The Electoral College Investigation

Social Studies Government
Investigation
Unit: The Electoral College
Name:
Class Period/Block:
Date:
Focus Question: Is the Electoral College an effective system that represents the will of the people?
I.
Preview
What was the primary sources audience?
What was the creators purpose in making this primary source?
What biases or stereotypes do you see?
II.
Investigation
Source
12th
Amendment
Presidentia
l Election
of 2000
Bush v. Gore
(Supreme Court
Case)
Clarify the Historical

Context
(Who, What, When,
Where)
Explain the authors point of view (Why was it

written)
Identify aspects of a text that reveal an author's point
of view or purpose (quotes)
How do you know this

document is a reliable
source?
(Is it a reliable source
for answering the focus
question?)
Source
Arguments
For the
Electoral
College
Arguments
Against the
Electoral
College
Clarify the Historical

Context
(Who, What, When,
Where)
Explain the authors point of view (Why was it

written)
How do you know this

document is a reliable
source?
(Is it a reliable source
for answering the focus
question?)
III.
Report Findings (Thesis)

Formulate a thesis to answer the focus question.
o Does it make sense? Is it clear and concise?
o Is it specific to the topic?
o Does it clearly state exactly what I talk about in the paper?
IV.
Type your essay in Office

365. Then upload it into
Engrade as part of a
Turnitin
Report Findings (Essay)

o Writing to Inform-answering the question and citing ideas and information from the documents clearly and
accurately.
o Writing arguments-to support a claim/thesis based on the analysis and citation of the documents.
Writing tips:
Use thesis to guide your writing
Cite at least 1-3 examples from all sources
Use appropriate language and punctuation
4 Advanced
3 Proficient
2 Basic
Introduction
Introduce a topic clearly,
Introduce a topic
Topic is vague or unclear.
WHST.6-8.2a
previewing what is to
adequately, previewing
Ideas, concepts and
follow. Accurately
what is to follow. Organizes information is limited in the
organizes ideas, concepts,
ideas, concepts, and
essay. Broader categories
and information into
information to some degree are minimal as appropriate
broader categories as
into broader categories as
to achieving purpose.
appropriate to achieving
appropriate to achieving
purpose.
purpose.
Developing
Completely develops the
Adequately develops the
Develop the topic with
Topic/Supporting Facts
topic with relevant, welltopic with relevant facts,
somewhat reasonable facts,
and Details
chosen facts, definitions,
definitions, details,
definitions, and details.
WHST.6-8.2b
concrete details, quotations, quotations, or other
Limited use of quotations,
or other information and
information and examples. or other information and
examples. Evidence is
Evidence is cited somewhat examples. Evidence is
accurately cited (footnotes
(footnotes preferred).
inaccurately cited
preferred).
Precise Language &
Accurately uses precise
Somewhat appropriate use
Minimal use of precise
Jargon
language and social studies of precise language and
language and social studies
WHST.6-8.2d
specific vocabulary to
social studies specific
specific vocabulary to
inform about or explain the vocabulary to inform about inform about or explain the
topic.
or explain the topic.
topic.
Conclusion
Clearly provides a
Somewhat complete
Somewhat unclear or
WHST.6-8.2f
concluding statement or
improper concluding
section that follows from
section that follows from
statement or section that
and significantly supports
and supports the
vaguely follows from and
the information or
information or explanation minimally supports the
explanation presented.
presented.
information or explanation
presented.
Style/Tone
Appropriately establishes
Satisfactorily establishes
Includes a few elements of
WHST.6-8.2e
and maintains a formal
and maintains a formal
formal style and objective
style and objective tone.
style and objective tone.
tone.
1 Below Basic
Topic is inappropriate or
lacking. Lacks enough
ideas, concepts, and
information. Categories of
information are incomplete
as appropriate to achieving
purpose.
The topic is developed
inadequately with irrelevant
facts, definitions, or details.
Quotations are non-existent
as is other pertinent
information and examples.
Evidence is not cited
Precise language and social
studies specific vocabulary
is rarely or inaccurately
used to inform about or
explain the topic.
The concluding statement
or section is nonexistent or
incomplete. Illogical
support of the information
or explanation presented.
A formal style and

objective tone is unclear or
inadequate.
Reviewers Comments
Essay Grading Rubric Explanatory Rubric

Essay Grading Rubric Argumentative Rubric
4 Advanced
Clear and significant claim
about a topic or issue is
introduced. Accurately
distinguishes the claim from
alternate or opposing claims.
The reasons and evidence are
organized logically.
Significant support of
claim(s) with logical
reasoning and relevant,
accurate data and evidence
that demonstrate an
understanding of the topic or
text, using superior sources.
3 Proficient
Understandable claim about
a topic or issue is introduced.
Somewhat distinguishes the
claim from alternate or
opposing claims. Reasons
and evidence are organized
adequately.
Adequate support of claim(s)
with logical reasoning and
essential data and evidence
that demonstrate an
text, using mostly credible
sources.
2 Basic
Main claim about a topic or
issue is unclear or vague.
Distinguishes the claim from
alternate or opposing claims
limitedly. Reasons and
evidence are sometimes
unclear or inaccurate.
Seldom supports claim(s)
with vague reasoning and
unclear data and evidence
that demonstrate a minimal
text, using somewhat credible
sources.
Integrate and Cite Sources

WHST.6-8.8
Properly assesses the

credibility and accuracy of
each source. Always quotes
or paraphrases the data and
conclusions of others while
avoiding plagiarism. Clearly
follows a standard format for
citation (footnotes preferred).
Adequately assesses the

credibility and accuracy of
each source. Sometimes
quotes or paraphrases the
data and conclusions of
others while mostly avoiding
plagiarism. To some degree
Limitedly/minimally assesses
the credibility and accuracy
of each source. Seldom
quotes or paraphrases the
data and conclusions of
others while rarely avoiding
plagiarism. Sometimes
Conclusion
WHST.6-8.1e
Clearly provides a
section that follows from and
supports the argument
presented.
Properly establishes and
maintains a formal style.
Adequately provides a
presented.
Adequately establishes and
Concluding statement or
presented is somewhat
unclear or improper.
Minimally establishes and
Thesis/Main Claim &

Introduction
WHST.6-8.1a
Use supporting evidence

and develop claims
WHST.6-8.1b
Formal style
WHST.6-8.1d
Reviewers Comments
1 Below Basic
Improper or unclear claim
about a topic or issue is
introduced. Distinguishing
the claim from alternate or
opposing claims lacking. The
reasons and evidence are
rarely or never organized.
Rarely or never supports
claim(s) with logical
reasoning and relevant,
accurate data and evidence
that demonstrate no or limited
text, using random sources or
none at all.
Rarely assesses the credibility
and accuracy of each source.
Inadequately quotes or
paraphrases the data and
conclusions of others while
no attempt to avoid
plagiarism is apparent. Does
not follow a standard format
for citation (footnotes
preferred).
A concluding statement or
supports the argument is
inappropriate or lacking.
Formal style is unclear or
limited.
Twelfth Amendment
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant
of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as
Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the
number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the
President of the Senate; The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the
votes shall then be counted;--The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the
whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on
the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President,
the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or
members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.... The person having the greatest number of
votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a
majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of twothirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible
to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President to the United States.
The Supreme Court . The Future of the Court . Landmark

Cases . Bush v. Gore (2000)
The Court's controversial decision in Bush v. Gore, issued in December 2000, effectively determined the outcome of the 2000
presidential election.
Photo by William L. Bird, courtesy of the National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution
Bush v. Gore (2000)
In Bush v. Gore (2000), a divided Supreme Court ruled that the state of Florida's court-ordered manual recount of vote ballots in
the 2000 presidential election was unconstitutional. The case proved to be the climax of the contentious presidential race
between Vice President Al Gore and Texas Governor George W. Bush. The outcome of the election hinged on Florida, where
Governor Bush led Vice President Gore by about 1,800 votes the morning after Election Day. Because the returns were so close,
Florida law called for an automatic machine recount of ballots. The recount resulted in a dramatic tightening of the race, leaving
Bush with a bare 327-vote lead out of almost 6 million ballots cast. With the race so close, Florida law allowed Gore the option of
"manual vote recounts" in the counties of his choosing. Gore opted for manual recounts in four counties with widespread
complaints of voting machine malfunction: Broward, Miami-Dade, Volusia, and Palm Beach. However, Florida law also required
that the state's election results be certified by the Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, within seven days of the election (by
November 14, 2000). Three of the four counties, frantically laboring through the tedious manual recount, were unable to
complete the process by the deadline.
On November 14, however, a Florida circuit court ruled that while Secretary Harris must respect the deadline, she could legally
amend the certified results, at her own discretion, to reflect any late returns from the outstanding counties. Harris promptly
announced that she would entertain late returns only if their tardiness was justified by each county in writing by 2 p.m. the
following day (November 15). The three outstanding counties-Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Broward-immediately sent an
explanation for the delay. Secretary Harris, however, rejected their explanations and announced that the final Florida vote count
would be announced Saturday, November 18, 2000. On November 16, both Vice President Gore and Palm Beach County filed for
an injunction against Secretary Harris to prevent her from certifying the election until the three counties could finish their
recounts. The Florida Supreme Court issued the injunction on November 17, and on November 21 ruled that Secretary Harris
must allow the counties until November 26 to finish their recounts.
Meanwhile, Miami-Dade stopped manually counting ballots, allegedly certain that it could not complete its recount by the
November 26 deadline. Gore sought but failed to obtain a court order for Miami-Dade to continue counting. On November 26,
with, at this point, just 537 votes separating Bush and Gore, Secretary Harris certified the election for Bush. The next day, Gore
sued the secretary, alleging that the certified results were illegitimate because the recount process was not yet complete. After a
local court dismissed the suit, Gore appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, which ruled on December 8 that all Florida ballots
cast but not counted by voting machines ("undervotes") must be manually recounted if they had not been already. The court
noted that in many counties, machines did not register votes because of defects in punch-card ballots ("hanging chads").
Governor Bush appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which expeditiously reviewed the case on December 9.
On December 12, 2000, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 "per curiam" (non-specially authored) decision, ruled that the Florida
Supreme Court's recount order was unconstitutional because it granted more protection to some ballots than to others, violating
the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. This clause forbids states from denying "to any person within their
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Court argued that voting for a president constituted a "fundamental right"
strictly guarded by the Equal Protection Clause, and that the Florida Supreme Court's order violated this right because it was
"arbitrary." The Court alleged that the order contained standardless and unequal processes to divine the "intent of the voter" that
were above and beyond the settled processes required by Florida election law.
December 12, 2000, the day Bush v. Gore was decided, was also the state deadline for selecting electors to formally submit
Florida's choice for president to Congress. Thus, with no time left to recount votes consistent with the Court's ruling, George W.
Bush became the de facto winner. While some celebrated the Court's firm stance on equal rights in the face of political
controversy, others criticized the decision as hypocritical and even politically opportunistic. For example, the five justices of the
majority had previously and conversely granted great deference to state court decisions, and all were Republican appointees. Yet
perhaps the harshest criticism came from the Court itself. In the concluding lines of his dissent, Justice John Paul
Stevens proclaimed that "one thing ... is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner
of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an
impartial guardian of the rule of law."
Arguments against the Electoral College
2012 The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
www.gilderlehrman.org
Those who object to the Electoral College system and favor a direct popular election of the president
generally do so on four grounds:
the possibility of electing a minority (someone not receiving the majority of votes) president
the risk of so-called faithless Electors
the possible role of the Electoral College in depressing voter turnout
its failure to accurately reflect the national popular will
Opponents of the Electoral College are disturbed by the possibility of electing a minority president (one
without the absolute majority of popular votes). Nor is this concern entirely unfounded since there are three
ways in which that could happen. One way in which a minority president could be elected is if the country
were so deeply divided politically that three or more presidential candidates split the electoral votes among
them such that no one obtained the necessary majority . . . there are two possible resolutions: either one
candidate could throw his electoral votes to the support of another (before the meeting of the Electors) or
else, absent an absolute majority in the Electoral College, the U.S. House of Representatives would select the
president in accordance with the 12th Amendment. . . .A second way in which a minority president could take
office is if, as in 1888, one candidate's popular support were heavily concentrated in a few States while the
other candidate maintained a slim popular lead in enough States to win the needed majority of the Electoral
College. . . . A third way of electing a minority president is if a third party or candidate, however small, drew
enough votes from the top two that no one received over 50% of the national popular total. Far from being
unusual, this sort of thing has, in fact, happened 15 times including (in this century) Wilson in both 1912 and
1916, Truman in 1948, Kennedy in 1960, Nixon in 1968, and Clinton in both 1992 and 1996.
Opponents of the Electoral College system also point to the risk of so called "faithless" Electors. A "faithless
Elector" is one who is pledged to vote for his party's candidate for president but nevertheless votes for
another candidate. There have been 7 such Electors in this century and as recently as 1988 when a Democrat
Elector in the State of West Virginia cast his votes for Lloyd Bensen for president and Michael Dukakis for vice
president instead of the other way around. . . . Arguments against the Electoral College 2012 The Gilder
Lehrman Institute of American History www.gilderlehrman.org
Opponents of the Electoral College are further concerned about its possible role in depressing voter turnout.
Their argument is that, since each State is entitled to the same number of electoral votes regardless of its
voter turnout, there is no incentive in the States to encourage voter participation. Indeed, there may even be
an incentive to discourage participation (and they often cite the South here) so as to enable a minority of
citizens to decide the electoral vote for the whole State.
Finally, some opponents of the Electoral College point out . . . its failure to accurately reflect the national
popular will in at least two respects. First, the distribution of Electoral votes in the College tends to over
represent people in rural States. This is because the number of Electors for each State is determined by the
number of members it has in the House (which more or less reflects the State's population size) plus the
number of members it has in the Senate (which is always two regardless of the State's population). The result
is that in 1988, for example, the combined voting age population (3,119,000) of the seven least populous
jurisdictions of Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and
Wyoming carried the same voting strength in the Electoral College (21 Electoral votes) as the 9,614,000
persons of voting age in the State of Florida. Each Floridian's potential vote, then, carried about one third the
weight of a potential vote in the other States listed. A second way in which the Electoral College fails to
accurately reflect the national popular will stems primarily from the winner-take-all mechanism whereby the
presidential candidate who wins the most popular votes in the State wins all the Electoral votes of that State.
One effect of this mechanism is to make it extremely difficult for third-party or independent candidates ever
to make much of a showing in the Electoral College. If, for example, a third-party or independent candidate
were to win the support of even as many as 25% of the voters nationwide, he might still end up with no
Electoral College votes at all unless he won a plurality of votes in at least one State. And even if he managed
to win a few States, his support elsewhere would not be reflected. By thus failing to accurately reflect the
national popular will . . . the Electoral College reinforces a two-party system, discourages third-party or
independent candidates, and thereby tends to restrict choices available to the electorate. . . .
Adapted from THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE by William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director, FEC Office of Election
Administration
Arguments for the Electoral College
2012 The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
www.gilderlehrman.org
Proponents of the Electoral College system normally defend it on the philosophical grounds that it:
contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected
president
enhances the status of minority interests
contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system
maintains a federal system of government and representation.
Proponents argue that the Electoral College system contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by
requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president. Without such a mechanism, they
point out, presidents would be selected either through the domination of one populous region over the others
or through the domination of large metropolitan areas over the rural ones. Indeed, it is principally because of
the Electoral College that presidential nominees are inclined to select vice presidential running mates from a
region other than their own. For as things stand now, no one region contains the absolute majority (270) of
electoral votes required to elect a president . . . Such a unifying mechanism seems especially prudent in view
of the severe regional problems that have typically plagued geographically large nations such as China, India,
the Soviet Union, and even, in its time, the Roman Empire. . . .
. . . the Electoral College system is designed to work in a rational series of defaults: if, in the first instance, a
candidate receives a substantial majority of the popular vote, then that candidate is virtually certain to win
enough electoral votes to be elected president; in the event that the popular vote is extremely close, then the
election defaults to that candidate with the best distribution of popular votes (as evidenced by obtaining the
absolute majority of electoral votes); in the event the country is so divided that no one obtains an absolute
majority of electoral votes, then the choice of president defaults to the States in the U.S. House of
Representatives. One way or another, then, the winning candidate must demonstrate both a sufficient
popular support to govern as well as a sufficient distribution of that support to govern. Proponents also point
out that, far from diminishing minority interests by depressing voter participation, the Electoral College
actually enhances the status of minority groups. This is so because the votes of even Arguments for
the Electoral College
2012 The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History www.gilderlehrman.org
small minorities in a State may make the difference between winning all of that States electoral votes or
none of that States electoral votes. And since ethnic minority groups in the United States happen to
concentrate in those States with the most electoral votes, they assume an importance to presidential
candidates well out of proportion to their number. . . . Changing to a direct election of the president would
therefore actually damage minority interests since their votes would be overwhelmed by a national popular
majority. . . .
Proponents further argue that the Electoral College contributes to the political stability of the nation by
encouraging a two-party system. There can be no doubt that the Electoral College has encouraged and helps
to maintain a two- party system in the United States. This is true simply because it is extremely difficult for a
new or minor party to win enough popular votes in enough States to have a chance of winning the
presidency. Even if they won enough electoral votes to force the decision into the U.S. House of
Representatives, they would still have to have a majority of over half the State delegations in order to elect
their candidateand in that case, they would hardly be considered a minor party. In addition to protecting the
presidency from . . . third party movements, the practical effect of the Electoral College . . . is to virtually
force third party movements into one of the two major political parties. Conversely, the major parties have
every incentive to absorb minor party movements in their continual attempt to win popular majorities in the
States. In this process of assimilation, third party movements are obliged to compromise their more radical
views if they hope to attain any of their more generally acceptable objectives. Thus we end up with two large,
pragmatic political parties which tend to the center of public opinion rather than dozens of smaller political
parties catering to divergent and sometimes extremist views. . . .
Finally, its proponents argue . . .that the Electoral College maintains a federal system of government
and representation. Their reasoning is that in a formal federal structure, important political powers are
reserved to the . . . States. In the United States, for example, the House of Representatives was designed to
represent the States according to the size of their population. . . . The Senate was designed to represent each
State equally regardless of its population. And the Electoral College was designed to represent each States
choice for the presidency (with the number of each States electoral votes being the number of its Senators
plus the number of its Representatives). To abolish the Electoral College in favor of a nationwide popular
election for president would strike at Arguments for the Electoral College the very heart of the federal
structure laid out in our Constitution and would lead to the nationalization of our central governmentto the
detriment of the States. . . . The fact is, they argue, that the original design of our federal system of
government was thoroughly and wisely debated by the Founding Fathers. State viewpoints, they decided, are
more important than political minority viewpoints. And the collective opinion of the individual State
populations is more important than the opinion of the national population taken as a whole. Nor should we
tamper with the careful balance of power between the national and State governments which the Founding
Fathers intended and which is reflected in the Electoral College. . . .

The Electoral College Investigation

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Electoral College Investigation

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Social Studies Government

Unit: The Electoral College

What was the primary sources audience?

What was the creators purpose in making this primary source?

What biases or stereotypes do you see?

Clarify the Historical

Explain the authors point of view (Why was it

How do you know this

Clarify the Historical

Explain the authors point of view (Why was it

How do you know this

Report Findings (Thesis)

Type your essay in Office

Report Findings (Essay)

A formal style and

Essay Grading Rubric Explanatory Rubric

Integrate and Cite Sources

Properly assesses the

Adequately assesses the

Thesis/Main Claim &

Use supporting evidence

The Supreme Court . The Future of the Court . Landmark

Arguments against the Electoral College

2012 The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

Arguments for the Electoral College

2012 The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

the Electoral College

2012 The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History www.gilderlehrman.org

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi