Time For Reform Considering The Failures Of

Time For Reform? Sing The Failures Of The Electoral College Essay, Research Paper

Time For Reform? Sing The Failures of The Electoral College

Description: This paper discusses the many defects of the Electoral College,

and postulates possible alternate electoral procedures which probably be more

democratic.

Time for Reform? Sing the failures of the Electoral College

A common misconception among American is that when they vote they elect the

President. The truth is non about this simple. What in fact happens when a

individual ballots is that there 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 the fright of 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 male monarch or rabble-rouser ( McManus p. 19 ) . With

the Electoral College in topographic point the people could do a screened determination 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 rabble-rouser

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 ignorant

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 rabble-rouser 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 defects be

addressed or are they acceptable idiosyncrasies of a system that has efficaciously

prevented the rise of a male monarch for 200 old ages? To reply this inquiry we must

foremost see a figure of events past and possible that have or could hold

occurred as a consequence of the flaws Electoral College.

The Unfaithful Elector

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 member have proved to be unfaithful. This unfaithful voter

ignores the will of the general electorate and alternatively selects candidate other

than the 1 he was expected to elect ( McGaughey, p. 81 ) . This unfaithfulness

summarily subjugates 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 besiege 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 Numbers Flaw reveals how the will of the people can be passed over

accidentally due to defect of design ( McNown, Lecture Notes, 2/20/93 ) .

( a ) 6/b ( 4 ) | ( a ) 6/b ( 6 ) Candidate a: 18

| Candidate B: 22

|

| 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.

Tie Game

The job posed by no one individual having a bulk of the electoral ballots

( a tie ) foremost came to head in the 1800 elections. The success of political

parties served to turn Electoral College members into agents of the parties

Bailey & A ; Shafritz p. 61 ) . This so galvanized the 1800 elections that the

Republican voters cast their two ballots for the two Republican candid

Ates,

Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr severally. It was assumed that Jefferson

would be President and Burr the Vice-President. Unfortunately their was no

constitutional philosophy to confirm this premise. As a consequence the of all time

brave Aaron Burr challenged Jefferson election as President and the issue

had to be sent to the House for declaration ( Bailey & A ; Shafritz, p. 61 ) . Any

debating on the issue was merely incidental ; when all was said and done the issue

was decided by one adult male, Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton, and the Federalists were

in control of the House when the determination was to be made. Hamilton, who

disagreed with Jefferson but overpoweringly distrusted Burr, orchestrated a

clean ballot enterprise among the Federalists which allowed the Republicans to

choice Jefferson as President ( Bailey & A ; Shafritz, p. 61 ) . Though this full

incident was important the most notable facet was the fact that the

President was basically chosen by one adult male. The concluding determination was taken

wholly out of the custodies of the people and was left to the clemency of the prejudices

of a individual person. In all equity it should be noted that the 12th

amendment was formulated out of the Jefferson-Burr to forever ballad to rest the

inquiry of who is President and Vice-President in a tie. The 12th amendment

stipulates that voters are to project separate ballots for the President and Vice

President, and summarily an event such as the Jefferson-Burr incident can non

go on once more. ( Bailey & A ; Shafritz p. 61 ) . In consequence the 12th prevents the issue

of a tie from traveling to the House under a really narrow range of conditions. This

is far less of a solution than one which would hold prevented this issue from

traveling to the House at all because when the issue of who would be President went

to the House in 1800, the issue of democracy was left to compromise. This all

serves to uncover yet another defect of the Electoral College procedure.

Congressional choice of the President can take to democratic via media. This

would look an country of concern. Though some would reason we have had 200 old ages to

distance ourselves from such maladies as the elections of 1800, the following

reveals how close to home the defects 200 twelvemonth old establishment can hit.

The Wallace Debacle

In 1968 a tripartite tie about brought to head the same undemocratic manners of

presidential choices that emerged 200 old ages earlier with the Jefferson-Burr

incident. The 1968 elections race was highly close. Richard Nixon barley

received a bulk of the electoral ballots to win the presidential term. Had Nixon

failed to acquire a bulk a figure of eccentric scenarios might hold emerged. The

campaigners in the race were Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace

severally. Had Nixon failed to win a bulk Wallace would hold been in a

place to command who the following President would be ( Bailey & A ; Shafritz p. 65 ) .

Though he could non hold won himself Wallace could hold used his ballots as swing

ballots to give Nixon a bulk, or give Humphrey plenty to forestall Nixon from

acquiring a bulk ( Bailey & A ; Shafritz p. 65 ) . In the latter case the issue

would hold, as in 1800, been sent to the House for rectification. In either

case Wallace would hold had a great trade to derive, and the enticement to

wheel and trade ( at the via media of democracy ) would hold been great so. It

is possible Wallace could hold used his influence with Southern House members to

acquire Humphrey elected. In the procedure he would hold probably `garnered great

political clout for himself. Wallace could hold bargained with Nixon for an

disposal place in Nixon & # 8217 ; s cabinet in return for Wallace & # 8217 ; s electoral

ballots. The possible scenarios are eternal, and for the most portion irrelevant.

What is relevant is that the procedures of the Electoral College once more paved a

way for democratic via media, merely as it did in 1800. If clip is the mechanism

for alteration so seemingly non adequate clip has passed.

Decision

The defects of the Electoral College presented above are merely a few of many

defects. Others flaws include the bias toward little and big provinces, which gives

these states 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

warrant 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

rabble-rouser. But in the procedure of 200 old ages of electing the College has 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 so are flaws acceptable sing the

responsibility the College performs? If the intent of the College is to supply democracy

but prevent demagogy so its success seems unsure. The U.S. has seen no

rabble-rouser but has seen via media of democracy. The grounds shows that the

defects of the Electoral College are responsible for democratic via media. It

would look so that the defects of the college are self-defeating to the intent

of the college. If this is so it is definitely clip for reform.

Bibliography

1 Bailey, Harry A. Jr. , Shafritz, Jay M. The American Presidency, ( California:

Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. , 1988 ) Chapter III

2 McGauhey, Elizabeth P. , & # 8220 ; Democracy at Risk, & # 8221 ; Policy Review, Winter 1993: 79-81

3 R. Gordon Hoxie, & # 8220 ; Alexander Hamilton and the Electoral System Revisited, & # 8221 ;

Presidential Studies Quarterly, v. 18 n. 4 p. 717-720

4 John F. McManus, & # 8220 ; Let the Constitution Work, & # 8221 ; The New American, v. 8 n. 14 P.

19

5 William P. Hoar, & # 8220 ; The Electoral College: How The Republic Chooses its

President, & # 8221 ; New American, v. 8 n. 16 p. 23-28