The Antiquated Electoral College - Essay Example

The Antiquated Electoral College Introduction The founding principles of the U.S. have been deemed by many to be worth fighting and dying for. Many thousands of brave Americans have traveled to all parts of the world to give their lives for the concepts contained in the Constitution. They fought for the freedoms of strangers in strange lands so that these people might have the choice to decide their own destiny by the power of the vote. When citizens vote, they authenticate the sacrifice of those that have paid the ultimate price for the right to vote. According to Senator Ted Kennedy, “Voting is one of the true blessings of liberty. That’s why people have died for it, and our democracy is diminished when even one American is denied that right” (Peterson, 1986). Democracy is also diminished when Americans decide not to exercise that right. Voter apathy levels in this country are partly to blame on the Electoral College. Many states are predestined red or blue so there is little incentive to wait in line at the polling booth. One person, one vote; it’s a simple concept blurred by the antiquated and patently unfair Electoral College process. If it makes sense in a democracy to elect all offices ranging from dog catcher to U.S. Senator by popular vote, then it makes sense for the highest office. Advocates of election reform wish to either do away with the Electoral College system completely and replace it with the direct popular vote or repair perceived defects in the existing system by implementing one of several Electoral College reform proposals. Following several close elections in 1960, 1968, 1976 and 2000, the House of Representatives bowed to public sentiment and proposed constitutional amendments providing for direct election but never received the required the two-thirds majority approval necessary to then submit it for states passage. Alternatives to the current system include the Direct Election, National Bonus, Proportional Plans and District Plans. This discussion will provide alternatives and the rational for and against each to examine how likely it would be for these reforms to materialize into a Constitutional amendment. It also stresses the importance of changing the Electoral College explaining the reasons this system is a threat to democracy itself and recommends solutions for reforming other aspects of the electoral system that must be enacted in tandem with changes in the Electoral College. Direct Election Plan Under this plan, each voter would be eligible to directly cast a vote for the president; one person, one vote. The Electoral College would be eliminated. One Direct Election plan would require a majority vote for president with a national run-off, if necessary, between the top two candidates. Others have recommended establishing a minimum percentage (40 or 45 percent) for election. Critics of this plan make the case that campaigns would become much more expensive because all votes in each state are equal and candidates would feel the need to campaign in every state. “Indeed, one has only to look to history or comparative governments to see how easily such a system could disintegrate into multi-candidate races, which would, in turn, devolve into a system of regular runoffs or fractious coalition governments” (Ross, 2004). National Bonus Plan The National Bonus plan calls for amending the Electoral College to retain the advantage it gives to the two-party system while enhancing the power of the people. The popular winner of each state would be given an extra two electoral votes, resulting in a total of 102 electoral votes (including an extra two votes for the District of Columbia). “This plan would presumably preserve the power of the states to function as organic units, while dispensing with the most undemocratic feature of the Electoral College, the tremendous weight given to small states” (Schlesinger, 1973). This ‘weighted’ Electoral College system would seemingly preserve conventional federalism while at the same time maintaining an enhanced parallel between the Electoral College and the direct popular vote. Proportional Plan This plan would eradicate the winner-take-all system for each state’s electoral vote and do away with the state’s electors. Each state would preserve its current number of electoral votes, but these votes would be divided in proportion to the division of the popular vote within each state. For example, if a candidate won 60 percent of the popular vote in a state, the candidate would receive 60 percent of that state’s electoral votes. Some proportional reforms also suggest the candidate with the most electoral votes would win the election. “Proponents of the proportional plan argue that this plan comes the closest of any of the other plans to electing the President and Vice President by popular vote while still preserving each state’s Electoral College strength” (Whitaker & Neale, 2001). Critics argue the plan would complicate the election process because third-party candidates would win more electoral votes, thus putting more elections into the hands of the House of Representatives. The opponents of the proportional plan argue that it could “undermine and eventually eliminate the present two-party system by making it easier for minor parties, new parties, and independent candidates to compete in the presidential elections by being able to win electoral votes without having to win statewide elections to do so. Further, opponents argue, the states would generally have less importance as units, since the winner-take-all aspect would be eliminated” (Whitaker & Neale, 2001). District Plan This plan would maintain the Electoral College but each state would use its Congressional house districts as ‘elector’ districts. The candidate who receives the most votes in each district would win the electoral vote from the district. The candidate winning the most districts in the state would, in addition, receive two electoral votes. This plan would eliminate the winner-take-all system of the current Electoral College. The ‘house district’ plan would more accurately reflect the popular vote results for presidential candidates than the present Electoral College method. By keeping the Electoral College intact, the district plan would not deprive small or sparsely populated states of certain advantages under the present system. Each state would still be allocated at least three electoral votes, correlating to its two Senators and its one Representative, regardless of the size of the state’s population. Under this plan, critics contend, a person who wins the popular vote can still lose the election. “The district plan preserves the Electoral College method of electing the President and Vice President, with each state choosing a number of electors equal to the combined total of its Senate and House of Representatives delegations. Under the district plan, the presidential and vice presidential candidates winning a simple majority of the electoral votes would be elected” (Huckabee, 2000). Circumventing the System Alterations of the current system are possible without the need of such overwhelming approval required by an amendment to the Constitution. Three states have done just that. The most plausible of these is the ‘house district’ or the ‘proportional’ plans. Neither disregards the Electoral College but allows for the vote to be distributed in a way to more accurately reflect the sentiments of the voting public. Candidates would still have to pay attention to the less populated states and the integrity of the office would continue to be upheld through either of these systems. Presidential selection reflects a delicate balance between national and federal conceptions of democracy. The Two Party System A fundamental flaw in the electoral system in the U.S. that also contributes to voter apathy is the two-party system. Without addressing this flaw, altering the Electoral College will have little positive effect. In Britain, from whence the legal, cultural, religious and philosophical founding of the U.S. was conceptualized, three predominant political parties, Labor, Conservative and Liberal Democrat all have a major influence on British politics. In addition, as many as a dozen other smaller parties have been in existence for many years and their members hold elected office in Parliament. People and their political viewpoints are diverse and cannot be sufficiently represented by just two differing ideologies. The freedom of choice is narrowed in the U.S. to either one or the other. The two-party system creates a ‘with us or against us’ mentality, my team vs. yours. If more parties were in the mix, people would gravitate towards the one that most closely reflects their own views and national debates would be more substantive and less adversarial. The choosing of a party on a thoughtful, philosophical basis then beginning a reasonable debate would triumph over the current practice of choosing sides and slugging it out in the mud until the other falls. The two-party system will eventually become extinct but only after the people of the nation, at long last, become weary of “choosing between corruption and corruption lite” (Wade, 2005). Voter Apathy affects Liberty The Founding Fathers’ conception of liberty was an experiment that has proven largely successful. The document outlining and guaranteeing those liberties, the Constitution, has been used as a blueprint for emerging democratic nations throughout the world. The success or failure of this representative democracy depends on the participation of the citizens. If it fails in America, a domino affect might occur in other countries as the U.S., the most powerful economic and military nation, has been the driving and sustaining force behind the concept of freedom and democracy. The future of civil liberties, it can be said, is in the hands of the American people. One of the major methods by which to participate in the democratic process is by casting a ballot to elect representatives and decide issues at every level of government. The vote is the voice of the people, without which the experiment fails because the very foundations of the country were laid by the people and for the people. The present system is a threat to the concept and more importantly the perception of the voting process therefore is a threat to the concept of freedom, not only for the U.S. but the emerging democracies around the world. The governmental hierarchy is bound by the vote to not just listen to but react to what the public says. Complacency is the undoing of a system based on participation. By voluntarily giving up the freedom of choice, it depletes this Constitutional right for others to choose. This is a right that is revered by those who have and appreciate it and longed for by those that do not. The September 11 attacks brought the country together in a wave of nationalism but even that event did not seem to invoke a level of patriotism high enough that moved a greater percentage of citizens to make the effort to vote. If those American who do not feel the need to vote and are falsely confident that their freedoms are somehow perpetual without need of demonstrating them, they might consider those that do not have this freedom. Without the U.S. and other of the world’s democratic nations continuing to light the way of freedom, those who live under the rule of oppressive governments have little hope of realizing their of freedom. In short, the present electoral system is a threat to democracy. Conclusion Voting is indeed a right and a privilege that was paid for with a heavy price. It is one of the most important ways that a populace shows it is free. All citizens of free countries should vote for the good of their own lives, in the memory and acknowledgment of those that sacrificed for the right and for those generations of people who will enjoy in the future what most Americans take for granted today. Unfortunately, the Electoral College suppresses the public’s enthusiasm for exercising for right to vote thus erodes the hard-fought foundations of democracy. References Huckabee, David. (2000). “Memorandum: Presidential Election Returns by Congressional District 6, 23.” Congressional Research Service. Peterson, Dan. (December, 1986). “The 22nd Amendment Should Be Repealed.” The World & I Online. Retrieved April 12, 2008 from Ross, Tara. (November 1, 2004). “The Electoral College: Enlightened Democracy.” Legal Memorandum #15. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved April 12, 2008 from Schlesinger, Arthur. (1973). “The Imperial Presidency.” Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, pp. 483-84. Wade, Anthony. (October 24, 2005). “Corruption-Lite and The Two Party System That Has Choked the Democracy out of this Country.” OPED. News.com. Retrieved April 12, 2008 from Whitaker, L. Paige & Neale, Thomas H. (January 16, 2001). “The Electoral College: An Overview and Analysis of Reform Proposals.” National Council for Science and the Environment. Read More