Newell-Fonda
High School
Newell,
Iowa
Teacher:
Connie Doonan
Campaign
Reform in the United States
By Greg Smith
12th grade
The
creators of this country created the electoral college in the eighteenth century. They did this to try to solve some of the problems
of that time. Now, in the twentieth century
the people of this country are still using the system that was meant to solve eighteenth
century problems. The trouble of this kind
of thinking should be obvious, among others; one of the major problems is that the person
with the bigger amount of money to spend campaigning has a better chance of winning
because this type of person is more visible to the public.
It is obvious that the electoral college doesn’t work and the leaders of this
country need to decide on a different form of election.
The politicians of this country need to set a limit of how much can be spent, and
they need to change the way the people elect their leader.
Many
of the states in this country have passed laws that limit the amount that a local
candidate can spend in trying to get elected. So
why do a part of the people of this great country still refuse to realize that a
limitation is needed? They must not be
looking at the facts clearly. Many of the third party prospective candidates refuse to
even think about entering a presidential race. What
would the point be? The two major parties in
this system of government have almost always won the election. In Maine, the state government has already passed
a statue that provides full public financing for a candidate running for state
legislation. The catch to this is that the
candidate has to forgo other sources of funding and has to agree to a spending limit. In California the voters just passed a law that
will limit contribution to candidates for state office, set voluntary spending limits, and
places reporting requirements on certain independent expenditures. Under this new law in California makes it so an
individual can only contribute five thousand dollars to each statewide candidate and three
thousand dollars to each legislative candidate per election cycle. If these people are smart enough to limit the
amount a person can give to each candidate, effectively limiting the amount a person can
spend seeking election, then why can’t the rest of nation see the same thing? The only problem that should be resolved is that
all of the states need to have the same limit on how much a candidate may spend, because
if they all don’t have the same dollar limit the candidates will campaign more in the
states where they can spend money. This will
happen because if they can spend more money in those states, the candidate will be more
visible to the voters and most likely will have a greater turnout of voters in that
states. That will influence the election.
Unfortunately,
there are a few states that don’t see it the same way the majority of the population
does. In these few cases the courts of those
states have struck down laws that would limit a candidate’s spending. What is confusing about that is that for it to
become a law, a person has to propose it to Congress and both the Senate and the House of
Representatives have to pass it with a two-thirds majority.
Then it has to be signed by the president. If
even a small percentage of people in that state were not in favor of it, it is doubtful
that the law could have passed all of those steps. So
what right do the courts have to strike down a law that was passed by that many people
when only a few people who sit in that courtroom disagree with it? Those states that have not passed a law that
limits spending in an election have a right to their own opinion, but to make sure that
the whole country gets the same attention from all of the candidates, they need to look at
the facts that are demonstrated in many of the cases that have been shown throughout the
United States. It is understood that the
courts right to strike down laws is what makes the checks and balances system. Why do the people of this nation give that right
to such few people? What I am trying to
propose is that we as a people should be able to say no to the laws that we don’t
like. Why should we let court justices do it
for us.
The
people of this country need to wake up and realize that a limit on spending for campaigns
and more freedom to elect who they want to be the leader of this nation should be a goal
in every household across the United States no matter what party people belong to. The politicians will have to listen to the
population who wants a limit on spending. They
will have to listen to the people of this great nation, and they will have to push through
a law that many of those people have wanted for a long time. So people wake up, call a friend or relative and
tell them that they need to get a hold of their congressman and their representative and
tell them that this is what the people of this county want.
Answers
to Questions
1.
The United States elected a president and vice president form different parties in 1796 by
the electoral college. These men were John
Adams, a federalist, for president and Thomas Jefferson, a republican, as vice president.
2.
The four ways that were suggested to elect the president were the automatic plan, where
the electoral votes would automatically go to the popular vote winner, the proportional
plan, which calls for a division of the states electoral votes according to the popular
vote received by each party, The president by lot plan, which calls to elect retiring
Senators, and finally the direct-vote plan in which the electoral votes would be decided
by every person
3.
The five president that were elected with less than a majority of the popular vote were
Richard Nixon, Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, Grover Cleveland, and Abraham Lincoln.
4. The winner take all system is when the winner of
the popular vote in a state gets all of the states electoral votes no matter how close the
race was.
5. The electoral votes are cast on the first Monday
after the second Wednesday in december and the results are known in january.
6. Employing the direct-vote system would give the
third party mire power because it would allow them to get a few electoral points that
might affect the outcome in a close election.
7.
The four arguments for the direct-vote plan are that they will encourage third parties, it
will ensure that every vote counts, give more power to the smaller less populated states,
it would also ensure that the candidate campaign in all states, the four arguments against
the direct vote system are that the direct-election system would dilute the leverage the
larger states have, the minority vote could be completely lost, it gives the third party
little incentive to run and each vote would lose a little of it’s power.
8.
The differences between the district plan, the proportional plan, and the winner take all
plan are that in the district plan whichever candidate wins the district gets that
electoral vote. In the proportional plan the electoral votes are divide by decimals of the
popular vote. In the winner-take-all system
the winner of the state gets all of the states electoral votes.
9.
The four points are the need for a quick decision and a clear-cut winner, the victor
should be the winner of the most popular votes, the president-elect should have a mandate
to govern, and the ideal system should not undermine the two-party system.
10.What
the person means when he writes that crisis is opportunity is that when crisis strikes the
American people look to their leader and expect him to pull them out of the crisis. If he does pull them out, then he is a hero but if
he fails to rescue them from the crisis he is labeled one of the worst presidents of all
time. One of the best examples for this
situation would be Franklin Roosevelt. He was
the president that managed to pull the entire nation out of a depression and for that he
is considered one of the nations best presidents.