Electoral College Case Study

A. Discussion 1 – Presidential Leadership and the Electoral College (is reform needed?): DQ1 has four parts, and note that part 4 has two sub-parts:
1. Briefly summarize how the Electoral College works.
2. Briefly explain the pros and cons of whether to keep or abolish the Electoral College.
3. Briefly explain one proposal for changing the Electoral College process without abolishing it (i.e., without having to amend the Constitution).
4. Evaluate this proposal from two perspectives: (a) the relevance of the Electoral College’s underlying rationale to contemporary American politics, and (b) the impact of the Electoral College on presidential leadership capacity. Your initial post should respond to all parts of DQ1. In preparing
your response, consider this background information and reflect critically on the questions posed below. Presidential Leadership The President of the United States of America is granted significant powers by the Constitution and exercises others by tradition and precedent. The success with implementing these powers has varied widely among presidents. The framers of the Constitution were divided over whether the president should be a weak or a strong executive. Over the years, the presidency has evolved into an extremely complex job requiring balancing various constitutional roles such as head of state, chief executive, commander-in-chief of the armed forces, chief diplomat, and chief legislator. The president is also considered the leader of his/her political party. Because one person plays these roles simultaneously, the roles often conflict with each other. The position requires strong leadership capacity to rise above these conflicts while maintaining balance among them. A president has limited time to exert leadership. Normally, he or she can be elected to only two four-year terms according to the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (ratified in 1951). Under the same amendment, a president might hold office for up to ten years if he or she first became president through the order of succession rather than election. No president has served longer than Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-45). Unless there is an amendment to the Constitution, it is unlikely that there will be any other presidents serving longer times. Considering the conflicting demands on the president and the challenges facing the nation, what kind of presidential leadership is needed in America today? Reflect on how the office has evolved over the years, the relative importance of the person who is president versus the institution of the presidency, and the sources of presidential power. In your opinion, what capacities must a president have an in order to be an effective leader? Electoral College Impact The Electoral College elects the president and vice-president of the U.S.
The electors are elected by popular vote and declare in advance how they will vote if they are elected, so the people choose electors who will vote the way they would vote if they were electors. The election process uses the “winner-take-all” rule in 48 states, under which all of a state 's electoral votes are awarded to the one candidate with the most votes in that state. States having only three votes and states that are considered either safe or hopelessly lost are largely ignored by presidential candidates in the election campaigns under the current Electoral College
Process. How does the process of selecting a president affect the leadership capacities of the person who becomes president? Consider how the constitutional framers responded to this question (see Course Guide, pp. 43-44) and their rationale for the Electoral College. Is the Electoral College process as it currently works the best way to elect a president with the leadership capacity needed by the United States today? Electoral College Reform The Constitution mandates the process for electing the U.S. president and vice president. Each state has as many electors as it has senators and representatives in Congress; and the District of Columbia has three votes. A winner-take-all rule operates in every state except Maine and Nebraska. Originally, the idea of the constitutional framers was to have electors use their discretion in deciding on the president. Electors no longer exercise the discretionary judgment envisioned by the founders because they are committed to the candidate having the plurality of popular votes in their state in the general election. Though pledged to vote for their state 's winners, electors are not constitutionally required to do so. It is possible for a candidate to become president without acquiring a majority of the popular vote and while also having more electoral votes than an opponent who has more popular votes. This has occurred on four occasions. In the elections of John Quincy Adams (1824), Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888), and George W. Bush (2000), the winning candidates had fewer popular votes than their opponents. A candidate must win 270 of the 538 votes to win the election. In considering a proposal to reform (but not necessarily abolish) the Electoral College, reflect on what happened in Florida in the 2000 presidential election (see Course Guide, p. 44). Were the voices of the voters in Florida really heard? What would you suggest to ensure that this outcome is avoided in the future?
B. Discussion 2 – Defense Spending and the Military-Industrial Complex (effect of “iron triangles”): DQ2 introduces the concept of the “Iron Triangle.” Every triangle has three sides.
To form a perfect triangle, those sides must fit together well. The angles within, and the points of, the triangle can, and will, vary. Geometry? Math? Are your gasps coming across the internet? No, don’t worry. You’re in the right place. You’re still studying American government and related issues of policy making. In this context, we are studying the three sides of the so-called “Iron Triangle”. The term refers to a powerful three-sided combination, made up of certain members of Congress (or Congressional committees), certain parts of the bureaucracy (executive branch agencies and administrative departments), and special interest groups. Each of the entities comprising the triangle arguably seeks to capitalize on (and expand) its own particular angle. The parties also work together to satisfy mutual interests. Consider connotation in this context. At first blush, do you expect the term “iron triangle” to have a positive or negative connotation? Please approach this topic with the aim to both critique and assess validity. Diagramming and Critical
Analysis Diagramming is extremely useful in this context. You might want to draw your own visual representation of a triangle and consider the use of arrows to visually represent inter-relationships and related flows. Use both single-sided and double-sided arrows. Drawing your own diagrams is an effective tool to help understand the inter-relationships and mutual dependencies amongst the various groups. For example, Congress has the power to provide () funding and political support to bureaucrats. This funding and related flow can be represented by a visual arrow. In DQ2 you’ll extend your analysis to the “military-industrial complex”. As you complete the readings and organize thoughts for your initial post, please try to diagram the relationships amongst the interested parties. Set out the three-sided geometric figure with which you’re already familiar. Then, place the relevant parties at the three corners. What are the inter-relationships among them? How do interests flow? Funding? Support? For example, to the extent that the defense industry profits when the military commits to a lengthy war, how might interests be impacted? What are the relative interests of Congress, the military bureaucracies, and defense industries? How are those interests intertwined? Please get some scrap paper and make notes of the various relationships between the three parties. What other parties have a stake in this context? How might they penetrate the triangular relationship? To the extent they are unable to do so, what concerns might this raise? In your discussion, pay special attention to the DQ’s point that while many commentators argue the military-industrial complex is an example of an iron triangle with negative consequences, not everyone agrees. What are the arguments disputing parties might put forth? What type of support do such parties look to? Do you agree with the arguments? Please also work to draw your own conclusions. Remember to support your view with facts as well as persuasive reasoning about the impact of these relationships on defense spending. Simply saying “I agree” or “I disagree” will not effectively persuade your readers or further the class discussion. Evaluation and Further Questions Please also work to evaluate the accuracy of the iron triangle model as a basis for understanding the process of making defense spending policy. Can you identify any flaws with this model? You can also consider the triangle like an arena, of sorts. The three sides (parties) bounce arguments, claims and ideas back and forth off one another. The three parties also work together to satisfy mutual interests. The triangle is closed, however, and, as a result, the model does not easily recognize outside influences. However, the outside influences are many, and include a variety of parties. Work to identify those parties and the implications the tightly-knit triangular relationship might have on them. As you tackle the readings on this topic, please keep the following questions in mind –
• Which part of the iron triangle would you expect to have the greatest power over policymaking? Why?
• Do you believe we could effectively eliminate iron triangles? Why, why not? To the extent we were able to do so, what new issues might arise?
• What about private citizens and groups? What role, if any, do/should they play in this context? As you move on, consider the term iron. A strong element, iron is often impenetrable. In this context – where existing triangles are as “strong as iron,” outside influences, including the interests of the general public, often have little ability to impact established relationships. Consider the long-lasting implications of such strong mutually supportive relationships. How might private citizens be impacted, and what might a concerned citizen do in order to enhance his/her influence on this policy-making environment? Research and Recent Events In connection with the military-industrial complex, where is this strength most evident? Would you characterize one side of the triangle as stronger than the others? Focus on recent news events involving military spending. Pay close attention to relationships that you can identify between the noted parties/elements of your triangle. Focus on stories involving parties that are charged with managing wars (for example, the military, the President and his administration and Congress) as well as companies that produce weapons and other war-time supplies and equipment (the defense industry and other groups). You might be surprised at how readily you begin to identify the inter-relationships that can form the strong inter-dependencies being studied. Please share your thoughts and ideas. Happy diagramming! References Levin-Waldman (2012). American national government. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education Inc. Nolt, J., Rohatyn, D., & Varzi, A. (1998). Schaum’s outline of: Theory and problems of logic (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Ruggiero, V. R. (2008). Beyond feelings: A guide to critical thinking (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.