Medicine Lodge High School

Medicine Lodge, Kansas

Teachers: Devra D. Parker and Michael Hubka

 

 

Electoral College, Is It Time For A Change? You
By Katie Fussell

12^th grade

 

 

            Life is hectic and full of surprises. It holds many demands on each of us that as Americans, we must do our best to fulfill.  Among those demands is our right and obligation to vote.  This requires careful consideration of each candidate.  We must decipher who is honest, intelligent, moral and ethical. Which candidate will better represent the United States, and where does each stand on important issues? The presidential candidates must develop a plan that is suitable to the economy, beneficial to the American public and  in the best interest of the American people. Then, we must choose which plan will be most effective and which candidate will be the most qualified to run the United States of America.  If we continue to utilize the Electoral College system as a means of electing our president and vice president, our vote and any  interests in campaigns to come will be greatly reduced. The Electoral College is desperately  in need of revamping or replacement.

            The current means of election through the Electoral College allows a  set number of electorial votes per state, regulated by the state’s population. When the American people vote for president and vice president, they are actually  voting for slates of electors pledged to their candidates. The electoral vote of each state determines the victorious presidential and vice presidential nominees in each state by winning the state’s  entire electoral vote, except in Maine and Nebraska. The candidate receiving a majority of the total electoral vote in the United States is elected to the position of the President.  In the absence of a majority of electoral votes for president and vice president, the House of Representatives and the Senate will choose. This could impose a delay in determining the victors and  could result in electing a president and vice president of opposing political parties. Abolishing this method, and accepting direct election would increase voter participation. Every  vote would finally  count. Currently, low voter participation is a factor in the polls. Is it not time we do something about it?  Ballots this year should contain the question: The Electoral College system has been in effect for over two hundred years; do you think it is time to revise the current system?

            Direct election would improve voter turn out and greatly  increase individual interest in the campaign. Presidential candidates would be forced to campaign in each state regardless of the size of the state. Currently, presidential candidates attempt to capture the popular vote in the eleven most populous states as these total the 270 electoral votes needed to win! If one does not live in California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Georgia or Virginia, chances are, the presidential hopefuls are not visiting his/her state along their campaign trails. Rather than campaigning in states with more electoral votes, each candidate would have to address each state’s individual problems with regard to their population, economy and growth.

            Smaller, less populated states who carry few electoral votes would hold the same influence in elections as the more populated, larger states if direct election was instituted and the College system abandoned. Direct election would encourage all citizens to participate in the election process. Citizens would study each candidate more intensely, knowing that their individual vote would count. A president would no longer be elected to office without the majority of popular votes.

            The Electoral College is desperately in need of revamping or replacement. In today's society of modern technology and electronics, devising a method of tallying votes should be inexpensive and far more effective. It would benefit the United States in prompting a fair and just election and maintaining the present system of checks and balances.

            Among the campaign reforms of 2000, Soft Money, requires immediate regulations to control financial donations to political parties. The donations were designed to fund broad party building and improve voting activities. It has however, been used to help influence voters during the election season. Utilizing this money to change the current means of electing our president and vice president would be more beneficial that spending the money on  campaigns.

            Financial activity in federal elections is governed by federal statutes, which have evolved during this century under the influence of various court rulings. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, imposes limitations and prohibitions on money from certain sources and requires  public discloser of money  raised and spent in federal elections. Federal law generally does not impose mandatory limits on campaign spending by candidates or groups. While federal law regulates some types and sources of campaign money, other types and sources are exempt from coverage. Also, wide differences in what federal law allows in federal elections and what fifty state statutes allow in state elections exist. Money that is outside the federal regulatory

framework but raised and spent in a manner suggesting possible intent to effect federal elections is known as soft money. 

             Among the campaign reforms of 2000, Soft Money  requires immediate regulations to control financial donations to political parties. Large, financial contributions can influence political strategies. Candidates and politicians  need to stand on their beliefs and hold firm on their agenda. Contributions cannot be used to sway  voters to support politicians.  A percentage of this soft money  would benefit the candidates as well as the United States of America if used to develop a stronger means of counting the votes of the American people.

   Questions to be answered after the required reading has been completed:

 

1. 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.

 

2. A. Winner take all

B. Direct Vote

C. Select by region

D. Electoral College

 

3. Buchanan, Nixon, Lincoln, Wilson, Adams

 

4. Based on popular vote. All states but Main.

 

5. ( Congress) that day has been set as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.

 

6. Determined by congress, it’s the first Monday after the second  Wednesday in December. In January the votes are counted before both Houses and the results are officially announced.

 

7. A. With Electoral College, one candidate can capture 11 of the largest states and Washington D.C. to win leaving 39 states without voice.

 

8. District- subdivision of the states

B. Proportion- past vote by each state

C. Winner takes all- popular vote

 

9. The need for quick decision and a clear-cut winner; (2) The victor should be the people’s choice winner of the most popular votes. (3) The president-elect should have mandate to govern, a legitimacy which comes from a good margin of victory; (4) The ideal system should not undermine the two-party system. All agreed that the method of electing the president holds broad implications for the political system as a whole.

 

10. Electoral votes have been set regardless of the state’s population. So, a state could have
fewer people with more electoral votes.