Newell-Fonda
High School
Newell,
Iowa
Teacher:
Connie Doonan
The
Electoral College: A Firm and Strong System
By Kara Bjorklund
12th grade
Is
our election process outdated? Many people
would answer that it is indeed time for a change in the way we elect our president. The electoral system we use currently is serving
our country well, as it has since it came to be in 1787.
The use of the Electoral College during presidential elections serves the American
public well by choosing our presidents fairly; although, the addition of a bill to cease
campaign financing through soft money would ensure that the influence of money is not a
determining factor in a candidates’ campaign.
In
1787 when our Founding Forefathers got together in Philadelphia, a compromise was made
that our president would be chosen through a system that would be known as the Electoral
College. The purpose of the system was to
give all people a say in which electors would cast the final votes for all candidates in
any given state. This system has worked very well, allowing the citizens to have power in
elections, while at the same time allowing the government power. The 2000 election brought up many questions about
our system, and many feel that it is time for some major campaign reform. This is not a new occurrence. Proposals for reform are always being submitted;
campaign reform has been an issue for nearly two hundred years. Even though ideas are
always being thrown around, a scarce number have made it beyond the suggestion table. The Electoral College continues to be our method
for selecting our leader. With our system,
very rarely do third-party candidates win any electoral votes, and if they do it is a very
small number. The Electoral College helps to
ensure that a majority will occur, because only two major parties exist. In the majority of past elections, the Electoral
College has provided for very few conflicts; our most recent election was one of these
exceptions.
Proponents
of the Electoral College feel very strongly that the winner of the popular vote should be
the candidate that wins the presidency. They
feel that that candidate would truly be the people’s choice. Several elections have produced close races in the
popular vote. Fifteen elections have been so
close, in fact, that a shift of a mere one percent of the overall national vote would have
elected the candidate who lost the popular vote. The
closest margin of victory occurred in 1880 when William Garfield was declared president by
a margin of just 0.1 percent of the overall popular vote.
Even though a change to a direct-vote might have been beneficial in these
situations, the Electoral College is truly more beneficial to the citizens in the smaller
states. If a direct-vote plan were to be
adopted, no candidate would even give the small states a second-glance. There would be no reason to worry about us,
because we have a tremendously small population when compared to that of California or New
York. For instance, why would a candidate
waste their time in Iowa, with a population of about three million, when they could go
campaign in California, a state with over thirty-three million people? At least by having the Electoral College, the
state of Iowa is given seven electoral votes. It
does not seem like many and is a lot less than the fifty-four that California has, but
California has almost eleven times as many people as the state of Iowa. So actually, Iowa is very fortunate to have the
seven that they do. The state of Iowa has
more impact on the election with the Electoral College system than it would if our country
used a direct vote.
Year
after year, election after election, campaign reform is always being brought up. Whether it be about what kind of ballot is used,
such as the ballot problems this year in Florida, or a change in the way our vote counts,
whether it be through direct vote or Electoral College, something is always surfacing. A reform that seems to be mentioned a lot is that
of campaign finance reform. The issue of soft
money seems to bring about a lot of questions and problems.
Soft money can be defined as huge, unlimited contributions from corporations, labor
unions, and wealthy individuals that political parties raise and spend on campaign
activities. Campaign finance laws do exist
that limit contributions to campaigns, but the system of soft money weakens these laws. The bipartisan McCain-Feingold campaign finance
reform-bill seeks to put an end to this dishonest way around the laws. Once these corrupt activities are stopped,
Americans will be able to regain faith that the influence of money will no longer play
such an important role in the campaign.
The
Electoral College has served our country well in electing our leaders. Of course there have been a few problems along the
way, but that happens with everything; nothing is perfect.
A change to a direct vote would take away the power that our states currently have
in government. Through all of the reform
suggestions, the Electoral College has held strong.
When our Founding Forefathers met over two hundred years ago, they came to an
agreement that our presidents would be elected through the system of the Electoral
College. The Electoral College has played a
prominent role in the history of the United States. It
has been a defining part of our country’s government and should continue to be a part
of our election system.
Answers
To Questions
- In
1796 the U.S. elected a president and vice president from different parties. John Adams, a Federalist, was elected
president, and Thomas Jefferson, a Republican, was elected vice president. This happened because a Federalist voted for
Jefferson.
- In
1808 a proposal to choose the president by lot surfaced.
They were to be chosen first by retiring Senators, then by native son. In 1816 a direct-vote plan was brought up but
defeated. In 1822 a regional plan was
proposed where there would be four regions and each region would take their turn in
choosing and then it would rotate. In 1826 an
automatic plan was suggested where all of the state’s electoral votes would
automatically go to the candidate with the majority of the popular vote.
- Five
U.S. Presidents who were elected with less than a popular vote were John Quincy Adams,
Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Richard Nixon, and James Buchanan.
- The
winner-take-all system works that whoever wins the majority of the popular vote of a state
takes all of that states’ electoral votes. All
the states use this system except Maine.
- Electors
vote on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. The results are known in January.
- Third-party
candidates would be more encouraged to participate due to the fact that they could gain
more support. These candidates would have a
better chance to gain electoral votes if a direct-vote was used.
- The
advantages to the direct-vote plan is that it allows everyone to feel like their vote
counts, allows for political stability, encourages everyone to vote, and ensures that the
candidate with the most votes wins. On the
other hand, the direct-vote plan reverses the system that has always received a greater
margin in electoral rather than popular votes. It
could also allow the race to be decided on a single issue, weakens the states and
strengthens the power of the national government, and would make the race closer, possibly
causing Congress to make more decisions if it would come down to them making the final
decision.
- The
differences between the district-plan, proportional plan, and the winner-take-all plan
lies in the way that the votes are distributed. In
the winner-take-all plan the candidate with the majority wins all of the electoral votes. In the district plan it is by state subdivision,
and in the proportional plan it is by party vote by states.
- The
first of four parts is the need for a quick decision and a clear-cut winner. The second point stated the victor should be the
people’s choice winner of the most popular votes.
The third stated that the president elect should have a mandate to govern, a
legitimacy that comes from a good margin of victory.
The last point said the ideal system should not undermine the two-party system.
- The
Shrinkage Phenomenon is defined as a mysterious effect that diminishes a prospect’s
stature as soon as they enter the race. A
candidate starts as being well liked by everyone. Then
soon after everyone’s opinion changes to the complete opposite. Suddenly the well-liked, popular candidate is on
the other side.