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 Elimintating the Electoral College Elimintating the Electoral College Judging by the way things are looking with this year’s election, the Electoral College is not benefiting American citizens. People fight both sides of the system, but the truth of the matter is that although the Electoral College has been in place for over 200 years, Americans are still not sure how it works or if it is the best method. Our country is supposed to be a symbol of democracy, but to this day, American elections are not truly democratic, for there are no direct Presidential elections. The Electoral College is the constitutional system for the election of the president and vice president of the United Sates. It is the collective name for a group of electors, nominated by political parties within the states, who meet to vote for those two offices. Each party within a state selects a slate of electors numerically equal to the state’s congressional delegation; representatives plus senators. So, when the American people vote for president and vice president they are actually voting for slates of electors pledged to their candidates. The electoral vote of each state is cast as a unit, and the victorious presidential and vice presidential nominees in each state win the state’s entire electoral vote. The candidates receiving a majority of the total electoral vote in the United States are elected. This is actually established in Article II, section I, of the Constitution, it’s intentions being to resolve interstate disputes about power based on geographical and regional differences. However, it was blatantly distrustful and alarmingly paternalistic towards the American populace, not to mention being flat out undemocratic. The Electoral College was aimed at preventing the general public from having any direct power in political control. The Electoral College has worked for the most part in previous years, because nearly all presidential elections have been won by wide enough margins that the popular and electoral votes have had the same outcome. But this year, that is not the case. The media frequently refer to this year’s presidential election as one of the most competitive in recent history, perhaps since 1960 when Kennedy won with 34,227,096 popular votes to Nixon's 34,107,646. In the final sprint of the marathon 2000 presidential campaign, Democratic nominee Al Gore and Republican nominee George W. Bush are neck and neck. Particularly in a contest close as this one, the Electoral College warps national politics and could lead to a major constitutional crisis. So, with a race this tight, it is entirely conceivable that one candidate may win the popular vote and still lose the election. This would mark the first time since 1888 that the president-elect lost the popular vote. Since it has happened three times before in American history, in 1824, 1876 and 1888, it could certainly happen again. In 1824, John Quincy Adams received fewer electoral votes and fewer popular votes than his opponent Andrew Jackson but won the election when the House of Representatives favored him by six state votes. Then again, in 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes beat Samuel J. Tilden with just one electoral vote in spite of having lost the popular vote. It was a contentious victory because the electoral votes of four states were disputed until eventually awarded to Hayes. Finally, in 1888, incumbent Grover Cleveland won a narrow lead over his Republican opponent with some 100,000 votes in the popular vote but lost the election because Benjamin Harrison led the Electoral College. If a situation such as that would happen to this election, Americans would become even more disillusioned with their anti-democratic government. A change needs to be made to this procedure, and although there has been over 700 proposals to alter the system, only a handful have been enacted. A constitutional amendment replacing the Electoral College with a simple popular vote would be most effective in fixing the current problems. A more feasible, though less solvent, approach is for individual states to change their election laws to award electoral votes on a proportional, not winner-take-all, basis. Because the Electoral College is mandated by the Constitution, a constitutional amendment is required to abolish it. An amendment dealing with this could not be contingent on federal legislative ratification because it would require modifying the Constitution. The stakes are simply too high for most politically motivated Representatives and Senators to even give the issue much thought. No mainstream politician would support an initiative that would drastically reduce, if not entirely shatter, their permanent grasp on political power. Such an amendment would have to originate and be ratified by the states. A reasonable and solvent amendment would abolish the electoral college by repealing Article II, section I of the Constitution; establish a new voting system under which each party nominates a single Presidential candidate; and in the event of no candidate winning a majority of the popular vote, a runoff would take place in a separate election, between the two candidates who received the most votes in the first, general, election. The reason that these changes should be made is because of all of the tribulations with the present formation. The Electoral College is completely outdated and anti-democratic. America deserves truly representative presidential elections, in which all votes have equivalent values. This system’s continued existence has and will continue to have numerous detrimental effects on American politics and government. The first and foremost problem is that it deprives American citizens of a full voice in choosing their president. Because many state constitutions award electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis, all individual votes become meaningless. In addition, each vote is not counted equally because each state regardless of its size has two Senators and at least one Representative; the vote of citizens from smaller populous states is worth substantially more than somebody’s vote from a larger populous state. These consequences reach far beyond simple fairness issues. Too many times in American history, the Electoral College has single-handedly defeated the purpose of democracy in this country. Since the first Presidential election, there have been more than a dozen instances in which somebody has been elected without a majority of votes, and, in a handful of particularly awful moments, the official winner in the electoral college’s election was actually defeated in the popular election by another candidate, as stated previously. Additionally, the Electoral College acts as a major stumbling block for third party candidates. No third party has ever seriously contended with Republicans or Democrats in Presidential elections. In fact, even the most serious third party contender in recent memory has not been particularly serious. In 1992, a Reform party candidate, Texas billionaire Ross Perot, won nearly 12% of the popular vote. But the percentage of votes that he won in official tallies was completely insignificant. Despite his noteworthy victories in the popular vote, he failed to win a majority of a state and was not awarded a single electoral vote. Due to third parties repeated defeats, any momentum is quickly lost, for few will vote for a party that never wins. There would be numerous advantages to a constitutional amendment abolishing the Electoral College. People would finally have a direct say in choosing their President. Each and every vote would count and Americans could once again feel euphoric pride for their democracy. Democracy represents much that we value in government and, to a degree in life; freedom, control over our future, and concern with the fate of others. The Electoral College violates what should be considered a fundamental right to self-governance, a right on which this nation is built. Additionally, third party candidates could at least aspire towards contending in a Presidential election. The popularity and prominence of many third parties would surely skyrocket, and, over a period of years, could put a non-Republican or Democrat in the White House. The amendment would provide all citizens with a voice, and all candidates with a chance, a feat that has never before been achieved in the history of American politics. Any 200 year old system will begin to deteriorate because of the mere fact that it is not current and up to date. Just because the Electoral College worked just as the Founding Fathers intended for quite some time, does not mean that it should never be modified or even abandoned completely. Citizens of the United States have a right to their democracy because it is what our country stands for. Equality falls into the same category when noting that third party candidates have no true way to winning an election. Something needs to be done about these problems before more elections like the existing one between Bush and Gore occurs. If a compromise or a change to the system were made it, would give more strength to the people and open up our political system a bit more. We are a much more informed populace than the people who voted in the first election not to mention the fact that more people would vote because they could see their vote count more. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Proposals for Revision of the Electoral College System. Washington: 1969. Longley, Lawrence D. The Politics of Electoral College Reform. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972. Pierce, Neal R. and Longley, Lawrence D. The People's President: The Electoral College in American History and the Direct-Vote Alternative. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981. Sayre, Wallace Stanley. Voting for President. Washington: Brookings Institution, c1970. Zeidenstein, Harvey G. Direct Election of the President. Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books, 1973. Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr.(ed.). History of Presidential Elections 1789-1968. New York: Chelsea House Publishers,1971. Bibliography: Work Cited American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Proposals for Revision of the Electoral College System. Washington: 1969. Longley, Lawrence D. The Politics of Electoral College Reform. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972. Pierce, Neal R. and Longley, Lawrence D. The People's President: The Electoral College in American History and the Direct-Vote Alternative. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981. Sayre, Wallace Stanley. Voting for President. Washington: Brookings Institution, c1970. Zeidenstein, Harvey G. Direct Election of the President. Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books, 1973. Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr.(ed.). History of Presidential Elections 1789-1968. New York: Chelsea House Publishers,1971. Word Count: 1593
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.