Medicine Lodge High School
Medicine Lodge, KS
Teachers: Devra D. Parker and Michael Hubka

Defending the Electoral College
By Anthony Farrar
12^th grade

            In August 1974, for the first time in the history of the republic, a man who had not been confirmed by a national election occupied the office of President.  Gerald Ford, thirty-eighth President of the United States, attained office on the resignation of his predecessor.  Unlike Vice Presidents before him, Gerald Ford was nominated by his predecessor and confirmed by the vote of Congress under the provisions for filling vice-presidential vacancies in the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution.  In his inaugural address he spoke to the American public when President Ford stated, “I am acutely aware that you have not elected me as your President by your ballots.”

            In making this statement, the President clearly realized the uniqueness of his situation and expected the attacks that might be made on his right to govern.  The consent of the general public is necessary for the selection of leaders in a democracy.  A democracy requires that consent be formally given in frequent and free elections.  Part of this consent comes from knowing that campaign money is “clean money.”  The “Clean Money Campaign Reform” should become law because it eliminates special interest groups from swaying an election towards one candidate.  It would keep ordinary voters from being left out in the cold.   It is obvious that Ford had legal and constitutional authority to govern, but many may question if this legality and the consent of the general public are compatible.  Most believe that the man with the nation’s highest office should be the choice of the people.

            In the decade between 1964 and 1974, the Presidency was faced with many severe endeavors.  The nation was rocked by assassination, the most forlorn war in the nation’s history, abuse of power at the highest levels, the first presidential resignation, and the controversy of the first man ever to become president without the popular vote of the election.  It is no wonder that these years generated national debate on limiting the powers of the president and creating new methods to ensure that valid and reliable men fill the office. 

            The main focus of this debate is the method of selecting the president.  The method used does, in fact, have a profound affect on the kind of men that are chosen and on their legitimacy as leaders of a democratic republic.  In 1969 and 1970, Congress presented a reform of the presidential-election system:  a proposal to amend the Constitution and stamp out the electoral-college system and replace it with a direct popular election of the President.  Under this plan, the popular vote would be compiled on a national level.  The present system only considers the popular vote on a state level to vote electors.  The electors are then aggregated on a national level.  The Ninety-first Congress ended without passing the election-reform, but the issue is not dead.  The issue of how to choose a President has been a controversy for nearly two hundred years, and it is far from over.

            The method of selection, as contrived by the Founders, is an electoral college consisting of presidential electors who choose the president.  The candidate who receives the majority of the electoral votes is elected.  If no candidate receives the majority, then the House of Representatives must choose the President from the top three candidates.  Each state may appoint as many electors as it has senators and representatives in Congress.  The states are free to choose the presidential electors by whatever means they wish. 

            Many people in the United States disagree with this method of selection.  Proponents of the direct-election plan believe that their reform would reduce the premium for fraud and chance created by the current system.  There is a tremendous significance in a few popular votes in the large, competitive states.  Advocates of direct election argue that because the potential effects are so great, the temptation to engage in fraud is intense.  However, we must be careful to separate the defects that are present in the current system from those that are present in any electoral system.  In evaluating the present system, we must realize that close popular contests are not always close electoral contests.  In seven of fifteen close elections between 1848 and 1968, a reversal of five to eight states would have been necessary to change the outcome of the election, and in eleven of those close elections a reversal of at least three states would have been required.  It would be very difficult, if not impossible, for any candidate to illegally sway the vote of three or more states in an election.   So, it is easy to see that the potential for fraud in the current system is much lower than it would be if we had a direct election process.

            The potential for fraud is increased when an election is very close.  The winner-take-all system distorts the election results to widen the margin of victory in the electoral college.  This delivers a clear-cut winner in the election.  Under the direct-election plan, the number of actually close contests would be increased, thus giving the defeated greater incentive for a recount.  The winner would then surely demand recounts in other states where he could pick up an advantage.  This, in turn, would result in chaos around the country. 

The recount process would take many weeks to complete and would create much controversy around the country.  In reality, these recounts could not be completed in the time between the election and the day of the inauguration.  Even if all contests could be resolved prior to the inauguration, having the presidential election suspended in limbo for a lengthy interval could create a serious crisis in the country, reduce the time available for an orderly transition of power, and result in a disputed presidential term.  Once the public loses faith in the count, it would impossible to restore complete public confidence.  It is completely obvious that the electoral college method of election has been well thought out and will continue thriving for years to come.

Sources

Best, Judith. The Case Against Direct Election of the President: A Defense of the Electoral College. London: Cornell University Press, 1975.

“Public Campaign Announces Broad-Based National Advisory Board.” n. pag. On-line. Internet. 1 Nov. 2000 Available   http://www.publicampaign.org/nab.html

Questions

1.       The United States elected a President and Vice President by the House of Representatives, resulting from a tie in 1796.  This led to the passage of the 12^th amendment, mandating that electors vote separately for President and Vice President.  The two candidates were John Adams, a Federalist as President and Thomas Jefferson, a Republican for Vice President.

 

2.       One way was to choose a President by lot.  These were to come from retiring Senators, but later suggestions wanted to elect a native-son candidate.  The first direct vote plan, proposed by Senator Abner Lacock in 1816.  In 1822 it was proposed that the President be chosen by four regions on a rotating basis.  In 1826 the automatic plan was introduced.  This said that a state's electoral votes would automatically be cast for the candidate who received the highest popular vote.

3.       John Quincy Adams, 1824, received 37%.  In 1844, J. Polk received only 49.6% of the popular vote.  In 1848 Z. Taylor received 47.3%.  In 1856, J. Buchanan received 45.6%.  A. Lincoln received 39.8% of the popular vote.

4.       The winner take all system is used in every state but Maine.  This system gave too much leverage to a few popular votes in low turnout states, small states, and large pivotal states.  This in turn gave ethnic minorities and others who tend to congregate in urban areas power beyond their numbers in presidential elections.  In other words, whoever had the popular vote wins.

5.       They vote after the popular election and the results are known on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.

6.       Having a direct vote rather than the electoral college would help third party candidates because the people may support the Third Party, but they are not even considered in the electoral vote.

7.       The electoral college is legitimate and gives stability to the United States government.  It does a good job of balancing power between urban and rural areas.  The present system reflects broad interest and does not merge minority interest into the vast majority.  It plays into the checks and balances of our government by not allowing tyranny by a majority.  For the direct vote system, this gives the people what they want.  It eliminates the middleman and it gives the third party a better chance to succeed in the election.  In turn, this eliminates the two major parties constantly holding office.

8.       The district plan was derived to encourage minority party candidates.  This gives those candidates a chance to get at least a few electoral college votes.  It also elevates local leaders at the expense of national party officials.  The proportional plan called for a division of each state's electoral college votes according to the popular vote received by each party.  Here, urban areas lose power and third parties are encouraged.  In the winner-takes-all system any candidate receiving the most electoral college votes would be elected.

9.       The four points the experts listed are 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; and the ideal system should not undermine the two-party system.

10.   I chose to write about "Crisis is Opportunity."

When you think about it, crisis is opportunity.  Every time a crisis arises, it brings about a golden chance for reform or influence on people.  For example, when Wichita was struck by tornadoes, Albert Gore visited the stricken city to offer his support.  This was a big opportunity for him to show the people of Wichita that he cared.  By this example, it is true that "Crisis is Opportunity."