U.S. Election Process

Attempting to change the U.S. election process seems like it would be a standstill. To get most people in politics to dramatically change a process that has been around for decades, with only minor changes over time, doesn’t seem probable. But with all the controversy surrounding the Electoral College and whether or not it’s a fair system, maybe there is a few things that can be changed to improve the credibility and support of our election process.

            As I mentioned, there’s quite a bit of negative comments focusing on the fact that the Electoral College is disproportionate and some question its’ fairness. I agree with these complaints and believe it needs some reform. I say reform because I know the likelihood of completely revamping the current system by changing the Constitution will not happen. The first thing that is a common grievance is that the electoral votes are not evenly spread in respect to a state’s population. For instance, California should be given 65 based on the population but instead have 55. And a small state like Rhode Island should have two but instead get four electoral votes. This makes people in either large or small states account for more or less compared to the people whose state is well represented. If this was more even, it would be closer to representing the popular vote which appeals to many Americans.
            The next thing to change that would improve our election process is a cap on how much a candidate can receive and spend. In the fundraising section of the teachable moment website, it states that Bush and Kerry, “raised a collective total of nearly $500 million. After nomination by their parties, Bush and Kerry each received an additional $74.6 million in government financing for the general election.” I understand that the expense to get their message out and to be in the public’s eye is high but I don’t think we can afford to give money to candidates that are supposed to be finding a way to save this country money. If we set a limit of corporate funding and government funding, the benefits will allow a more equal campaign between all candidates. No one candidate could dominate the race because one very large corporation gave them money. And government money could go to a better cause.
            I also believe that our election process only allows Democrats or Republicans to have a chance at being President. Out of the many reasons it is so difficult for an Independent to have a fighting chance I think the most important is that not only will they need to have massive amount of money in their own pocket, but they also need to go to every state to get their name on the ballot and receive thousands of signatures. The money problem is obvious. Without a known party to fund a candidate they themselves will not a lot of money to just get their name out there. The fact that they will need to, “do 50 races simultaneously,” is a hard task and by allowing more than two parties to compete in our election would benefit this country by giving the people more options.