Newell-Fonda
High School
Newell,
Iowa
Teacher:
Connie Doonan
Is
This The Year For A Change?
By Tessa Townsend
12th grade
The
election of 2000 was an election no one will ever forget. There was recount after recount
because of hanging chads, pregnant chads, dimpled chads, and other kinds pf chads. Since
our country uses the Electoral College, George Bush is our new president. The Electoral
College works well for our country and should be upheld, but the campaign finance
regulations on soft money should be regulated.
The
Electoral College is a result of both design and experience. The Electoral College makes
it tougher to become the president. This process pretty much narrows the candidates down
to two parties. The third party really does not stand a chance because they hardly ever
receive an electoral vote because candidates have to win the entire state to get that
state’s votes. With this system the candidates spend a lot of money to win over as
many states as they can.
A
lot of the candidates get donations, or the money they spend comes out of their own
pockets. Most of the money they receive is called “soft-money.” Soft money
should be regulated. Individuals and many big companies donate large amounts of money to
activities that are supposed to only affect state and local candidates and parties. Since
it is said it is only for local use, they can get away with it not being regulated by the
federal contribution limits. Even though they say this money is only for the state and
local use, it does affect federal level campaigns and elections. They get away with this
through loopholes in our government. Since there are loopholes, this has allowed
contributors to take advantage of the inconsistencies between federal campaign finance
laws and state campaign laws. This allows them to give and spend more money than the
federal campaign limits allow. This money that comes through the nonfederal campaign
channels is called “sewer-money” or better known as “soft-money.”
Soft
money is on the grow. They are raising money in huge quantities, saying it is to
strengthen the party machinery. When really the money is actually going to individual
candidates. The money is also going into issue advertisements. These are ads that show
they support him or her, and voters should too. Yet in these ads they do not use the
words, “vote for” or “elect.” By not using these words, they avoid
limits on party spending for candidates. Critics say that soft money has the practical
effect of helping cash strapped federal candidates, even though such money is supposed to
be used only for “non-federal” party activities. Critics also argue that the
best way to honor the spirit and intention of federal campaign laws is to subject soft
money to the same regulations as other federal campaign contributions and expenses.
There
are both pros and cons of regulating soft money. The cons of soft money are that soft
money contributions are legal loopholes that allow wealthy individuals and groups to evade
refulations that are designed to make sure they do not unduly influence elected officials
with campaign support. Soft money contributions make a mockery of federal election laws
designed to control the influence of wealthy individuals and groups. Soft money provides a
way for presidential candidates to get around the voluntary spending limit that they must
agree to in order to qualify for partial public financing of their campaigns. As long as
soft money contributions are allowed, political parties and candidates will continue to
concentrate on the concerns of big money contributors rather than issues that concern the
general public. The pros of soft money are that soft money contributors are used to fund
such worthy activities as voter education programs and registration drives, which
encourages citizen participation and helps keep state and local parties strong. Without
these contributions there would be no money available to fund grass roots activates, and
political parties would suffer. Vigorous state and local parties are important if local
government is to work and soft money helps this.
If
nothing is done to stop soft money coming in that is not going through the right channels,
then private interests will continue to enjoy privileged access to and special influence
with lawmakers. Our election procedure is a good one. The Electoral College has and is
working well; it is a fair way for the United States to choose our next president. The
candidates do need money for campaigns but soft money is not the way to go it is wrong,
they are cheating, yet they want to represent our country. If we get soft money regulated
our whole election process with be much better, and campaign finance will be better also.
Answers
To Questions
1.)
In
1976 using the Electoral College John Adams a federalist was elected our president. Our
vice president, a republican, was Thomas Jefferson.
2.)
In
1808 it was suggested that we choose our president by lot, in 1816 it was suggested we
choose our president by direct-vote. IN 1822 it was proposed that four regions on a
rotating basis choose our president. IN 1826 the automatic plan where by all of a states
electoral votes would automatically be cast for the candidate who received the highest
popular vote.
3.)
Five
U.S. presidents who were elected with less than a popular vote were J.Polk, J.Garfield,
G.Cleveland, J.Kennedy, and R.Nixoin.
4.)
The
winner take all system is when whoever gets the most votes in that state gets the
electoral vote. Every state uses this system except for Maine.
5.)
Electors
vote on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. The results are known in
January.
6.)
This
would help the third party candidates out because they would get more votes, since they
would not have to win the entire state to get an electoral vote.
7.)
A
direct voting system would encourage minority parties, make actual voting more important
than population and would give less voice to the poor non-voters, the president could win
on the votes of special interests. It would weaken the power of the states and strengthen
the national government. State borders would be irrelevant in election and probably
federal standards of eligibility would eventually be determined to make the presidential
chooses uniform, federal employees would end up tallying a national vote and all election
officials would end up working for a federal rather than a state government.
8.)
A
district plan is where two electors are chosen on a statewide popular level, a
proportional plan is where the electoral votes are split according to the popular vote,
the winner takes all system is where whoever wins the popular vote in that state wins the
electoral vote.
9.)
The
four points brought up in the 1969 were the need for a quick decision and clear-cut
winner, the victor should be the peoples 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 two-party system.
10.)
Crisis
is the opportunity means that the president that leads us through a world crisis is said
to be a great president. Even though many people may not have like Lincoln to start out
with since he was presiding over total chaos he earned his place in history.