Please do the following:
- Close all other tabs in your browser.
- Open this file: Primary Document Assessment-What the Workingman Wants
- Make a copy and save it in your U.S. History Folder
- You are not to open any other tabs during this assessment (including electronic copies of the document, dictionaries, websites, etc.). I will be monitoring this.
- When you have finished, upload your completed assessment to turnitin.com
For our second activity, we'll be shifting our look at the Gilded Age to again consider current events, this time as they apply to the electoral college. Please complete the following:
- Skim the short review of the elements of the electoral college and then read the excerpt from Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #68 justifying the electoral college carefully. Electoral College and Federalist #68
- Read this NY Times Op-Ed piece from a Republican Electoral College Member.
- Scroll through some of the comments to the Op-Ed above. To get to the comments, click on the thought bubble icon with the number inside.
- Then make a comment on this blog post in response to the pieces you read above. Your comment will be in three parts.
A. Start with a quote from Hamilton that you see as central to the argument for the Electoral College. What do do you think of that argument? Was it valid in 1789? Is it valid in 2016?
B. Do you agree with Mr. Suprun's decision? Why or why not? Use a quote from his op-ed piece and respond to it.
C. Take one of the comments (from the "Comments" section) that you found interesting and copy it here. Then respond to that comment, using your understanding of the Electoral College, Hamilton's reasoning, and Mr. Suprun's position.
1) "It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station"
ReplyDeleteHamilton is saying that it is important that the decision of president is in the hands of people who are qualified to pick out such a person and know what is needed for the job. I think that this is a very important argument because it is important that the president have certain qualities about them and a group picking the president would know what qualities are needed. I think it was more important in 1789 because not everyone was educated back then so they would not know what is best. Now, in 2016, the vast majority of people have at least some kind of education which allows them to make a more educated vote so the argument is not as strong anymore.
2) I agree with his decision because his job is to pick the most qualified candidate while taking into consideration the voting of the people. If he believes that Donald Trump is not a qualified president then he should not vote for him.
"Fifteen years ago, I swore an oath to defend my country and Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. On Dec. 19, I will do it again."
He is doing what he believes is right for the country and voting for someone who he believes will be the best president possible. That is his job as a member of the electoral college. He is able to override the votes of the people in favor of a better America.
3)Mr Suprun, I share your distaste for Trump, but not your disregard for the electoral process. When you sought the position, you had to know that Donald Trump would represent the Republican Party. Why would you seek or accept the position if you had reservations for voting Trump President of the United States? The Process is bigger than you and me, bigger than Clinton and Trump. It's bigger than a wall on the southern border and it's bigger than Obama care. It's bigger than Twitter and SNL.
I don't think this person understand what the electoral college is for. They seem to believe that the electoral college is simply meant to vote for who ever gets the popular vote in their state which is not true. Nowhere in Hamilton's writing does he state this. Instead the members of the electoral college have the ability and the duty to vote for the person who they see as most fitting to be President.
¨And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.¨ This argument is valid both in 1789 and today because with an electoral college, it eliminates the possibility of corruption. Individuals can be corrupted into voting for an awful candidate, but the electoral college protects from that.
ReplyDeleteB. While I agree with how Suprun is justifying his decision, I disagree with the decision itself. He said, ¨Fifteen years ago, I swore an oath to defend my country and Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. On Dec. 19, I will do it again.¨ While Trump can cause harm in the country, he was voted the president elect, and just because Suprun is unhappy with the result, he doesn't have the right to go against what he is entitled to do as an elector.
C. There are some people who dislike Mr. Trump sufficiently to welcome Mr. Suprun's position, but I believe that to be a shortsighted and misguided view. The voters who elected Mr. Suprun to the electoral college were not voting for him as an individual; they were voting for him as someone pledged to elect Mr. Trump. Indeed, in many states (including New York) the ballot does not include the names of the electors, only the candidate to whom they are pledged.
Whatever Mr. Trump's shortcomings may be, he won the election. Any other candidate chosen by a rogue electoral college would have no legitimacy.
My response: The electors are pledged to a candidate, and they must stick to it. The voters are not voting for electors (even though they really are), they are voting for who they want the candidates to vote for. Those electors who are not voting for who their voters voted for are doing their voters an injustice.
A. Hamilton said that "It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations." I believe that this is a valid statement in 1789 and in 2016. I like this argument because the people that Americans elect to vote for the president are generally much more knowledgeable about politics and government in comparison to the general population. I think that the Electoral College system is a good system, even though Hillary Clinton just lost the presidential election despite getting the popular vote.
ReplyDeleteB. I agree the Mr.Suprun's decision. The electoral college system exists for a reason, and that reason is so that the vote for the president can be changed. If he truly believes that changing his vote will benefit the people better, then he has the right to make that decision, and it is justified.
C. One comment said "I can imagine violence in the streets and the utter destruction of the system, if those 500+ electors decide to just pick someone else. I have been a long-time Hillary supporter, but this is not a good idea. The GOP (your ilk, incidentally) made governing nearly impossible for Mr. Obama - imagine what they would do if Hillary was picked - yet to randomly pick a candidate who did not run in the general election would set off both sides of the electorate. Rather than give false hope to the naive, let us move forward and plan to handle a terrible situation." The issue with this logic in my opinion is that the people elect who will vote for the president. These aren't just random people who get to vote for the president, unless I am misunderstanding. The purpose of the electors are to best represent the people, so why would 500+ electors suddenly change their mind on who to vote for? That would mean that they would all face backlash for their decisions and they would be criticized. Even if 500+ electors from different parties decided to change their vote suddenly, perhaps that is a good thing. I could see that happening if America unknowingly voted for a communist or some sort of dictator. Either way, the scenario is of 500+ electors changing their votes is highly unlikely and unreasonable.
A. "The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes." I agree with this argument because choosing people for the electoral college to represent a state is much more peaceful than every single person being represented. I think this statement is valid at any time because politics are a violent subject. People get very intense when it comes to politics and narrowing the people of the US to a chosen electoral college to a single President keeps the nation under control.
ReplyDeleteB. I agree with Sunprun's decision because of all of his great points he made. Something that Trump is well known for are his tweets. Sunprun writes, "Mr. Trump goes out of his way to attack the cast of “Saturday Night Live” for bias. He tweets day and night, but waited two days to offer sympathy to the Ohio State community after an attack there. He does not encourage civil discourse, but chooses to stoke fear and create outrage." This quote stood out to me because it shows how selfish Trump is. If there is criticism of him, he will fight back immediately. But if there is a shooting of people he does not know, he doesn't have the urge to respond right away.
C. "This may make you feel good and righteous and patriotic, but imagine the fall out. I find it hard to believe that the Electoral College can just "pick" anyone that it wants. Being a Republican, of course, you suggest a Republican - how about Sarah Palin, she lost her gig at Fox News a while back, so is available...
I can imagine violence in the streets and the utter destruction of the system, if those 500+ electors decide to just pick someone else. I have been a long-time Hillary supporter, but this is not a good idea. The GOP (your ilk, incidentally) made governing nearly impossible for Mr. Obama - imagine what they would do if Hillary was picked - yet to randomly pick a candidate who did not run in the general election would set off both sides of the electorate. Rather than give false hope to the naive, let us move forward and plan to handle a terrible situation."
I found this comment very intriguing. The only reason why I was on the author's side was because I never found Donald Trump fit to be President. He is a great businessman, but I never saw him as a politician. But the women who wrote this comment makes a very good point. If every person in the electoral college made their own choice, then how would this nation stay as a democracy, and what would be the point of citizens voting? The electoral college is to represent what the people of the states voted for and the electoral college is supposed to represent this.
Rachel Elkes
ReplyDelete1. "It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. "
Hamilton is saying that is important for the right and qualified people to have the responsibility to pick who should be the President. I do not think that it is valued as much now as it was in 1789. Now people believe that they are more entitled to pick who they want to be President.
2. I do agree with Mr. Suprun, just because you are for the republican party does not mean that you have to vote for Donald Trump. Mr. Suprun does not believe that Trump is qualified or respected enough to be in office
". . His leadership showed that America was a great nation. That was also the last time I remember the nation united. I watch Mr. Trump fail to unite America and drive a wedge between us."
Mr. Suprun is doing nothing wrong by voting for someone who he believes is best fit to run our country.
3. The electoral college was a compromise that the founding fathers established in the constitution by the election of the President from the vote of congress by popular vote of the citizens, I do not believe this person understands what the electoral college is in place for.
"The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications."
ReplyDeleteHamilton stated that the country would never elect a man who fell short of the proper qualifications required to become president. We are now witnessing a man who is a rookie to politics as our future president. Despite having the electoral college in place, Donald Trump still won the presidency because our nation failed to recognize his many flaws and failures.
It is difficult to decide because I would agree with him that Trump is not fit for president and that he should have the power to reject his presidency. "Fifteen years ago, I swore an oath to defend my country and Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. On Dec. 19, I will do it again." He has his opinions on Trump but he should also recognize that he is disagreeing with the people of his state who had voted for Trump. I saw a comment that told him that when he took the job Suprun should have realized that something could go wrong and he would have to be trusted to elect a corrupt leader. This is a good point because the people of his state had bestowed trust upon him and now he may ruin that.
Your decision to ensure that we have a President with the integrity required to lead our government comports well with Hamilton's discussion of the electors duties in the Federalist Papers No. 68. I hope you are just the tip of the spear and predict you will be widely applauded even if you are the sole independent thinker in the Electoral College.
This comment mentions what Hamilton believed and wrote. This person agrees with Hamilton and believes that whoever wins the election should be properly qualified and be trusted to perform the difficult job. He says that he hopes that Suprun begins to spread these ideas and have more disagree with Trump to make the nation stronger.
A:"It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice." I think this is a valid argument in support of the electoral collage back in 1789. The people had little to no sense of government back then and America had just become a country, so there was nothing to compare it to in the past besides Great Britain which was a dictatorship. Although it was valid then I believe that it is not valid now. People today 21 and over have lived through so much hate, violence, and other things. Voters have a sense of Democracy and are educated enough into voting for who they think should run the country.
ReplyDeleteB:"However, now I am asked to cast a vote on Dec. 19 for someone who shows daily he is not qualified for the office."i agree with his decision to stand up for what he believes in. He takes his job seriously enough to understand the meaning of what is job his and wants to place a vote for someone who can run the presidency well.
C: "No one is more scared than I by a Trump presidency. And this statement is moving in its sincerity. But democracy means giving voters the right to choose, and it would simply be wrong for electors in the college to make their own decisions." I agree with what this person is saying. They define Democracy with the freedom to choose and by the electoral collage choosing who they vote for, is taking that right away from us. Hamilton wanted the electoral collage to insure that the right man or women is elected to be president, but they do not seem to be doing this
Ashley
1. "The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes".
ReplyDeleteHamilton is saying that having the ability to allow many people to have input on the government and it's decisions is beneficial because if one person were to make decisions without consulting, they would be the sole person responsible for aiding to the public wishes. I think this is valid in 1789 and 2016 because although the people elect an electoral collage member to cast their vote for president and not directly elect the president, it is still beneficial to the public. The electoral collage members have the power to vote for president because it is more efficient for the country. Allowing for citizens to vote for members to vote makes them have input on the government but it also makes the electoral voter somewhat responsible for the public. This was more important in 1789 because the system was still growing and not everyone was voting.
2. I agree with Suprun's decision because Trump says he wants to unify the country and make it great again but he fails to prove his abilities everyday. If Suprun does not believe Trump is qualified, he has the ability to not vote for him. Suprun says, " He does not encourage civil discourse, but chooses to stoke fear and create outrage". This shows that Suprun believes strongly against Trumps decisions and is going to do what he believes is right which is not vote for him.
3. Mr. Suprun, I admire your character, your sense of decency and giving voice to grave concerns over Trump, a sociopath in my estimation and of many mental health professionals. This man will hold nuclear codes. Isn't that a concern for his core supporters? Are they that destructive, angry and crazy? I am a Democrat. But I would never vote party before competence, no way, no how. This man is dangerous. I believed George Bush was incompetent to lead the country. But I never felt he was vindictive, crazy or dangerous. I believe he thought he was doing what's best for the country, disagreements aside. Trump is gleeful at simply winning, not being President. His "Victory Tour" and the words that came from his mouth were shocking. He's surely making an "enemies" list. What have you done America?
This person agreed with the fact that Mr. Suprun was not a Trump supporter but they did not realize how Mr. Suprun was concerned with the electoral college. The article Mr. Supun wrote was not solely about how Trump can be toxic for our nation but how he should not be expected to cast his electoral vote for someone he does not believe should run the country.
“A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.” I believe that Hamilton is arguing that those who study and follow politics more than others, should have a bigger effect than those who do not, because they are more qualified to do this. This applies to 1789, and to 2016.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the decision that Suprun made. If the candidate is a representative of your party, it doesn’t mean that you are forced to support them, especially if you believe they are a danger to the country. Suprun says, “But I owe no debt to a party. I owe a debt to my children to leave them a nation they can trust.” This is saying these ideas.
“I believe that the electoral college was created by the founding fathers as a check against mob rule where a populist majority takes control of a democratic election. Although Trump's election may have the opposite consequence, where the electoral college elected by a minority popular vote may trump the majority of the popular vote. It's time to get rid of the electoral college and have direct elections. It's about time that we trust the American voters to choose their most qualified leaders.” I believe that the electoral college is a useful necessity to the results of an election, but recently it has become an unfair process. The electoral college should be kept in place, but should be modified to make the process more equal.
ReplyDeleteA)"election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."
Hamilton is arguing that the people should elect a small number of people to lead the government and make choices best suitable for all the people. This is important for 1789 and now because we need strong leaders to help run America however now more people are educated and able to make better decisions so it is less important.
B)". . His leadership showed that America was a great nation. That was also the last time I remember the nation united. I watch Mr. Trump fail to unite America and drive a wedge between us."
I agree because he is demonstrating how Donald trumps behavior could hurt the nation.
3) One person wrote "2. I agree with Suprun's decision because Trump says he wants to unify the country and make it great again but he fails to prove his abilities everyday. If Suprun does not believe Trump is qualified, he has the ability to not vote for him. Suprun says, " He does not encourage civil discourse, but chooses to stoke fear and create outrage". This shows that Suprun believes strongly against Trumps decisions and is going to do what he believes is right which is not vote for him."
I agree with this because it further shows what spurn thinks is wrong with the nation and the president and why that is correct
A. "The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes"
ReplyDeleteI think that this was the intention of electoral college and I continually see it in effect in today's society. In the 2016 Presidential Election, it was very close election and the electoral college holds the responsibility of casting their votes to elect the president based on the popular votes in their state. That is the responsibility of the electors: to cast their votes based on majority public opinion. Although I do think that this was the right approach to presidential elections in the past, I believe that there are better approaches to electing presidents in the society that America has developed into. I formed this opinion by thinking about the impact that Obama made on the country over the last 8 years and I think about how it can all be undone because Congress is predominately Republican and eventually the Supreme Court will be as well.
B."I will pour many more into being more faithful to my party than some in its leadership. But I owe no debt to a party. I owe a debt to my children to leave them a nation they can trust"
I completely agree with Mr. Suprun because the position that the electors are put in, conflicts with their values. Their job and elector is to vote based on public opinion. Nevertheless, should they make an important decision for American that they do not support? I personally don't think so. It is the electors' job to use their knowledge and goals for the commonwealth of the country to elect the president.
C."Brookevillewoolenmill Brookeville, MD 1 day ago
Your decision to ensure that we have a President with the integrity required to lead our government comports well with Hamilton's discussion of the electors duties in the Federalist Papers No. 68. I hope you are just the tip of the spear and predict you will be widely applauded even if you are the sole independent thinker in the Electoral College"
I agree with this person, because despite Hamilton's opinion Suprun is thinking outside the box to question the thought process of the voters in his state. Their voice is in his hand and he is resonsible to lisen but also use his better judgement
Flag739Recommend
A. Start with a quote from Hamilton that you see as central to the argument for the Electoral College. What do do you think of that argument? Was it valid in 1789? Is it valid in 2016?
ReplyDelete"They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment…The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means." They don't want bias people. I think it is smart to not use people that are bias towards one candidate. I think it was and is valid because often in this day and age people have a hard time focusing on important decisions that will one day affect our kids.
B. Do you agree with Mr. Suprun's decision? Why or why not? Use a quote from his op-ed piece and respond to it.
"Presidential electors have the legal right and a constitutional duty to vote their conscience. I believe electors should unify behind a Republican alternative, an honorable and qualified man or woman such as Gov. John Kasich of Ohio. I pray my fellow electors will do their job and join with me in discovering who that person should be." I agree with Mr. Suprun's choice to vote for who he thinks should be president and not who people are telling him to vote for. The people elected to vote have a right to vote for who they think. If Trump is not that person then don't vote because that is who your party is voting for. Switch it up if you think he is not fit to be president, it is your choice and no one elses.
C. Take one of the comments (from the "Comments" section) that you found interesting and copy it here. Then respond to that comment, using your understanding of the Electoral College, Hamilton's reasoning, and Mr. Suprun's position.
"Mr Suprun, I share your distaste for Trump, but not your disregard for the electoral process. When you sought the position, you had to know that Donald Trump would represent the Republican Party. Why would you seek or accept the position if you had reservations for voting Trump President of the United States? The Process is bigger than you and me, bigger than Clinton and Trump. It's bigger than a wall on the southern border and it's bigger than Obama care. It's bigger than Twitter and SNL." How was this guy suppose to know that one day Trump would be running and why does he have to vote republican. If he thinks that Trump is a bad candidate then why can't he just vote for the other candidate. I don't see why people are not allowed to speak their minds or make their own choice when that's what they are supposed to be doing.
this is Nicole H.
Delete