Proposal topic: Aliens are Real
Fenil
Proposalexample211.docxElectoral College Reform Proposal
Protesters in Boston voice their disapproval of the Electoral College following the 2004 presidential election with posters saying, “Electoral College Is Not Democratic”, “Save Our Democracy, Count the Votes”, and “Bush Stole Our Vote, Stop Him Now” (Spakovsky). (AP Photo/Michael Dwyer)
Student Name
English 1302-21008
November 28th, 2016
Problem/Issue Overview:
The Electoral College (EC) as it is currently constructed is not suitable for the size and scope of the current American democracy. There have been five elections in U.S. history in which the person who won the EC did not win the popular vote, therefore demonstrating that it is not fully representative of the people. The image above reflects the EC results of the 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012 presidential elections. The reason behind the EC and people not selecting their president comes from the 1870’s when Alexander Hamilton raised awareness of what he called “tumult and disorder” that could rise up from elections. If the people voted directly for the president, he believed there was a probability that the election would “convulse the community with…extraordinary or violent movements.” Rather “this detached and divided situation” outlined in the Constitution would be less likely to produce “heats and ferments.” Essentially, Hamilton and the other Founding Fathers did not trust that the people were intelligent enough to be electing presidents and therefore created a “small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass” who “possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations” (Friedman).
The Electoral College result maps for the 2000-2012 Presidential elections. The left side shows which states each candidate won, the middle shows how many electoral votes they received, and the rights shows which candidate won the election (Esteban and Keating).
Of course, that is not what really happens anymore. A fear of tyranny of the majority matched with a fear of a lack in intelligence are the grassroots of the EC. So the question arises; if the original reason for the system is no longer relevant, why has it been maintained? Under the electoral college structure created in the Constitution, smaller states have enormous political leverage. According to an analysis from the Huffington Post, Wyoming has a population of 584,153 people and has three electoral votes, which means that each Wyoming elector represents 194,717 voters. California has a population of 38,800,000 people and has 55 electoral votes so each elector represents 705,454 voters. So each vote in Wyoming is worth 3.6 times more than each vote in California (Esteban and Keating). Other smaller states such as Rhode Island, Montana, North and South Dakota, Nebraska and Idaho also have exalted political power (Stephanopoulos et al. 761). That is a clear problem. The idea of one person one vote no longer holds true due to the way the EC works in present day elections.
Solutions:
There is not one simple solution to fixing the Electoral College. In this election year, the problem resided in the divide of rural and urban voters and the extreme power rural votes had due to the EC. There are two achievable options that could lead to a dramatic difference: 1) amend the EC to become a proportional system instead of the winner takes all system that it currently is, therefore giving the candidate with 47% of the vote 47% of the electoral college votes in a state as opposed to the entire amount or 2) amend the EC to become a parliamentary system in which voters in every district choose a party, and the party that wins the most districts gets to pick the top leader (in this case, the president). Destroying the entire Electoral College is not a good idea. It contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system and maintains a federal system of government and representation.
The EC is not inherently bad; it is just poorly executed. Supporters of abolishing the EC and only using the popular vote instead fail to realize how difficult it would be to completely diminish the existence of the EC. It is embodied in Article 2, Section 1 and in the 12th Amendment, making the EC a cemented part of American democracy. Solutions encouraging reform as opposed to abandonment are realistic because they can be achieved through either ratifying or amending the Constitution with legislation that would improve instead of destroy. Of course, those are not easily achievable tasks in the U.S., and they both require a lot of agreement from all parties in Congress, but it can be advocated for and eventually executed.
Benefits of Solutions:
A benefit of the proportional vote system is that this would encourage candidates to pursue votes in every state, not just those they can win outright. Proportional results are less decisive than winner-take-all, so there’s less chance of a clear winner with a mandate to lead. This could help cut down false leads presented by the media, a major problem from the 2016 primaries and general election. In 2000, neither candidate would have won a majority, so some combination of parties would have to form a coalition to get 270 electoral votes, or the country could have a do-over election (Esteban and Keating). This system would greatly increase voter turnout and the representation of all parties in a state. It would also encourage candidates to campaign in all states rather than just those that are competitive. Though the majority, as always, would come out on top in each state, the minority's supporters would not be effectively contributing to their candidate's defeat when the whole of their state's electoral votes go a candidate they do not support. It would give more power to each vote, while still keeping a framework of the EC. This solution, although not perfect either, would be a compromise for electoral reform.
Countries like Britain have voters in every district choose a party, and the party that wins the most districts gets to pick the top leader, which they call the prime minister. This parliamentary system has the advantage of giving voters everywhere relatively equal weight in picking the leader. A common trait of Parliamentary representation is the ability for more parties to be in power as opposed to just two. This system would increase the power of a vote by giving voters more of a choice and it would give minority parties a chance to come to power. Because Republican state legislatures effectively redrew congressional district lines after the 2010 Census, Democrats got more votes for Congress in 2012 but Republicans won 33 more seats. Unfortunately, gerrymandering would cause problems with this solution. Using Congressional districts to determine each elector would also draw more attention to the way districts are drawn, already a hot-topic in politics today. The vast majority of districts are drawn as “safe zones” for one of the two major political parties. For this reason, basing electoral vote allocation on Congressional districts as well would raise the stakes of redistricting considerably and make gerrymandering even more tempting. Gerrymandering and very few competitive districts would be very decisive in the outcome of an election using the Parliamentary system. This would require redistricting and electoral reform, therefore resolving two major issues in American politics with one compromise.
Conclusion:
When debating whether some aspect of the Constitution makes sense, it's useful sometimes to think of the Constitution as an experiment -- as a work in progress. In 1787, no republic like the United States existed anywhere in the world. The founding fathers were making things up as they went along, looking at history, philosophy, and what they did and didn't like about existing governments in Europe and America (Wolff and Gnazzo). And not all of them agreed -- in fact, many of them disagreed completely, even on important issues such as how much power the people should have. The Electoral College was a compromise on two important issues. The first was how much power the people should have, and the second was how much power small and large states should have. The image above simplifies numbers to demonstrate that a candidate can win the popular vote by a decent margin and can still lose the EC. Voters are losing their voice and their vote is beginning to be powerless in the face of the EC. Five elections have occurred with a popular vote winner losing the EC; five elections have occurred with a president not chosen by the people. Legislators should look at how the U.S. has grown and compromise again to create a more appropriate form of the Electoral College.
Works Cited
Esteban, Chiqui, and Dan Keating. "Hate Our Electoral System? Here’s Who Could Have Been President under Other Setups." The Washington Post, Oct. 2016, www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/election-outcome-other-systems/. Accessed 15 Nov. 2016.
Friedman, Leon. "Why Do We Have the Electoral College?" The Huffington Post, 10 Nov. 2016, www.huffingtonpost.com/leon-friedman/why-do-we-have-the-electo_b_12885468.html. Accessed 15 Nov. 2016.
Spakovsky, Hans Von. Protesters in Boston, Mass., voice their disapproval of the Electoral College following the 2004 presidential election. CNS News, 22 Apr. 2016, www.cnsnews.com/commentary/hans-von-spakovsky/plan-destroy-electoral-college. Accessed 28 Nov. 2016.
Stephanopoulos, Nicholas O., et al. "The Realities of Electoral Reform." Vanderbilt Law Review, vol. 68, no. 3, Apr. 2015, pp. 761-853. Academic Search Complete, dcccd.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.dcccd.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=102443659&site=ehost-live. Accessed 27 Nov. 2016.
Szu. "Pop Winner Loses Elec Vote." Wikepedia, 19 Sept. 2007, upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/PopWinnerLosesElecVote.png. Accessed 6 Dec. 2016. Chart.
Wolff, Bill, and Cory Gnazzo, producers. "Episode 221701." The Rachel Maddow Show, MSNBC, 23 Nov. 2016, tunein.com/radio/The-Rachel-Maddow-Show-p54878/. Accessed 28 Nov. 2016.
