Changing the Electoral College - Essay Example

CHANGING THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE Introduction There have been many changes since the 1787 system in United s. The Founders must not have thought about the rapid technological advancements, substantial federal bureaucracy, and progressively more populist approach that portray American life today. It can be said about the Electoral College, even if once a resourceful resolution to many of the 18th century problems, has today developed into merely an anachronism. The Electoral College The Electoral College is an irregularity of the American democracy. The United States is in effect alone in entrusting the determination of its President to a small, largely anonymous group of individuals, rather than to its citizen voters. Before moving ahead to defining the system we must understand what Electoral College is and how it developed. Electoral College is a process in which different executives are selected; this is done by the people of the state such that they choose a number of persons classified as electors. Further it is described that the elector is the one who participates in the electing of the executive. Why it is called as an Electoral College is because all these electors work as a unit in determining the executive. Thus in the early 1800's, this term Electoral College came into common usage as the informal label for the group of citizens selected to cast votes for President and Vice President. Electing System Selecting the Electors is an important task to be understood. However in the United States this process for selecting electors varies throughout. Usually, the political parties name electors at their State party conventions or by a central vote from the designated committee. Electors are often chosen to identify their service and commitment to their political party. The Electors may be State elected officials, party leaders, or even those person who have a political affiliation of some sort. Next the voters in each State opt for the electors on the day of the general election. As the procedure is different in each state therefore the electors' names may or may not be shown on the ballot below the name of the candidates running for President. Past Present Contrast In the present circumstances the Electoral College certainly operates in a different civilization from the one that present in 1787. Nevertheless the Electoral College has exposed an astounding capability to adapt to modern-day America. It may occasionally function in a different way than expected, but it still serves the political goals it was anticipated to serve. In truth, its process in modern times may be yet more valuable. Critics of the "Electoral College" charge that the country's presidential election procedure does more to constrict the rights of individuals than to shelter federalism. In this framework, they often refer to the winner-take-all system regulated by most states, claiming that it causes the votes of several individuals to be wasted. The 2000 election dispute As this dispute goes, it could be seen that a Texan who voted for Al Gore in the 2000 election wasted his ballot for the reason that George W. Bush was awarded the state's complete slate of electors due to the "winner-take-all" regime. In a direct accepted ballot vote, critics note, these votes would not have been wasted, they could have instead been integrated in the final national tally for Gore. Such points of views, however, are a bit untruthful. These votes were not wasted. They were merely transmitted on the losing side of a popular vote inside the state. For this argument, if the 2000 election had been carried out based on nationwide popular vote totals only, would people assert that any vote for George W. Bush was wasted just because Al Gore won the popular vote Surely this would not have been the case as the votes for Bush were cast in an attempt to win. Presidential Elections The main outcome of America's presidential election progression is to safeguard the liberty of individuals mainly those in small states and thinly populated areas. Possibly the best technique of representing the benefits of federalism is to picture the evils suffered without it. The standing system for today shows that presidential candidates have no enticement to poll large margins in any one state. According to the winner take all system winning just 50.1 percent of the votes in a state is as successful as winning 100 percent of the votes from the same state. These candidates therefore travel around the nation, campaigning in all states and looking for the development of a national alliance that will facilitate them to win a majority of states' electoral votes. On the other hand direct popular elections may present varied incentives. It is considered better to win 100 percent votes abruptly rather than winning 50.1 percent votes. In actual fact, it may be easier to frame up votes in a sociable state than to gain 50.1 percent of votes in each of the two states of almost same size, even though the payoff would be in effect the same. Small and large state comparison It has been seen that democrats would roughly certainly spend the majority of their time in the large population centers in California and New York. On the other hand the republicans would campaign in the South and Midwest. As the case is it may be possible that large cities would be focused on just about absolutely as the candidates seek to bring up as many votes as achievable in their region of the nation. While large states are exclusively focused, small states, rural areas, and other thinly populated areas would find themselves with little to no voice in presidential selection. In these circumstances, only a handful of states (or heavily populated cities) win, whereas the left over states and less-populated areas suffer drastically. Therefore many critics have a difference of opinion regarding this description of the two types of elections. They challenge that the current system does not give confidence to presidential candidates to tour the nation, but instead motivates a focus on mid-sized states. Critics also allege that the small states do not receive nearly as much consideration on this national tour. This observation is quite true as a fact. Nevertheless to the extent that safe or small states do not obtain a fair amount of consideration during campaigns, the rational conclusion is that those states must already feel that one of the two presidential candidates signifies their interests fairly well. When a contender ceases to satisfactorily realize and represent one of his state's interests, the dissatisfaction in that state is generally expressed fairly quickly. The Case for West Virginia We can consider the case of West Virginia or the situation present there in the recent decades. To its utter discontent, democrats saw West Virginia as a safe state for years; thus, the state most likely saw less post-nomination campaign commotion from 1960-2000 than it might have witnessed otherwise. Though, the Bush campaign, in 2000, seized an opportunity to gain a foothold in the state due to worry about the impact of Gore's environmental policies on the coal-mining industry and his support for arms control. Bush took the benefit of this discontent, and he spent over $2 million propagating his message to West Virginia's voters. As the election results were tallied, Bush had the honor of becoming the first Republican, since 1928, to triumph an open pursuit for the presidency in West Virginia. Developments in the Electoral College There have been developments in the Electoral College and for these reasons an organization came into existence. It is known as National Popular vote (NPV). This is an organization led by former legislators from both parties that is the Republicans and the Democrats. This organization has proposed a legislation that would guarantee a majority in the Electoral College to the winner of the national popular vote for President. This NPV legislation would in effect eradicate the Electoral College by having states pass an interstate consortium to guarantee their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. This legislation assures to restore the centuries old dispute over the process for selecting the President and raise pointers about the democracy in action in the United States. This current improvement appraises the NPV legislation and its likely impact on the Presidential election method. This modern development discusses the Electoral College the present structure for selecting the President initially by describing its origins and then by commenting on the progression of this foundation over time. This development promotes that the NPV legislation would most likely diminish the inconsistency in presidential campaign resources and media attention sandwiched between battleground and spectator states, get rid of the use of the House contingency practice, and restructure sectionalism. Though, such benefits would appear at the prospective cost of amplified spending on Presidential campaigns and the introduction of structural instability into the Presidential election structure. The presidential selection is posed by a combination of the Constitution, state law, and customary practice. However from the articles within the Constitution it is mandatory that the election of the President is set through the Electoral College, which is made up of electors allotted by each state and the District of Columbia. The figure of electors for every state is equivalent to the summation of the number of senators and representatives to which that state is permitted. However the federal Constitution does not warrant individuals a right to vote for Presidential electors, conversely just one state grants its citizens a constitutional right to vote for presidential electors. In spite of freedom to opt for the selection process, nearly every state assigns its whole electoral slate to the winner of that state's popular vote. Just as the electors cast their ballots, the Vice President of the United States, in his ability as President of the Senate then opens and totals the electors' votes in the attendance of the House and Senate. In order to be elected complete, a Presidential candidate must have a majority of the electoral votes. In case no candidate suffices then the house uses the contingency procedure for the selection. This procedure is a little different, in this scheme the House selects amongst the three contenders with the highest electoral vote totals. In this case the states' delegations carry on voting unless one contender receives a majority and thus is elected. What is Electoral College in modern terms The term Electoral College is most lucent and clear through an assessment of both its origins at the Constitutional Convention and its successive development. Similar to a great extent of the Constitution, the Electoral College was the creation of negotiation after prolonged disparity. Within the last formulation, distribution of electoral votes was fundamentally population-based, apart from the usual award of two electoral votes to every state. The delegates acknowledged that the House contingency course of action, which has every state no more than one vote, was a chief recognition to small states. Later the delegates most likely also understood that the Electoral College, which assigns state electoral votes based not on voter attendance but on population only, would help southern states, as slaves could not vote but were still part of the population's count. In lieu of such compromises, the Electoral College had something for everyone more or less population-based allotment for the large states, identical state influence in the House contingency system for the small states, state governmental control over elector selection for the states' rights faction, and at least the likelihood of an accepted vote for the direct election proponents. Conclusion Therefore it is more preferable for the NPV legislation to act upon the election criteria. Weighed against a constitutional change, the NPV legislation could put into practice direct popular election of the President with comparative ease. With the current allotment of electoral votes, the NPV legislation could take action after means of access in as few as eleven states. In verity, substantiation from past efforts to change the Electoral College suggests that state legislatures may be more amenable to passing such legislation than Congress. One of the continuing concerns about the Electoral College is that the contender who wins the popular vote may not win a majority in the Electoral College; this is often referred to as a misfire. Publicity within the 2000 and 2004 elections has made this perhaps the best known facet of the Electoral College scheme, regardless of its relatively sporadic occurrence. In the past fifty-five Presidential elections, there have been just four misfires, occurring about one in fifty years. Supporters of the Electoral College preserve the prospect of misfire on two foundations. Some have a dispute that the likelihood of misfire is not incoherent with the principles underlying the establishment, but instead coherent with the denial of majority that distinguishes the selection actions for the Supreme Court and Senate, as well as the assurance of minimum depiction in the House of Representatives. Certainly, numerous Electoral College faction contradict that the framers intended electors to act separately of the popular result. However, viewing the Electoral College as moreover a refutation or a manifestation of majority interests is likely to be called as inadequate. However the NPV proposes a better structure but still the Electoral College is more than preferable. Supporters of the Electoral College structure on the whole defend it on the idealistic grounds that it: 1. It has an over all contribution in the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a allotment of popular support to be elected president. 2. The electoral College enhances the minority interests, 3. It also adds value to the political stability of the nation by prospering a two-party system. 4. Finally it sustains a federal system of government. The Electoral College structure has carried out its functions for more than 200 years, which is about 50 presidential elections, by guaranteeing that the President of the United States has both ample popular support to administer and that his popular support is adequately dispersed throughout the country to facilitate him to govern successfully. It is a widely accepted rule that "Nothing is perfect" and therefore there were a few anomalies in its early history, none have occurred in the past century. There have been proposals against the system and many threatened to abolish it but eventually they all have failed largely because the alternatives to the Electoral College appear more cumbersome and problematic than is the College itself. Bibliography 1. Donald Lutz et al., The Electoral College in Historical and Philosophical Perspective, in Choosing a President 31, 47 2002 2. George C. Edwards III, Why the Electoral College is Bad for America 2004 3. H.R. 2948, Assem., Reg. Sess. art. 2006. 4. Susan Milligan, The Electoral College: Move Is Afoot for Direct Vote, B. GLOBE, 2000, 5. Barone, Michael; Cohen, Michael; and Ujifusa, Grant. . The 2004 Almanac of American Politics. Washington, DC: National Journal Group. 6. Bennett, Robert W. Popular election of the president without a constitutional amendment. In Jacobson, Arthur J. and Rosenfeld, Michel (editors). The Longest Night: Polemics and Perspectives on Election 2000. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Pages 391-396. 2002 7. Best, Judith A. Choice of the People Debating the Electoral College. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 1996 8. Dover, Edwin D. The Disputed Presidential Election of 2000: A History and Reference Guide. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. 2003 Read More