Medicine Lodge High School
Medicine Lodge, KS
Teachers: Devra D. Parker and
Michael Hubka
A Perfect World
By Jeff Furman
12th grade
In a perfect world, sugar is good
for your teeth. In a perfect world, triple
bypass surgery is thrilling. In a perfect
world, acne is considered a sign of beauty. In
a perfect world, the people directly vote in the president.
The current system, where the people vote in the Electoral College and the college
votes in the president, I think, is in dire need of change.
If a person lives in a state with few electors, then candidates running for
president seem to care very little about their opinion.
In the direct election system, the people can actually vote directly for the
president and make each vote count. This form
of election would also make the candidates campaign more throughout the entire United
States, instead of just the states with a high number of electors.
First, direct election is the
process where the people directly vote in the president.
The popular vote of the people would choose the new president. The candidates would still do much campaigning in
the more populated states but smaller states’ votes would make a greater difference. The people would also feel that their individual
vote counts and, more than likely, increase voter turn out.
When the Electoral College first came into action it was chosen over direct
election because most delegates did not think that our American democracy had matured
enough. The arguments that were made in favor
of this system were presented for the future generations of America. Most all states no longer show the electors’
name on the ballot. Political developments
since the 1970's have only underscored the need for the elimination of the Electoral
College system. The downward trend in voter
participation, coupled with increased cynicism and skepticism amongst the public about the
ability of elected leaders to provide meaningful representation are the warning signs of a
potential electoral fiasco.
Picture a future national election
in which a presidential candidate receives a majority of the popular vote, but is denied
the 270 votes necessary for the election by the Electoral College. This has happened once in our nation’s
history. In 1888, Grover Cleveland out-polled
Benjamin Harrison in the popular vote but lost the Electoral College vote by 233 to 168.
The president should be directly
elected by the people he or she will represent, just as all the other federally elected
officials are in our country. Direct election
is the most representative system. It is the
best system that guarantees the president will have received the majority of the popular
votes. It also encourages voter participation
by giving voters a direct and equal role in electing the president. The Electoral College system may have been used
for 200 years and is written in the constitution, but when the constitution was first
written, our nation was a vastly different kind of democracy than it is today. Only white, male property owners could vote. The 15th Amendment gave black men the right to
vote, the 17th Amendment provided for direct popular election of the senate, and the 19th
Amendment gave women the right to vote. Finally,
the 26th amendment established the right of citizens 18 years of age and older the right
to vote.
Furthermore, the Electoral College
system is fundamentally unfair to voters for mainly two reasons. First, a citizen’s individual vote has more
weight if he or she lives in a state with a small population than if that citizen lives in
a state with a large population. For
example, each electoral vote in Alaska is equivalent to approximately 112,000 people. Each electoral vote in New York is equivalent to
approximately 404,000 eligible people, and that is if everyone exercises their right. If Alaska gets a 50 percent voter turnout then
each electoral vote is only worth around 56,000 people.
In conclusion, direct election for
the president is the best method. It would
increase voter turn out and let the people feel more responsible for electing our
president. The Electoral College should
simply be abolished. It is an unfair and an
unjust way of electing a man or women to run our wonderful country for the next term of
presidency. To me, having a perfect world
would consist of having direct election for our future leaders. By doing this, our government will be ran by the
choice of the people, by the people, for the people.
Sources
“Electoral
College.” Congressional Digest Oct. 1992: 226, 256.
When No Majority Rules. Washington: Congressional Quarterly Inc, 1992.
“Majority
Rule.” Mathematics Teacher Oct. 1992: 520-21.
Peirce,
Neal R. The People’s President. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1968.
Reichley, James A., ed. Elections America Style. Washington: Brookings Institution,
1987.
Cain, Becky. “ House of Representatives Committee on the
1. In 1796, the
president and vice-president were voted in by the Electoral College. The president was John Adams, a Federalist, and
vice-president was Thomas Jefferson, a Republican.
2. In 1808, a
proposal to choose the President by lot first surfaced.
Originally the candidates to be chosen by lot were to come from retiring Senators. In 1816 the first direct vote plan was proposed. 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.
3. Five U.S.
presidents who were elected with less than a popular vote are John Quincy Adams, J. Polk,
Z. Taylor, J. Buchanan, and A. Lincoln.
4. Some experts
believe the winner-take-all system gives too much leverage to a few popular votes in low
turnout 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
elections. This, they say, tends to influence
candidates toward liberal domestic policies and makes them more internationalists in
foreign policy--either good or bad depending on your point of view. Others claim direct
elections would dilute this leverage and the minority could be lost under winner-take-all. In the past this has given the minority party
little incentive to campaign in some areas, knowing votes won't count for much. The winner-take-all system is used in every state
but Maine.
5.
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 hall 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.
Other critics
point to the distortions which occur because electoral votes are distributed among the
states according to the decennial census which quickly becomes outdated. Still others say the Electoral College endangers
the two-party system and encourages third party strategy to win concessions from major
candidates. IN 1968 Senator Birch Bayh
advocated abandoning the Electoral College and having the team with the most popular votes
nationwide declared winners. He suggested a
popular majority would not be necessary but that any majority of at least 40 percent
should win. In case of a tie there would be a
run-off between the two top pairs (pair and team refer to the office of President and Vice
President). This would extend the one person
one vote principle, and enhance the two-party system.
7.
An amendment to
abolish the Electoral College system, almost identical to the Bayh Plan, passed the House
339 to 70 and it looked as if the 91st Congress was going to resolve this
on-going issue. However, the Senate failed to
follow through and the furor over electoral reform continued into 1970. In their 1970 book Voting For President, William
Sayre and Judith Parrish claim the direct vote would weaken the power of the states and
strengthen the national government. On March
5, 1970, Senator Thomas Eagleton of Missouri introduced the Federal System Plan. Also in 1970, Senator Joseph Tydings of Maryland
and Senator Robert Griffin of Michigan presented a plan to do away with run-off elections.
8.
The district plan
would encourage minor party candidates, giving them a chance to get at least a few
electoral votes, and would elevate local leaders at the expense of national party
officials. The proportional plan has always
ensured that the winner in our presidential contest has received a greater margin in
electoral votes than in popular votes and that it would make presidential races closer,
possibly throwing more decisions to congress and thus undermining the presidency. The winner-take-all system gives to 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 elections.
9.
In 1969, sixteen
experts gathered to discuss the ideal system of electing the president. They agreed on the following points: (1) the need
for a quick decision and clear-cut winner; (2) the victor should be the peoples' choice
winner of the most popular votes; (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. The Shrinkage
Phenomenon, a mysterious effect that diminishes prospects' stature as soon as they enter
the race. . . . There is also the obverse effect, an optical illusion called the Sidelines
Magnifier. When the Cuomos and Bradleys and
Nunns stay out wrapped in the dignity of duty or humility, they seem so much grander than
those scurrying after votes and donations.