Electorasl College Essay Research Paper The Electoral
Electorasl College Essay, Research Paper
The Electoral College: Is Attendance Smart?
A common misconception among Americans is that when they vote they elect the President. The truth is non about this simple. What in fact happens when a individual votes is that their ballot goes for an Elector. This Elector ( who is selected by the several province in which a ballot is cast ) casts ballots for two persons, the President and the Vice-President. Each province has the same figure of voters as there are Senate and House of Representative members for that State. When the vote has stopped the campaigner who receives the bulk of the Electoral ballots for a province receives all the electoral ballots for that province. All the ballots are transmitted to Washington, D.C. for tallying, and the campaigner with the bulk of the electoral ballots wins the presidential term. If no campaigner receives a bulk of the ballot, the duty of choosing the following President falls upon the House of Representatives. This luxuriant system of Presidential choice is thought by many to be an eighteenth century mistiming ( Hoxie p. 717 ) , what it is in fact is the merchandise of a 200 twelvemonth old argument over who should choose the President and why.
In 1787, the Framers in their infinite wisdom, saw the demand to esteem the rules of both Federalists and States Righters ( republicans ) ( Hoxie p. 717 ) . Summarily a via media was struck between those who felt Congress should choose the President and those who felt the provinces should hold a say. In 1788 the Electoral College was indoctrinated and placed into operation. The College was to let people a say in who lead them, but was besides to protect against the general public & # 8217 ; s ignorance of political relations. Why fear the peoples ignorance of political relations? It was argued that the people, left to their ain devices could be swayed by a few planing work forces to elect a crowned head or overzealous ( McManus p. 19 ) . With the Electoral College in topographic point the people
could do a & # 8220 ; screened determination & # 8221 ; about who the highest authorization in the land was to be ( Bailey & A ; Shafritz p. 60 ) ; at the same clip the fright of the freshly formed state being destroyed by a overzealous could be put to rest because wiser work forces had the concluding say.
200 old ages subsequently the system is still designed to safeguard against the nescient capacities of the people. The Electoral College has remained comparatively unchanged in signifier and map since 1787, the twelvemonth of its preparation. This in itself poses a job because in 200 old ages the bets have changed yet the College has remained the same. A precaution against a overzealous may still be relevant, but the College as this precaution has proved flawed in other capacities. These defects have shed visible radiation on the many waies to undemocratic election. The inquiry so is what shall the precedences be? Shall the flaws be addressed or are they acceptable to a system that has efficaciously prevented the rise of a absolutism for 200 old ages? To reply we must foremost see the possibility of an unfaithful voter and a Numberss defect of past events that could hold occurred as a consequence of this decisive Electoral College.
Unfaithful Voter: Under the current procedures of the Electoral College, when a member of the general electorate casts a ballot for a campaigner he is in fact projecting a ballot for an Electoral College member who is an voter for that campaigner. Bound merely by tradition this College member is expected to stay faithful to the campaigner he has ab initio agreed to elect. This has non ever happened. In past cases Electoral College members have proved to be unfaithful. This unfaithful voter ignores the will of the general electorate and alternatively selects a campaigner other than the 1 he was expected to elect ( McGaughey, p. 81 ) . This unfaithfulness
summarily defeats all the ballots for a campaigner in a peculiar territory. In all equity, it is of import to observe that cases of unfaithful voters are few and far between, and in fact 26
provinces have Torahs forestalling against unfaithful voters ( McGauhey, p.81 ) . Despite this, the fact remains that the possibility of an unfaithful voter does be and it exists because the system
is designed to voyage around direct popular election of the President.
The Numbers Flaw: The unfaithful voter is an illustration of how the popular will can be intentionally ignored. The illustration I have shown below reveals how the will of the people can be accidentally passed over due to defect of design.
Popular Votes
( a ) 6/b ( 4 ) | ( a ) 6/b ( 6 ) Candidate a: 18 | Candidate B: 22
& # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; -| & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ;
| Electoral Votes
( a ) 6/b ( 4 ) | ( a ) 0/b ( 10 ) Candidate a: 3 Candidate B: 1
In this theoretical illustration campaigner ( a ) receives a minority of the popular ballots with 18, but a bulk of the electoral ballots with three. Candidate ( B ) receives a bulk of the popular ballots with 22, but receives merely one electoral ballot. Under the winner-take-all system, the campaigner with the bulk of the electoral ballots non merely wins the province but besides receives all the electoral ballots for that province. In this conjectural state of affairs campaigner ( a ) having a minority of the popular ballots wins the province and takes all the electoral ballots. The acceptableness of this denial of the popular will, unwilled or otherwise, is questionable to state the least.
With most polls indicating toward a close presidential election on Nov 7, 2000, it was being asked if it is likely the campaigners with the greater popular ballot could lose? ( Lauer ) .
Indeed they could, because even when one ticket wins & # 8220 ; large & # 8221 ; in certain provinces, narrow wins by the resistance in other provinces, under our winner-take-all system, could let the party with the lesser popular ballot to predominate in the Electoral College.
The Electoral College & # 8211 ; wrapped in the Constitution and, about impossible to alter & # 8211 ; long has been criticized by those prefering democratic over republican rules. Besides, because the allotment of electoral ballots is based on informations from the last nose count now 10 old ages old & # 8211 ; it can non let for recent population migrations. Even more serious, the winner-take-all proviso efficaciously disenfranchises the & # 8220 ; losing & # 8221 ; party in every province. If Al Gore were to win California by a hair’s-breadth in the popular ballot, he however would have all of that province & # 8217 ; s 54 electoral ballots ( Connoly ) . Statistical analysis by one bookman, Charles W. Bischoff of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, suggests that in an election every bit near as the 1 between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon in 1960, or that between Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford in 1976, there is an even opportunity that the electoral count will belie the popular ballot. Indeed, this already has happened three times and is termed a minority presidential term.
The first case in which the popular ballot was overturned was in 1824. None of the four presidential campaigners from the fledgling parties of that twenty-four hours gained a bulk in either the popular ballot or the Electoral College. As a consequence, the issue was turned over to the House of Representatives. There, after much Wheeling and dealing, the presidential term was awarded to John Quincy Adams, despite the fact his popular ballot was far below that of Andrew Jackson. Charges he had been elected by a & # 8220 ; corrupt deal & # 8221 ; plagued Adams throughout his individual term.
The 2nd minority presidential term resulted from an every bit controversial election in 1876. At that clip federal military personnels still occupied many of the former Confederate provinces, and in some of them the vote had been accompanied by graft, bullying and force. On the twenty-four hours after
the election, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes appeared to hold defeated Democrat Samuel J. Tilden by a individual ballot in the Electoral College, even while losing the popular vote by more
than 250,000 ballots. But four provinces, all but one in the South, sent in viing sets of returns, and it was up to Congress to find which were valid. After hebdomads of bitter argument, the two houses of Congress agreed on an electoral committee to settle the affair. Although purportedly bipartizan, the committee may hold been in secret stacked in favour of the Republicans. In any instance, when the committee voted it awarded all of the contested ballots to the Republicans by an 8-7 ballot and Hayes won the election by a individual electoral ballot.
Having lost in the popular ballot, Hayes brought no authorization to the Oval Office. The malodor of fraud that accompanied his election was even more detrimental ; the honest Buckeye was referred to by Democrats as & # 8220 ; His Fraudulency ; & # 8217 ; and bask barely more regard in his ain party. When Hayes left office in 1881, one wit observed he had come in with an electoral bulk of one but departed by consentaneous consent.
The 3rd case in which a president was elected without a popular bulk was the least controversial. President Grover Cleveland had broken the Republicans & # 8217 ; 24-year clasp on the White House in 1884 but had done small to ingratiate himself with the populace. The Republicans chose Benjamin Harrison of Indiana to run against Cleveland in 1888 and made the state & # 8217 ; s perceived demand of a protective duty their flagship issue. Cleveland was charged with being a cupboard free-trader, and the Democratic rebuttal was ineffective, in portion because Cleveland believed it unseemly for a president to run actively for re-election.
On Election Day, Harrison received 90,000 fewer popular ballots than his opposition, but won comfortably in the Electoral College. When the grateful Harrison told one Pennsylvania politician that & # 8220 ; Providence has given us the triumph, & # 8221 ; the Pennsylvanian assured newsmans that
Capital of rhode island had had nil to make with it. Cleveland & # 8217 ; s retaliation came four old ages subsequently, when he became the first and merely president to recover the Oval Office after being defeated for re-election.
If this twelvemonth & # 8217 ; s election should see the electoral victor autumn short in the popular ballot, the reactions are rather predictable. The also-rans will kick aloud that the people & # 8217 ; s will has been disregarded and that the Electoral College should hold been abolished long ago. But will the new president be earnestly damaged by this type of triumph? I think he will.
For the past eight old ages Bill Clinton has maintained good occupation public presentation evaluations despite dirts. He was able to maintain a thin bulk of the popular ballot in both 1992 and 1996. The presidential term is such an of import office T
hat it confers a immense grade of prestigiousness on any incumbent. If the Electoral College of today were to elect for president a campaigner who had lost in the popular vote, it could decrease the presidential office and farther erode popular assurance in authorities. ( Page ) . However, political foremans in provinces such as California and New York are improbable to alter a system that is an of import portion of their political power.
Yet, despite the current upward spike in public indignation at the Electoral College, an amendment to make away with it faces an acclivitous battle. The Electoral College has been assailed more frequently than any other point in the Constitution. More than a 100 efforts have been made to alter it. Yet, it endures. One large ground is political relations, another, the media.
Politically, provinces value their ego. If the popular ballot decided elections, the smaller provinces fear they would be ignored even more than they are ignored now. Smaller provinces would non be courted to. Presidential runs would be waged even more on telecasting, non in the flesh. I think the Electoral College could compromise to last and be reformed into a organic structure that is more antiphonal to the public & # 8217 ; s will. Here & # 8217 ; s some suggestion on the possibility.
First, every province should go through Torahs to necessitate voters to vote for the campaigner their components sent them to vote for. Merely about half the provinces have such a demand now.
Second, alternatively of winner-take-all elections in which all of a province & # 8217 ; s electoral ballots go to the campaigner who wins most of the province & # 8217 ; s ballots, provinces should present their ballots proportionally to the figure of ballots assorted campaigners received in each province. Excellent illustrations are Maine and Nebraska. These two provinces award two ballots to the campaigner who wins the most ballots statewide and gives the remainder of the ballots to the victor of each congressional territory. The Committee for the Study of the American Electorate has become a leader in proposing that other provinces adopt similar systems. If electoral ballots were awarded by territory alternatively of by province, they would reflect the popular ballot more closely. They would besides make more of an inducement for campaigners to see provinces they otherwise might disregard because they are viewed as their opposition & # 8217 ; s district. Peoples would be solicited at a territory degree for their ballots, non at a province degree or a national degree where the usage of today & # 8217 ; s powerful media plays an improbably dominant function. The political job with vote by territory these yearss is that it would disfavor Democrats. Their ballots tend to be concentrated in fewer territories in or near large metropoliss than Republicans are. In this twelvemonth & # 8217 ; s fiasco, for illustration, Rob Richie, executive manager of the Center for Voting and Democracy, estimates that Bush likely won 25 more House territories than Gore did and about four times more counties.
Richie & # 8217 ; s organisation favours direct elections. But he suggested another via media ; provinces could present electoral ballots the manner political parties choose their delegates, which is by the proportion of the existent ballot each campaigner has won in each province. That would extinguish the expostulations of any party that might experience cheated by redistricting maps. Another advantage to relative representation is that it does non hold to wait for Congress. ( Hoar 25 ) . Each province
has the power to accommodate some version of a vote-by-district strategy, merely as Maine and Nebraska have done. In fact, Richie noted, Florida came within a few ballots of go throughing such a step a
decennary ago. The failure of that step looks dry today. When I look at the system as a whole, I believe the media is the study card and the Electoral College has failed.
I have thought about today & # 8217 ; s media and my ballot. How much does my ballot truly number? As a elector, does pick truly matter? How much influence does the media have on my ballot? How many picks does the media really make when it comes to our state & # 8217 ; s leading? These are inquiries pondered by both political scientists and the mean American citizen each twelvemonth as the 2nd Tuesday in November attacks.
We know that the framers founded this state on the rules of stand foring it & # 8217 ; s citizens, and on the ideals of a state for the people and by the people ; it is obvious that the people feel that their ballot doesn & # 8217 ; t ever count. How much does your ballot truly number? Does your pick truly matter? Harmonizing to the framers, your pick does affair. They said that one adult male equals one ballot. Congress besides seems to believe that the single American ballot should number. They have passed Amendments to the Constitution in order to give more people the opportunity to vote and the opportunity to do a pick of their representatives through primary elections. But why so make the people really straight elect so few functionaries?
Possibly they agree with the thoughts of Converse and Lane and are utilizing voting merely as a manner to try to acquire the citizens out of the voting slack they seem to be in. Converse stated that electors are minimally informed, minimally capable, and hence incompetent of vote. Lane claims that this is non the job, but that alternatively, electors are merely lazy in their political orientation. ( Muraca ) I tend to hold with both, but I don & # 8217 ; t experience that the mistake lies on the shoulders
of the people. Rather, I feel that the load of elector incompetency lies on the shoulders of the media. Voters are non uninformed, but they are limited in the sum in information that they
posses. The ground that this information is limited is because of the media. Media makes the pick everyday what they do and make non desire the populace to cognize. The power to do the pick of our cognition remainders in their custodies. Without the information they pass on from twenty-four hours to twenty-four hours, we, as electors know nil about the occurrences of our authorities. Yet on more than one juncture the media has held back information that could be important to determinations we make about our democracy. A premier illustration occurred during the Gulf War.
Thousands of our state & # 8217 ; s work forces and adult females were contending for their state, yet the media limited the sum of information that they chose to go through on to the populace. I know because I was at that place and my household at place had no hint as to what was transpirating in the part. Each twenty-four hours the media is faced with the pick of doing determinations of what intelligence to go through on, when that intelligence could do a important difference in person & # 8217 ; s life, or in the destiny of our state. How much does the media consequence your picks in voting? When we foremost inquire this inquiry, we think of the obvious. The media informs us of campaigners, their personal backgrounds, their political orientation, their stances on issues, things they do in the community they represent, and the platform on which they plan to run. However, one time they get past the initial debut, they & # 8220 ; be given to be extremely critical of politicians ; they consider it their occupation to happen inaccuracies in fact and failing in argument. & # 8221 ; ( Janda et al. , 192 )
The media forces the mistakes of politicians on us, rarely talking of the positive facets from that point on. This, in bend, gives the electors a negative vision of their representatives as leaders. If mistakes are invariably being pointed out, electors begin to believe that all politicians are
incompetent and unable, and hence see no demand to vote. The media does non deliberately force these negative positions upon the mass populace ; instead they point out the mistakes because it
makes a better narrative.
Although the media does non straight create or change sentiments, it tells the public what to believe about. By utilizing priming techniques ( CNN ) , we can see the media straight rocking the way of the electors & # 8217 ; picks. By looking merely at these facts we can see that the media is rather perchance the most influential tool available to modulate elector pick. How many picks does the media really make when it comes to picks in leading? The media doesn & # 8217 ; t halt with doing efforts to rock voter pick. As citizens, the framers entrusted mundane citizens with the right to act upon the actions and destiny of our authorities, even if merely through a little article in the newspaper. Even though they did give the media this right, and we as citizens the right to utilize it, they still found mistake with the state as a whole. Otherwise, citizens would hold been given the opportunity to straight elect those they feel stand for them the best ( Shepard ) . The inquiry of why they did this remains, but the mistake lies at the pess of the media for maintaining the citizens left uninformed and unable to project a sensible ballot.
With the influence of the media by no agencies ignored, the defects of the Electoral College system discussed are merely a few of many defects that can be found. Other flaws include the bias toward little and big provinces, which gives other provinces a disproportional advantage ; The prejudice toward those who live in urban countries and hence bask a stronger ballot than those populating in sparsely populated countries ( Bailey & A ; Shafritz p. 63 ) . The list of defects is extended. The inquiry that still remains is whether or non the defects are extended plenty to justify alteration?
The Electoral College has successfully provided the U.S. with its Presidents for 200 old ages and has done so without leting the Ascension of a overzealous dictator or swayer who became
elected in a whirlwind of popular sentiment. But in the procedure of 200 old ages of electing the College has, at times, allowed the will of the people to be compromised. Granted at the clip of
the 1800 elections the College was immature and its defects were non wholly clear. 200 old ages subsequently the defects have revealed themselves or have been revealed in assorted manner.
The inquiry remains ; are these defects acceptable sing the responsibility the Electoral College performs? If the intent of the College is to supply democracy and prevent sentimentally elected leaders so its continuation seems unsure. The media communications available in our state at present eliminate many of the framers frights. The U.S. has seen no existent fiends elected and the grounds high spots that the defects of the Electoral College, combined with the unpredictable power of today & # 8217 ; s media are responsible for democratic via media. The defects of the College are self-defeating to the intent of the College. If the people can see this is true, so it is non needfully clip for remotion of the College, but decidedly clip for reform.
