Newell-Fonda
High School
Newell,
Iowa
Teacher:
Connie Doonan
Time
For A Change
By Jamie Hess
12th grade
In
the fast-paced world of today, an American person is constantly on the go. They fill their lives with busy schedules and end
up not having enough hours in the day to get those schedules done. The average American works hard all day, and then
rushes to their children’s activities that night.
They may attend two or three events a night, and then still have those other
engagements that they previously promised to do for someone else. They never seem to have a dull moment. A person can soon be overwhelmed and not have a
clue to which direction they should turn. A
person just doesn’t have the time to worry about or be educated about the difficult
voting system that the U.S. government has. The
2000 election says it all. The people are
ready for a change. They need a change that
will help better the American government. Changes
that will help improve the way people think about their voting system. The United States needs to find a new way to vote
and a new way to campaign before it is too late.
If
the government continues to use the Electoral College like they have done in the past,
they are just asking for trouble. The average
voters in this year’s election were people that had high incomes, college degrees,
and a good job. If the government would
change the voting system, many more people would probably vote. They wouldn’t have to spend all their time,
time that many don’t have, to learn how the system works. A direct election is the solution to all their
troubles. If the candidate wins the popular
vote, then they should win the race. Obviously,
the people like the candidate if he wins the popular vote, so he should also win the
election. It is just common sense. The Electoral College is not a fair solution to
the government problems. In fact, the
Electoral College ends up causing more problems. Look
at this year’s election for instance, the people in the U.S. were left up in the air
for weeks because the votes weren’t counted right.
This year’s election proved to the people that not every vote counts. What is the point of voting if the vote
doesn’t count? The people of America
will soon lose their interest in the government. They
won’t care because they are just another person who has issues that no one wants to
listen to. The government needs to change to
the direct vote plan, so they won’t lose the votes and ideas of the people. The people will know that their votes count if
they have a direct election. The popular vote
is the only thing that should matter. After
all, the people are what make the government run. The
people should elect the president, not just an elector.
The vote shouldn’t be up to a few people, but should be voted on by the whole
nation. By having a direct election, every
vote would count. The people wouldn’t
have to spend a lot of time to get educated because the process is simple. The candidate with the most votes wins the
election. It is simple system, and one that
will work.
This
year’s election caused many headaches for the people of the United States. The government not only had trouble counting all
the votes accurately, but the election was one of the most costly in U.S. history. Candidates, parties, and interest groups spent $3
billion, up a staggering fifty percent from the $2 billion record set in 1996. Where is all this money coming from? The answer is soft money. Soft money is the unregulated and unlimited
contributions made by corporations, unions, and millionaires. The more soft money a candidate has, the better
chance he has to win the race. The election
race shouldn’t be determined by money, but in past years it has helped a great deal. It has started to come to the point that a
candidate can almost buy their win in an election. Just
because a candidate has more money doesn’t necessarily mean that he is the best
candidate to run the nation. For example,
millionaires are not always the best people to become president. These people don’t know how it feels to not
have any money at all. They wouldn’t be
able to relate to the large amount of the American people that have to struggle to make
ends meet. They could try to relate, but it
just wouldn’t be the same. Each voter
has a fair chance to vote, and each candidate should get the same fair chance to run a
race. Money shouldn’t get in the way of
anything, especially a presidential election. The
solution to the problem would be to ban soft money. Everyone
would then start from scratch, and they would each get the chance that they deserve. The people would choose the president by looking
at the type of person each one was, not by how much money each one has. Everyone would have to work to get what he or she
wanted. A person will never learn how to live
a normal life if money is always given to them. The
candidates of the nation need to stop worrying about money and start worrying about how
this country will survive in the years to come.
Everyone
in this world is equal and therefore should get a fair chance to vote and run in a
campaign where money doesn’t matter. Every
vote should count. Every candidate should
have a fair race. If someone doesn’t
step up now and make these changes, the U.S. government will be in a major crisis. A crisis that could be stopped if everyone works
together to make this world a fair place. The
nation will soon realize that it is time for a change.
Answers
To Questions
- The
United States elected a president and vice president of different parties by the candidate
with the highest votes would become president and the runner-up would be vice-president. John Adams, a Federalist, as president and Thomas
Jefferson, a Republican, as vice president were elected in 1796.
- Four
ways that were suggested to elect the President between 1808 and 1846 were by lot, a
direct-vote, by four regions on a rotating basis, and the automatic plan.
- Five
U.S. Presidents that were elected wit less that a popular vote are John Quincy Adams, J.
Polk, Z. Taylor, J. Buchanan, and A. Lincoln.
- The
winner-take-all system is a system that could allow many people to be dissatisfied. For instance, if there are three candidates
and one just barely wins the two put together has a higher percent making many people feel
they are up in the air. It is used in every
state but Maine.
- The
electors vote on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. In January the official results are unknown.
- The
direct plan would encourage minor party candidates, giving them a chance to get a least a
few electoral votes, and would elevate local leaders at the expense of national party
officials.
- Four
arguments that are for a direct vote system are it would encourage minor party candidates
because they would have a chance to get some electoral votes, it would ensure that the
winner of the popular vote would win office, it would get greater participation and place
the election in the hands of the people, and it would reduce the chance of fraud. Four arguments that are against a direct vote
system are it would reverse the system and cause elections to be much closer making the
Congress make more decisions, it would encourage minority parties, it would make actual
voting more important that population and would give less voice to the poor non-voters
represented by the weighted urban vote.
- The
differences between the district plan, the proportional plan, and the winner-take-all plan
are the district plan would decide the votes by state subdivisions, the proportional plan
would decide by party vote by states, and the winner-take-all would decide by the entire
nation.
- The
four points experts in 1969 agreed should be included in an ideal plan for electing the
U.S. Presidents are 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 undermine the two-party system.
- I
think the people that are most under represented are the people that don’t have an
opinion to support. The most likely of these
people are the ones that aren’t educated about the topic. If a person doesn’t have any knowledge
on a topic, most likely the person won’t speak up.
I know that if I am not educated in and area I won’t go up and start a
conversation with someone that is. A
person may also find that those people tend to me the poor minorities of our country. This problem will not change if today’s
society continues to keep attitudes like the ones they have. Many people assume that just because a person is
poor also means that they aren’t smart. The
people of today need to step up and take on the world with a positive attitude. If everyone has a positive attitude then there
should be no under represented people. The
United State will all be represented in all categories. It won’t matter if you are
poor or a minority because everyone will be educated about the topic equal.