Medicine Lodge High School
Medicine Lodge, KS
Teachers: Devra D. Parker and Michael Hubka
Is It Fair?
By Jessica Holmes
12th grade
Stepping up to the plate, Shannon prepares herself to kick the old, worn out ball. As I watch Shannon forcefully strikes out with her
foot, the kickball flies into the air and lands just short of her initial kicking
position. Frustrated and upset, Shannon cries
out to her friend, Johnny, that she would like to try to kick the ball yet one more time. Johnny quickly states that it would not be fair
for her to have a second turn. Although
Shannon refuses to listen, Johnny tries to explain to her the concept of fairness. In our world, many times occasions and occurrences
take place that are not fair. For instance,
in our biggest election, the presidential election, the future president is voted in by
the Electoral College and not directly by the people of the United States. Is this fair?
In a nation that is founded upon by democracy I think that the direct election
system should be used to vote for the President in order to be by the people.
First,
the Electoral College system has been used for over 200 years and most Americans are still
unsure how this system functions. Basically
every ten years the census takes place to count the people living in the United States of
America. This determines the number representatives for each state. This number, plus two senators, is the number of
electors each state receives. Then each state
chooses their electors and hope they will represent their wishes.
The general ticket system is used in 48
states. It operates as follows. This system provides a direct election in each of
these states to choose a set of electors. Maine
and Nebraska, however, use the district system. There
is an election held in each congressional district. The
winner of every district gets one electoral vote, the two remaining get the vote of the
candidate with the most electoral votes.
Finally, the electoral votes are all
counted and if the candidate receives more than half the votes, he/she becomes the new
president. If there is no majority of votes
for one candidate, then the election gets passed to the House of Representatives. There each state is given one vote and they vote
on the top three candidates. If there is
still no majority, they repeat this process until there is a victor. The speaker of the house becomes the temporary
president until the decision is final.
Furthermore, the Electoral College is fundamentally unfair to the people of the
United States that put forth the effort to vote for president. It is unfair for two reasons. First, a person’s individual vote has more
weight if he/she lives in a state with a small population than one who lives in a state
with a large population. For example, each
electoral vote in Alaska equals approximately 112,000 people; but in New York it equals
approximately 404,000 people that are eligible. Lastly,
the system is unfair because an individual’s vote has more weight if the percentage
of voter participation is low in their state. For
example, if only half of the people in Alaska vote, then each electoral vote is equivalent
to around 56,000 people. The constitution does not bind presidential electors to vote for
the running candidates to whom they have pledged to vote for. Therefore, the Electoral College could turn on the
wishes of the people they were elected to represent.
On the other hand, the direct election should be used in order to elect a president
that the people of our country want. The
president should be directly elected by the people that he/she would be representing. The direct election system is the best system to
guarantee the president be elected by the popular, majority vote. It also encourages voter participation by giving
each voter an equal say in the election of the president.
Many people did not believe in the
direct election, but years ago three prominent people supported it. They were James Wilson, Gouverneur Morris, and
James Madison. But many delegates think that
the American public was mature or informed enough to handle the direct election and that
our government was too young and unstable. Things
have changed and we are an older and more informed nation.
Picture an election where a
presidential candidate receives the majority of the popular vote but is denied the 270
votes necessary for election by the Electoral College.
An example is in 1888, Grover Cleveland out-polled Benjamin Harrison in the popular
vote but lost the Electoral College vote by 233 to 168.
Another example is when the constitution was first written. Our nation was vastly different 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 the direct popular election of
the Senate, and the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote. Lastly the 26th
Amendment established that 18 year-olds could vote. Due
to this, everyone has the right to vote once they are the required age. We have been given the freedom to vote, and if we
had the direct election system our votes would count even more.
In closing, I think that Direct Election should replace the Electoral College. The children playing kickball are not any
different than the people of the United States. We
should be fair and each person should count. I
think that if the United States goes to direct election as the way of voting on the
presidents in the future. People would be
more content with the overall outcome of our leader and all people of voting age would
feel that the person was truly elected by the people.
Sources
“Electoral
College.” Congressional Digest Oct. 1992: 226, 256.
Glennon, Micheal J. 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 Judiciary.” 4 Sept. 1997: n.pag. On-line. Internet.
3 Nov. 2000. Available WWW: http://www.house.gov/judiciary/222313.htm
Questions to be answered after the
required reading has been completed:
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.