Tuesday, March 7, 2000

Electoral College PoV

My position on the Electoral College is it should remain as is, because it has provide stability and validity to our election process over 200 years as our founders intended under Article II, Section1, of the U.S. Constitution. The Founding Fathers intended that the states , not the people, select the president and vice president. According to James Madison's Federalist Paper No.10 our government is created as a republic and not as direct or pure democracy. The Electoral College represents and maintains a federal system of government by representing both the U.S. Citizens at large and the states. (American Government and Politics Today, pp. 74-75, 702-705, 2010)

It has become interesting how some people feel their one-vote is not being acknowledge or accounted for due to the Electoral College and that the nationwide popular vote would be a fairer method to determine the election of a president. If so, then why do we need Senators and so on to represent us. If we enjoy chipping away at our constitution, are we not chipping away at our republic form of government? Is this why James Madison and other Founders feared might happen with “pure democracy” the unchecked will of the people, that could possibly cause danger to the republic? May be not if there is an amendment to the Constitution for a change and ratified by ¾ of the states; however, our founders provided a constitutional limited republic that precisely protects our fundamental liberties from whims of the masses and excesses of democracy. (USelectionatlas, 2010), (Schulman, M., 2010)( Jacoby, J., 2008)(American Government and Politics Today, pp. 8-9, 9-10, 704-705, 2010)

The constitution has put checks on a national level on political power, the three branches of government and on the will of the people. It also has divided the power between states and the national government in order to preserve the rights of the people. The Founders took great strides to separate powers in order to prevent popular majorities. Direct elections for a presidential election sounds more like an unchecked “majority rule” concept. How will this change in the one-person-one-vote affect the states' participation in the election of the president? (American Government and Politics Today, pp. 704-705, 2010)( Jacoby, J., 2008)(Heritage.org, 2004)

The Electoral College electors provide representation to both the states and their citizens. The number of electors is proportion to the state's population which is equal to the state's members in the House plus two Senators. Will the abolishing of the Electoral College also rid the Senate and its representation? With direct elections, then how will we address fraudulent activity in the voting process that sometimes shows up or situation where a recount of votes is needed or where there is a close/tie election? The Electoral College is capable in taking steps in order to correct and monitor these problems that may arrive. For any fraudulent activity, the response of the electoral college is to confine the problem and take action on a particular state or handful of states where the fraudulent or questionable activity has happened such as the case in Florida in the 2000 election. In case of a close popular election, it is possible that the candidate may not be elected due to the weight of dispersing of the electoral votes for the other candidate. This depends on the candidate's popularity is condensed to a few states verses a variety of states in both popular and electoral votes. Steps taken by the electoral college is as such, if one candidate has a substantial range of popular votes on the whole, this usually means a given win; a close vote between two candidates, the election defaults will usually go to the candidate with the widely distributed majority of electoral votes. If no candidate obtains an absolute majority than the election defaults to the US House of Representatives, then the winning President-Elect must have enough supportive popular votes and sufficient elective votes. (Ross, T., 2004), (Jacoby, J., 2008), (USelectionatlas.org, 2010)

The Electoral Colleges has already integrated steps to maintain integrity to the presidential elections per William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director FEC Office of Election Administration which are the following: contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president, enhances the status of minority interest because the belief is even small number of minorities in a state can be influential in the outcome of the State's electoral votes in the difference in winning or not, contributes to political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system, and maintains a federal system of government and representation. (Kimberling, W.C., 2010)

I believe 270 of the 538 electoral votes is an excellent way to win the oval office. The Electoral College has held its position for over 200+ years in this diverse social, ethnic, complex nation of ours. According to Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Paper No. 68, “. . . if the manner is not perfect, it is at least excellent.” (Constitution, 2010)


References
Anonymous. (2010). The Pro's and Con's of the Electoral College System
Retrieved August 12, 2010, from USelectionatlas website
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php
Schulman, M. (2010). Why Was the Electoral College Created?
Retrieved August 12, 2010, from Historycentral website
http://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html
Jacoby, J. (2008, July 16). The Brilliance of the Electoral College
Retrieved August 12, 2010, from Boston website
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/07/16/the_brilliance_of_the_electoral_college/

Kimberling, W.C. (2010). The Electoral College
Retrieved August 12, 2010, from Heritage Foundation website
http://electoralcollegehistory.com/electoral/fecmemo.asp

Anonymous. (2010). Federalist Paper 68: The Mode of Electing the President
Retrieved August 12, 2010, from Constitution website
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa68.htm

Ross, T. (2004, November 1). Executive Summary: The Electoral College: Enlightened Democracy
Retrieved August 12, 2010, from Constitution website
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/11/Executive-SummaryThe-Electoral-College-Enlightened-Democracy

Schmidt, S.W., Shelley, M.C., Bardes, B.A. (Ed.). (2010). "Direct Democracy as a Model"
American Government and Politics Today 2010 Edition. (pp 8-9) USA:
Course Technology.

Schmidt, S.W., Shelley, M.C., Bardes, B.A. (Ed.). (2010). "The Dangers of Direct Democracy"
American Government and Politics Today 2010 Edition. (pp. 9-10) USA:
Course Technology.

Schmidt, S.W., Shelley, M.C., Bardes, B.A. (Ed.). (2010). "A Democratic Republic"
American Government and Politics Today 2010 Edition. (pg 10) USA:
Course Technology.

Schmidt, S.W., Shelley, M.C., Bardes, B.A. (Ed.). (2010). "Majoritarianism"
American Government and Politics Today 2010 Edition. (pp. 11-12) USA:
Course Technology.

Schmidt, S.W., Shelley, M.C., Bardes, B.A. (Ed.). (2010). "Working Toward Final Agreement"
American Government and Politics Today 2010 Edition. (pp. 50) USA:
Course Technology.

Schmidt, S.W., Shelley, M.C., Bardes, B.A. (Ed.). (2010). "Article II - Executive Branch"
American Government and Politics Today 2010 Edition. (pp. 74-75) USA:
Course Technology.

Schmidt, S.W., Shelley, M.C., Bardes, B.A. (Ed.). (2010). "The Electoral College"
American Government and Politics Today 2010 Edition. (pp. 336-339) USA:
Course Technology.

Schmidt, S.W., Shelley, M.C., Bardes, B.A. (Ed.). (2010). "Federalist Papers No. 10"
American Government and Politics Today 2010 Edition. (pp. 702-705) USA:
Course Technology.

No comments:

Post a Comment