Kadoka
High School
Kadoka, South Dakota
Teacher: Teresa Shuck
The Election Process
By Faye Lynn O’Bryan
Grade 11
Everything is always constantly changing. Even our constitution has and is still having additional changes made to it. Must we change our election process, too? No, we should not change our election process, too.
When we as a nation were just forming it took many changes to decide the election process. Many made attempted proposals that failed. When our forefathers finally decided on the Electoral College method they knew it would take many years to perfect it. The forefathers also knew that whichever process they choose would have many trying moments.
Over the years, especially this previous election there has been trials. Even after those trying moments the Electoral College method has prevailed through them. It has withstood many blowing moments and time after time proved itself to be a consistent, solid method.
If we were to change our election process now in this day and age it would only have to change again and again. People will know that if they loose they can change the election process to suit them. Also it would take our nation a long time to accommodate and find an election process that will last as long as the Electoral College method.
As a nation always in change we need a stable rock to stabilize us. Our election process is like the stable rock. If it shatters it will break into a bunch of smaller pieces that will easily be broken into their own shattered pieces. It will no longer be able to withstand time nor change. It takes time to create a masterpiece. In today’s world where change is guaranteed to happen constantly, a new election process would not have time to be perfected. It would be changed and changed again. Without the time to guarantee that an election process would have to become stable there’s very little chance that it would make it in today’s world or time.
The election process is something that takes time to master. It would take hundreds and hundreds of years to modify and still not be perfect. It is a masterpiece still forming. The election process is like a legacy that has gone to far to change. It has made our past and still is making our future.
In today’s world and society to present and make an election that would be fair or satisfy our population would be next to impossible. Not that our current election process satisfies everyone but it is better to have some things set into stone. A guide path for the U.S. population to go by.
Many times people want too much and assume that it is their right. If we molded our processes and government to form everyone’s wants and needs we would experience chaos. Our country will not and probably wouldn’t have lasted as long as it has. For some things to be a legacy it takes time, consistency, and continuation of a process.
Our election process is glue that holds our country together. It causes our country to be stable and provides consistency. It is something that has withstood time and all the changes our country has made. The election process has been something for our country to rely on to be consistent.
Consistency expands and holds countries together. If our country had no consistency we would have people living with little knowledge of their governments. Little knowledge of how their countries are run or its processes. This chaos would cause our country to quickly collapse and be over taken by higher powers.
Consistency is what helped our country come through the troubles of our last election. It pulled our country through all the questioning moments of it. Consistency took away all the confusion at the end and cleared it all up. It also showed when the people kept counting the ballets to find a consistent win.
If our election changed what would be consistent in our country? Our industry, education, and leaders are always changing, changing the consistency of our constant country. One of the few things that have stayed constant in our country is our election process. Our election process may be the one thing that is holding our country together, the thing that has kept it from coming to an end all of these years.
The Electoral College process has been in our election process for a really long time and it would cause too much controversy to change. The Electoral Process has been around from the time our country started and I think it should be around when our country ends.
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. The 1796 election was marked by another first: a Federalist elector bolted and voted for Thomas Jefferson. In 1800, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr wound up in a tie and the president had to be chosen by the House of Representatives. This led to passage of the 12th Amendment in 1804, which mandated that electors vote separately for president and vice president.
2.) Describe four ways that were suggested to elect the president between 1808 and 1846.
In 1808 the proposal to choose the president by lot first surfaced, to reoccur unsuccessfully in 1844 and 1846. Originally the candidates to be chosen by lot were to come from retiring senators; in later proposals the states were each to elect a native-son candidate.
In 1816 the first direct-vote plan was proposed by Senator Abner Lacock of Pennsylvania and was defeated 21 to 12. In 1820 the second faithless elector deprived James Monroe of a unanimous vote in the Electoral College by giving John Quincy Adams, a non-candidate, his only electoral vote.
In 1822 it was proposed that four regions on a rotating basis choose the president. In 1826 Representative Charles Haynes of Georgia first introduced the automatic plan whereby all of a states electoral votes would automatically be cast for the candidate who received the highest popular vote. The automatic plan keeps the winner-take-all provision of our present system but abrogates the office of presidential elector. All of the state’s votes would automatically be awarded to the ticket that carried that state’s popular vote. The automatic plan is the most moderate of all reform proposals and is opposed mainly because the changes it calls for are so slight that many believe the reform is not worth the effort and cost required to get the necessary constitutional amendment.
3.) Name five U.S. Presidents who were elected with less than a popular vote.
John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, Harry Truman, and Ulysses S. Grant.
4.) Describe the winner-take-all system, which states use this system?
In the winner-take-all system some experts believe the winner-take-all system gives too much leverage to a few popular votes in low turnout states, small states, and large pivotal states, which in turn gives ethnic minorities, and others who tend to congregate in urban areas, power beyond their numbers in presidential electrons. Others claim direct elections would dilute this leverage and the minority vote could be lost under winner-take-all. Suppose A gets 40 percent, B gets 35 percent, C gets 25 percent. A ends up with everything and 60 percent of the voters are disenfranchised. The winner-take-all system is used in every state but Maine.
5.) When do electors vote and when are the results known?
Although results from the popular vote are known in November, according to Article II Section 1:3 of the Constitution, “The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.” That day has been set as 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.) What affect would substituting a direct popular vote for the Electoral College have on third party candidates? Why?
If the direct popular vote was used, it would have an affect. A majority of at least forty percent should win. IN case of a tie there would be a run off between the two top pairs. This would exclude the third party.
7.) Give four arguments for and against a direct vote system.
1.) If a direct vote was used it would always ensure that the candidate with the greatest popular vote would win the office of president and give equal weight to all votes.
2.) It would replace the faithless elector problem.
3.) It would reduce the chance of fraud,
It would encourage greater participation and place the election more fully into the hands of the people where it belongs.
8.) Describe the differences between the district plan, the proportional plan and the winner-take-all plan.
A direct plurality system is used in the states to elect their governors who seem to have little trouble governing. This would seem to refute the argument used by those who claim that winning with a mere plurality of the votes, and especially winning after a run-off contest, would undermine or at least render more precarious. The constituency basis of the president.
Proponents say the proportional plan is the only electoral reform measure that would preserve the existing national-state relationship and at the same time reflect the popular vote out comes more closely.
In the winner-take-all system the candidate with the largest percent of the votes would win. This causes controversy because if candidate A had forty percent of the votes, B thirty-five percent, and C twenty-five percent, candidate A would win, and sixty percent of the voters are disenfranchised.
9.) State the four points experts in 1969 agreed should be included in an ideal plan for electing U.S. Presidents.
The four points experts in 1969 agreed should be included in an ideal plan for electing U.S. Presidents are:
(1) The need for a quick decision and clear-cut winner; (2) the victor should be the people’s choice winner of the most popular vote; (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 undermine the two-party system.
10.) Write a paragraph describing what is meant by one of the following.
Crisis is opportunity.
Crisis gives people the opportunity to find their true selves. It gives them the opportunity to find out how they will react in that given position. It gives them the opportunity to either shine or fail. Also people can take a crisis and take the opportunity to turn it into something good or bad. They have the opportunity to learn from it or hinder themselves from it.