Valley Springs High School

Valley Springs, Arkansas

Teacher: Lavina Grandon

 

The Function of the Electoral College

By Olga Sletova
12^th grade

 

 How should the presidential elections be held in the USA?  Do we need direct election according to popular votes or the Electoral College, which gives every state an opportunity to express its choice for the President?  We should leave the system of electing the President of  the United States by the Electoral College as it is.  The Electoral College has proved its efficiency for more than 200 years, since the Constitution was written.  Major governmental decisions that are made every day and the prosperity and stability of the United States fully depend on the Constitution.  The Constitution also gives exact descriptions of electing the President and the Vice President of the United States.  Article II section 1:2 of the Constitution says:  “ Each State shall appoint, in such Manner of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress to vote for the President and the Vice President of the United States.

 

In order to understand the advantages of the Electoral College, we should look back in history.  In 1787 when the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia, they considered several possible methods of selecting a president.  One idea was election by the Congress, which was rejected.  Some thought it would leave too many hard feelings in the Congress; others felt it would bring corruption, political bargaining and even interference from foreign countries.  Another way was election by the state legislatures.  This was also rejected because of fears that the President would come under control of the state legislatures, which would cause the destruction of the federation.  The third idea was the election by a direct popular vote, which was also rejected because of the fear that people would vote for a “favorite son” from their state.  As a result, no one would get the majority, or the choice would be made by the most populated states, which would leave no voice to smaller ones.  Finally, a compromise was reached—an indirect election.  After trying several different versions, the Electoral College has come to allow every state a right to decide how to choose electors for federal government.  According to William Gosset, in fifteen elections candidates who lost the popular votes were elected.  “Five of the presidents who were unable to poll a majority are honored in the ranks of the nation’s ten greatest presidents, while Ulysses S. Grant, who won a second term with 55.6 percent of the popular vote, and Warren Harding, who won with 60.3 percent, are numbered among the nation’s worst presidents,” says The Harry Singer Foundation.   Past experience has proved that elections by people wouldn’t always choose the best leader for the whole country, but only for the narrow part of people living in the states with the most population.

 

The Electoral College has many advantages.  First, it promotes the cohesiveness of the country by providing for the interests of the rural areas.  Second, the Electoral College contributes to the political stability of the country.  The author of the 1971 book, The Case Against Direct Election of The President, Judith Best, says,  “The prospect of winning the popular but not the electoral vote spurs those parties to seek the support of broad cross sections of the nation.  The risk of a runner-up presidency may not be too great a price to pay for a system, which minimizes conflicts, promises stability, suppresses factions, promotes moderation, and requires a broad base of support.”  Third, the Electoral College represents the interests of minority populations, such as farmers, labor unions and environmentalists.  Fourth, the Electoral College encourages the two-party system, which simplifies the election process. The existence of many small parties drags out an election, so no party gets a majority.  In their 1970 book, Voting For President, William Sayre and Judith Parrish claim the direct vote would weaken the power of the states and strengthen the national government, making state borders irrelevant in elections and probably the presidential choices uniform.  Federal employees would end up tallying a national vote and all election officials would end up working for federal rather than state governments.  These reasons are the best proof that the interests of such a divergent country as the United States are best served through using the Electoral College.

 

Another issue discussed in 2000 was campaign reform.  In American politics often the result of the election depends on the amount of money spent on a candidate’s advertising.  According to Money Watch 2000, the cost of winning the average U.S. House race has more than doubled in the last ten years.   Nearly $800 million was spent on Congressional campaigns in 1995-1996.  Often candidates use illegal “dirty” money or spend more than the law permits.  “Candidates for Congress who outspent their opponents won 86% of the time, states Money Watch 2000.

 

Presidential candidates have discussed finance reform in 2000. George W. Bush’s view on it is to ban soft money from unions and corporations, but not from individuals, and to introduce “paycheck protection” by which union members would have to give approval for their dues to be spent on political activities.  This finance reform should become law because it will decrease the corruption and give everyone an equal opportunity to run for office.  Huge amounts of soft money that are spent on contributions could have gone to increased productivity of the businesses.  We need the finance reform that cuts the influence of special interest money on candidates, elections, and lawmaking.  Candidates will be able to concentrate better on issues and constituents rather than on the money chase.

 

The Electoral College has served America well and should be preserved.  However, elections could be made more fair and undue influence on candidates reduced by reforming the types and amounts of so-called “soft money” that can be contributed.

 

                                                                                            QUESTIONS

 

1.                 How and when did the United States elect a president and vice president of different parties?  Name them and their respective parties. 
ANSWER:  In the election of 1796, John Adams, who was a Federalist, was elected as president and Thomas Jefferson, a Republican, was elected vice president.

2.                 Describe four ways that were suggested to elect the President between 1808 and 1846. 
ANSWER:  The four proposals were by lot from retired senators, by lot from representatives of each state, direct election with electors, and direct election without electors.

3.                 Name five U.S. Presidents who were elected with less than a popular vote. 
ANSWER:  John Quincy Adams, Zachary Taylor, James Buchanan, Abraham Lincoln, and Woodrow Wilson.

4.                 Describe the winner-take-all system.  Which states use this system? 
ANSWER: In the winner-take-all system, all of a state’s electors go to the popular vote winner in that state.  All states except Maine and Nebraska use the winner-take-all system.

5.                 When do electors vote and when are the results known?                         
ANSWER:  Electors vote on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.  The results are known on the first day that the new Congress meets in January.

6.                 What effect would substituting a direct popular vote for the Electoral College have on third party candidates? Why?
ANSWER:  The direct popular votge would improve the third party candidate’s opportunity to win.  Under the Electoral College system, the majority parties always win the popular vote in the state and then get all of the state’s Electors.

7.                 Give four arguments for and against a direct vote system.                     
ANSWER  For: It would be more “democratic,” give third parties a chance, assure that the person who won the presidency would win the popular vote, and do away with the faithless elector.                                                  
ANSWER Against: It would reduce the power of the states and increase the power of the federal government, assure that candidates would only have to campaign in large population centers, require a nation-wide recount in case of a close election, and destabilize the two-party system.

8.                 Describe the differences between the district plan, the proportional plan, and the winner-take-all plan.
ANSWER:  The district plan assigns electors on the basis of Congressional districts.  The Proportional plan divides the state’s electors according to the amount of the popular vote each candidate got in that state.  The winner-take-all plan gives all of the state’s electors to the winner of the popular vote in that state.

9.                 State the four points experts in 1969 agreed should be included in an ideal plan for electing U.S. Presidents.
ANSWER  1) A quick decision and a clear-cut winner; 2) The victor should be the winner of the popular vote; 3) The president-elect should have the legitimacy which comes from a good margin of victory; 4) It should not undermine the two-party system.

10.             Write a paragraph describing what is meant by one of the following: Americans prefer pragmatists to ideologues.                             ANSWER:  A pragmatist is someone who is more interested in getting things done than in promoting the ideas of his party.  An ideologue is someone who places party ideas over getting things done.  Americans prefer pragmatists to ideologues because they value efficiency and accomplishment.  Ideologues are so busy protecting their party that they can’t make the compromises necessary to get things done in a two-party system.

 

[Back] [Home] [Main Menu] [Another Way] [Current Essay Contests]  [Pilot Projects] [Archives]