Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Political Science Electoral college proposal Electoral college proposal Imagine for a moment that a young man has been working hard all day on his own farm. He is the typical hard-working, middle-class American, not unlike Americans today. Normally this young man puts in a good twelve hours worth of work, but on this particularly special day, he relieves himself early. It is Election Day. He considers himself patriotic and takes this day very seriously. He casts his vote and comes home just in time to tuck his son into bed. He sleeps soundly through the night, knowing that he has helped to shape the country he loves so dearly. The next day, he learns that the man he voted for is not his new Commander in Chief. This man is not typically a sore loser, but in this particular instance, he is furious. The man he had voted for received the majority of the popular vote, but had not been elected as President by the Electoral College. We should amend Article II, Section 1, the portion of the Constitution that calls for the Electoral College, because the current system of presidential elections does not necessarily represent the will of the people. With all of the problems surrounding our country’s most recent election, it is easy to recognize that something is not right with our current system of presidential elections. If this system of elections is flawed and needs to be changed, then why was it ever implemented in the first place? Our founding fathers implemented this system for several reasons, primarily to prevent “the masses” (Parkinson) from electing someone whom the educated political leaders did not think was best for the nation. Dumbauld says that in 1787, the year of the Constitutional Convention, there was fear that a foreign power could put forth a candidate, get him elected and get a strong foothold in America’s government (260). Those in power held that there was no way for the average American to fully learn enough about any single candidate to make an educated decision. There were also no televisions or radios at that time so, information was scarce and hard to find. These problems that sparked the formation of the Electoral College are not relevant today and a change should be implemented. There is a way to keep the Electoral College intact but to also remedy most of the problems with it. “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector” (Dumbauld 265). In other words, each state has one electoral vote for each Representative and each Senator, and each state has Electors who are the ones who actually choose a leader. These Electors are the ones who actually choose our President. Tennessee, as is demonstrated by Figure 1 on page 3, has nine voting districts and therefore has nine Representatives and, just like every other state, has two Senators. This means that Tennessee has eleven electoral votes, as demonstrated by Figure 2 on page 3, one for each Representatives and Senator. As the system is currently set up, whichever candidate wins the majority of the popular vote in Tennessee, his party’s Elector gets to make all eleven votes. Instead of following this winner-takes-all mentality, have the votes be awarded not only by state but also by congressional district. Whoever wins the popular vote in a particular district gets one electoral vote. Whoever wins the popular vote in the state gets two electoral votes. This system represents the wants of the people more fairly than the current system. If that statement is true, then what is wrong with the current system of election? Figure 1: The voting districts of Tennessee. Figure 2: The number of electoral votes by state. It is not easy to believe that the example in the first paragraph, a man who did not receive the majority of the popular vote becoming President, could ever happen, but the truth of the matter is that it already has. According to Blight, Chudacoff, Escott, Katzman, Norton, Patterson, and Tuttle, in 1824 John Quincy Adams became President of the United States despite only receiving a mere 30.5 percent of the vote. He ran against Henry Clay, William H. Crawford and Andrew Jackson. Blight, Chudacoff, Escott, Katzman, Norton, Patterson, and Tuttle also state that Clay and Crawford each gained 13 percent of the vote and that Jackson won over 43 percent of the popular vote. It is obvious that Jackson should have won the election, but he did not. He did not win, because he did not get enough electoral votes since the votes were split between four persons. The decision went to the Congress, and Jackson ended up losing the race. As demonstrated in the previous paragraph, the winner of the nation-wide popular vote may not be elected as the President. The candidate that wins the majority of electoral votes across the country becomes the next President. Figure 2 is a map of the states and the number of electoral votes each state has. In order to become President, a candidate must secure over half of the vote. That means that a candidate needs 270 electoral votes. With the current system, a candidate could secure 270 vote by winning the popular vote in a mere eleven states: California, New York, Texas, Florida Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Virginia. If a candidate were to win those eleven states by a very small margin but lost all of the other states by a huge margin, that person would become the next President, even though he would have come nowhere near winning the majority of the popular vote across the country. With the proposal presented earlier, it would be almost impossible for the example in the previous paragraph to ever occur. Even if a candidate were to win those eleven states by a very small margin, it is likely that he would not win all of the voting districts in those states. Assume for a moment that a candidate lost all of the voting districts in all thirty-nine other states and Washington D.C., but that he won all the voting districts in the eleven bigger states except one. Assume that the district that he lost was in California. California, for example, has fifty-four electoral votes. This means that it has fifty-two voting districts plus two Senators. If a candidate just barely won a popular vote in all but one of the voting districts and had a majority of the popular vote across the state, he would receive fifty-three of California’s electoral votes. These fifty-three votes added with the ten other states two hundred and sixteen votes would give a candidate two hundred and sixty-nine votes, one short of winning the election. The proposal solves this serious problem as well as others. There are many other good reasons to enact the proposal. First, a called recount of votes would be easier. Instead of having to recount all of the votes in a state, they would only have to recount the votes in the particular districts that are in question. This would save a lot of time and taxpayer’s money. Secondly, it forces the candidates to campaign more vigorously. According to Parkinson, in the present system, candidates tend to only campaign on the larger eleven states. This proposal will force the candidates to campaign to all areas, not just big cities in big states. The third reason is that this system makes every vote count even more. Since the voting pool is by district as oppose to by state, the weight that a single vote carries is higher, because the voting pool is smaller. There is some benefit from having the electoral system as currently established. First, as Parkinson states, the present system makes recounts easier. Recounts are done by state instead of being done nation-wide. When it comes time for a recount of votes, only those states with a close election are recounted, instead of the entire nation. Secondly, the Electors from the Electoral College, not the popular vote, make the final decision on who receives the electoral votes. This can be good in order to prevent the election of a demagogue, a leader who makes use of popular prejudices, false claims and promises in order to gain power (Hamilton 263). “The Electoral College is also better, because while we tend to have close popular elections, in the Electoral College we tend to have decisive victories” (Parkinson). This way makes it is easier to see which person is the winner of the election. If the college were set up differently, the political leaders and the public alike would become easily confused in a close race. Originally, the system was established to ensure that all states were equally represented (Dumbauld 264). The system follows that today. The new system that is proposed would not hurt current conditions; it would only help matters. Parkinson stated previously that recounts are easier done by state as opposed to nation-wide. By that logic, recounts would be even easier if done by congressional district. Hamilton also stated the fear of a demagogue being elected. Parkinson, however, believes that the election of a demagogue is almost impossible with today’s media frenzy surrounding elections. Parkinson also believes that the current system helps to gain more decisive victories and defeats. What difference does that really make? While the new system would decrease the margin of victory, it would also represent the people more accurately. That is more important than a decisive victory. As for ensuring that all of the states are represented equally, the new system would do the same. Each state would have the same number of votes that they currently have. The states would therefore be as equally represented as they are now. It is clear that there are problems surrounding the functionality of the Electoral College. These problems do not merely affect politicians; they affect every American citizen. To quote Abraham Lincoln our government is “represented of the people, by the people, and for the people.” If we, the people, do not agree with something in the government, it is our right and responsibility, to take action. Speak or write a letter to the area’s congressmen. They are required to listen. Remember, in a truly democratic society, every voice is heard and every voice counts. Bibliography: Blight, Chudacoff, Escott, Katzman, Norton, Patterson, and Tuttle. Since 1865. New York: Houghtom Mifflin, 1998. Vol. 2 A People and a Nation. 2 vols. 1998. Dumbauld, Edward. The Constitution of the United States. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1964. Hamilton, Alexander. Anti-Federalists versus Federalists: Union as a Barrier to Faction and Insurrection. 1788. Ed. J. D. Lewis. San Francisco: 124 Spear Street, 1967. Parkinson, Thomas J. Personal interview. 23 Nov. 2000 Word Count: 1760
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.