Jonathan Pederson
Mr. Barbour
AP Government
George Washington once said, "The fundamental principle of our Constitution… [Is] that the will of the majority shall prevail." How is it then, that the will of the majority is thwarted? Since its adoption in 1789, the Electoral College has prevented the decisions of the majority in four distinct occasions; these include 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000. It is for this reason that congressional representative Gene Green introduced the Every Vote Counts Amendment, not once, but twice. His amendment, broken up into six sections, described a voting procedure for the direct popular vote of the president and vice president. The influential section 3, reads, "The persons having the greatest number of votes for President and Vice President shall be elected." This coincides with George Washington's original intent for how the United States was to make major decisions.
The founding fathers created the Electoral College to protect the intellectual elite from mob rule. To understand the Electoral College, one must know the situation of which it was born. Prior to the current government, the Articles of Confederation established a form of governance that lacked an executive branch. To combat this, the Constitution created an executive body. This new executive branch created many complications, including how the leader of this new body is to be elected, and who would be a part of this process. Advocators for the abolishment of the Electoral College have existed for many decades; the strongest movement was in 1970, when President Nixon endorsed senate attempts to ratify a similar amendment. After all, the founders formed the United States government as the "Great American Experiment"; it lives and adapts to the people whom it serves.
Thomas Jefferson asserted, "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." With this in mind, the first reason for the Electoral College came to life, to protect the rights of the minority. Steven G. Calabresi elaborates in the Michigan Law Review, "it has the potential to offer a direct cure to a central and age-old failing of democracy: the tendency of certain kinds of political majorities to tyrannize and abuse certain kinds of political minorities." It is necessary to keep the Electoral College to grant the minorities their protection.
On the flip side, Pure Democrats wish to abolish the Electoral College under the notion that it destroys democracy. They argue that in a nation where voter turnout is consistently below 70%, a winner-takes-all system discredits the voice of the political minorities. Michael E. McGrath continues, "The winner-take-all method also discourages millions of Americans from voting, and could be a major reason why voter turnout is so low in the United States. If voters support a candidate not favored to win in their state, they know their votes will not count, so why waste time voting?" Simply put, voters become apathetic because the Electoral College undermines individual rights.
Without a doubt, this topic sparks controversy; members from both parties voice their opinion on the matter. However, the burden of proof still lies on the Pure Democrats. It is difficult to convince an entire nation into changing their system of government; it is even harder to implement new changes. It is easiest to stay with the current system, which is why the amendment failed.
Ever since the arrival of the first pilgrims, immigration has been a big problem in America. Originally, the settling Europeans were the problem; then, the settlers ensured that no one would do to us what was done to Native Americans. Thus, the nativist party and the no-nothing party were formed with the explicit aims to cut down on immigration. Though the belief in the necessity of these parties has long faded through time, there are still individuals with this mentality holding office today. A prime example is Louisiana Senator David Vitter who proposed an amendment which would have denied U.S. citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. unless at least one parent were a U.S. citizen, a permanent resident, or a member of the U.S. armed services.
Advocators of such an amendment would claim citizenship ought to be given to those whom would benefit America most; they claim the others came here to reap the benefits of America without paying its cost. These advocators claim immigrants are "baby bombing" to acquire citizenship, giving birth to a child on U.S. soil so that they can gain citizenship. On the other hand, an immigrant who serves in the military contributes to the nation's well-being, and by the previous arguments, those individuals would be deserving citizenship status.
Though the idea of citizenship based on national contribution is a convincing, it is apparent that military service is too high of a requirement. Many citizens of the United States have never served in the armed forces, and have no desire to do so. Furthermore, making the naturalization process more difficult is absurd. The claim that immigrants are either lazy or taking American jobs is false, as evident by the American Enterprise Institute, "The analysis yields no evidence that foreign born workers, taken in the aggregate, hurt US employment." The report continues to explain that immigrants, especially with higher-level learning, increase American employment.
Immigration is in America's interest, benefits, and obligations. America needs citizens that strengthen the nation, and it is clear the current naturalization process already accomplishes it. The requirements for immigrants are already high. An Xavier University study showed one in three Americans failed the naturalization test. It can then be assumed that because immigrants have to be willing to undergo vigorous education during the naturalization process, immigrants are better Americans than most Americans are themselves. This is one of the reasons why the amendment failed.
Calabresi, Steven G. "FEDERALISM PROTECTS MINORITIES FROM MAJORITIES." NEGATIVE – COUNTERPLAN – STATES/FEDERALISM – ADVANTAGES 33. MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW, 2001. Web. 06 Oct. 2014..
Zavodny, Madeline. "American Enterprise Institute." Immigration and American Jobs. American Enterprise Institute, 15 Dec. 2011. Web. 06 Oct. 2014.[CITATION Article \l 1033]
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
@spl 
@tpot 
@minnowsupport 