may lose some of their votes due to that aspect.
7. Give four arguments for and against a direct vote
system.
The arguments for the direct vote system are it would encourage minority parties due to there being a greater chance that the two major parties may not received a majority, the population counted more. It wouldn’t matter how many people didn’t vote the final results wouldn’t be based upon it, and a candidate could win on the people’s votes of special interests. The arguments against the direct vote system are it would weaken the power of the states and strengthen the national government. State borders would be unrelated in elections, federal standards of eligibility would end up tallying a national vote, and all election officials would end up working for federal rather than state governments.
8. Describe the differences between the district
plan, the proportional plan and the winner-take-all plan.
The district plan is when two electors are chosen on their popularity all over the state and one is chosen from each of Maine’s two congressional districts. Under the proportional plan, a small homogeneous state could result in more votes for a candidate than a larger more varied state. Urban areas lose power with the third parties encouraged to run in both the district plan and proportional plan. The trouble with the proportional plan is it doesn’t favor any party, while conservatives favor the district plan. In the winner-take-all plan, the candidate with the majority of votes, receive all the votes from that particular state. This plan varies between the urban areas having a great deal of power or insignificant power.
9. State the four points experts in 1969 agreed
should be included in an ideal plan for electing U.S. Presidents.
Sixteen experts met in 1969 in Washington, D.C. to discuss the ideal system for electing Presidents. They decided on the following: the need for a quick choice and precise winner, the peoples’ choice defeater should be the winner of the most popular votes, the president nominate should have a mandate to govern, a legitimacy which comes from a good margin of victory also, and the ideal system should not weaken the two-party system.
10. Write a paragraph
describing what is meant by one of the following:
Crisis
is opportunity
Crisis can be a very good way to prove you deserve the President’s seat. When a country, or state for that matter, is inflated or economically destroyed the people in that specified area depend on the President to help them get out of the despair. If you’re running for office during a time of chaos and severe or minor problems, the candidates can express what they want to do to help the people get out of the current situation. If the citizens agree with what one may have to declare and believe that the goals can be accomplished, then they will vote for that president if it’s better than the opposing team. Crisis is a very good way of showing the U.S. and/or world that you are responsible enough and capable to facilitate them and the situation.