Medicine Lodge High School
Medicine Lodge, KS
Teachers: Devra D. Parker and Michael
Hubka
The Vote: The Voice Of Democracy
By Sarah Morford
12th grade
Grasping the cloak's hood tightly around her head, the woman discreetly entered the town hall of Rochester, New York. The day had come for America to choose a new leader, and Susan B. Anthony was determined to have a voice in the 1872 Presidential Election. She proceeded to quickly dash to the nearest voting booth and sighed deeply with relief as she closed the curtain. Susan scanned the registration form and cast her ballot. Her whole body was tensed with excitement and fear; the enormity of what she had just done began to sink in. She took a deep breath and prepared to make her escape. Tentatively stepping out of the booth, Susan gasped in shock as her eyes met those of a stern city official. Her first reaction was to flee, but before she could even move a few steps, the man firmly gripped her arm and escorted her to the police station. Shortly after, Anthony found herself in a cold, dank prison cell, but she felt only pride in her accomplishment. The women of America were now one step closer to gaining the right to vote.
For years after Susan B. Anthony was released from prison she, along with thousands of others, continued to fight the battle so women could also have a voice in the government. Susan died before seeing her dream come to pass when the Nineteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution was ratified in 1920. Were all the years of toil in vain, though? With our presidential selection method, do the American citizen’s votes even count? With the current system, the people are only selecting their state electors; then the fate of our nation lies in their hands. There are too many drawbacks and misrepresentations with this election process. Yale Law School professor, Akhil Amar, agrees: “I consider the so-called Electoral College a brilliant 18th-century device that cleverly solved a cluster of 18th-century problems; as we approach the 21st century, we confront a different cluster of problems.” It is time for the outdated Electoral College to be abolished and to further establish our freedom. Our nation should elect our highest official by a direct election so the people’s voice can be heard and the majority can rule.
The major fault of the Electoral College is the fact that a presidential candidate can win and without the majority of popular votes. The people may choose one man, but the electors can select another. In fact, in the country’s history the candidate with the minority of the popular vote has won 15 times because he received the highest number of electoral ones. The people’s voice may be heard, but it is occasionally ignored and democracy’s liberties are crushed.
Next, without a direct election, the overall choice of the states does not prevail. Each of our states is represented by a certain number of electors based on its population. To capture the presidency, one needs to receive 270 of the 538 electoral votes. The densely populated states are crucial to gain favor in for our presidential candidates because they have more electoral votes. In fact, the man running need only win 11 of the most populous states to snag the position. The other 39 state's voices are therefore drowned out.
Another key criticism of the Electoral College system is that the electoral votes are awarded on a winner-take-all basis. For example, Kansas has six electoral votes. If the Republican candidate receives only two of these, and the Democrat gains four, then the Democrat is given all six of the electoral votes. The whole idea of voting is to obtain a representation of everyone's opinion and take the majority. Once again, this is squelched with this winner-take-all rule.
Finally, there is a high rate of lobbying that occurs because the Electoral College method. There are people that try to sway the electors and offer them influential positions in our government if they will change their vote. These "faithless" electors are ones who bolt and vote for another party's candidate. This election year, the debate over whether lobbying is legal has ignited once again. The current Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate, Al Gore, has proposed reforms to the laws now regulating lobbying. They would only force lobbyists to disclose information on all of their activities, not halt the practice as should be done. Bribery should not be allowed as an honorable political act in our country, especially when it can affect who the nation's chief executive will be.
The solution to the problems created by our presidential election system is to abolish the Electoral College. Throughout our history, America has challenged the unfair and sought to improve life for all. We have been an example to the world of the importance of open-mindedness to change by reforming programs and legislation proven to contain deficiencies. In our advanced, modern society, many people have concluded that the Electoral College is now one of those institutions no longer beneficial, as is evidenced by the many attempts to reform our presidential election process.
The year 2000 has come. Jane Doe approaches the courthouse and walks in. After entering the voting booth, she makes her choices and slides the ballot into the voting machine. When the results are sent in, will her voice really be heard? Jane’s electors may ignore the state’s cry. While the citizens elect one man, when the Electoral College casts their votes, will the people’s choice be vetoed? A new voting movement may soon be on the horizon.
Harry Singer Questions
1.
The election of
1796 was the first time that an elected vice president and president were from different
parties. Thomas Jefferson was chosen as
president and he was a Republican, while John Adams, a Federalist, won the vice
presidential race.
2.
In 1808, a proposal
arose to elect our president by casting lots from retiring Senators. Later, the states were each to elect a native-son
candidate. Soon after, in 1816, Senator Abner
Lacock of Pennsylvania announced his idea for a direct-vote plan. An automatic plan was proposed in 1846 by
Representative Haynes of Georgia. In this, a
state's electoral votes would automatically be cast for the candidate who received the
highest popular vote. Finally, Representative
Lawrence of New York introduced the proportional plan in 1848. This called for a division of each state's
Electoral College votes according to the popular vote received by each party.
3.
John Quincy Adams,
J. Polk, Zachory Taylor, J. Buchanan, and Abraham Lincoln.
4.
Under the
winner-take-all provision, the candidate must receive the majority of electoral votes to
win. Every state but Maine uses this plan.
5.
They vote 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.
Opponents to the
direct vote plan believe it would harm our two party system by encouraging minority
parties and make actual voting ore important than population. A race's winner could be chosen solely on special
interest issues.
7.
Advocates of a
direct voting system claim that this plan would always ensure that the candidate with the
greatest popular vote would win the presidency, give equal weight to every vote, do away
the faithless elector problem, and reduce the chance of fraud. The opponents to the direct voting plan say that
it will hurt our two party system, weaken states power and strengthen the national
government, eliminate the relevancy of state borders, and federal standards of eligibility
would be determined to make the presidential choices uniform.
8.
The proportional
plan calls for a division of each state’s Electoral College according to the popular
vote received by each party. A district plan
allows two electors chosen on a statewide popular level and one is chosen from each of
Maine’s two congressional districts. In
the winner-take-all plan, the candidate with the highest percentage of popular votes would
automatically win.
9.
The four points the
experts, who met in D.C. in 1969, agreed on are the following: the need for a quick decision and clear-cut
winner; the victor should be the people’s 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 under mine the two-party system.
10.
The Shrinkage
Phenomenon, discussed by Laurence Barrett, consists of the idea that there is a mysterious
effect that diminishes a candidates stature as soon as they enter the race. It states that there is also an obverse effect, or
an optical illusion called the Sidelines Magnifier. When
wrapped in the dignity of duty or humility, prospects can seem so much grander.
Sources Used
Sung, Ellen “Time to Reform the Electoral College?” 31 July 2000: n.pag. On-line.
Internet. 1 Nov. 2000.
Available http://www.policy.com/news/dbrief/dbriefarc770.asp
“Al Gore’s Plan to Restore Faith in America’s Democracy.” n.pag. On-line. Internet.
2 Nov. 2000.
Available http://www.algore2000.com/agenda/agenda_cfr.html