2017-2018 Prindle Institute High School Essay Competition
The Prindle Institute for Ethics will award five prizes ($300 each) for the best essays written by high school students on an ethics-related topic.
This year’s topic focuses on the Electoral College. Any high school student of any grade level is encouraged to submit an essay. Read the guidelines below, and submit your essay via the form at the bottom of this page. The submission deadline is January 25, 2018. Winners will receive a $300 honorarium and may have their essays published on The Prindle Post.
Deadline: January 25, 2018
Eligibility: Anyone currently enrolled in high school in the United States. You do not need to enroll at DePauw to receive the award. This contest is open to any high school student regardless of college choice and grade level.
Word Limit: 1000-2000 words
Before you begin writing, review the rubric. It will help you structure your essay.
Read the case below about the Electoral College and answer the prompt: Should the United States abolish the Electoral College?
You should present and critically discuss arguments for your position.
Don’t merely summarize what others have said, we want you to weigh in with your opinion on the merits of the arguments you discuss.
Cite your sources (any common citation style is acceptable).
Remove any identifying information from the paper you submit, including your name, high school name, etc. This ensures that papers will be anonymous. Papers that include any identifying information will automatically be disqualified.
Have questions? Contact email@example.com for answers!
The Electoral College*
Read through this case and answer the following question: Should the United States abolish the Electoral College?
America's founding fathers adopted a system of choosing the president called the Electoral College (EC), in which each state chooses electors sent to a convention to elect the President on behalf of their state. The Constitution does not demand that the electors be designated as all or nothing based upon the popular vote within the state; however, this has traditionally been the manner in which electors are awarded when a state is "won" (though a minority of states do apportion their electors based upon the percent of the popular vote won by a candidate). The EC has been criticized by many in recent decades, especially after George W. Bush and Donald J. Trump won the presidency despite losing the popular vote. To understand why the EC was chosen, it is necessary to look to historical statements and context.
Alexander Hamilton, in the “Federalist Papers 68,” argued that the EC was necessary as a check against the uninformed votes of the masses, who might be swindled by a tyrant. Hamilton states:
“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. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.”
That mischief was generally considered to be the possibility of a demagogue swindling less educated voters who were insufficiently “judicious” or analytical to choose a President wisely. Additionally, the EC was implemented in order to ensure that the more populous cities and states did not exact tyranny over the less populous regions— the agrarian middle of America—which provided strong economic support and essential goods and services to the metropolises. In short, the EC was essentially enacted to avoid tyranny of the majority, and was a necessary concession at the Constitutional Convention made to the small states to secure the formation of the United States.
This standard account of the EC has been challenged by constitutional law scholar Akhil Amar, who has argued that slavery—not the avoidance of tyranny—was the raison d'être of the EC. Amar explains that because “the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote,” direct national presidential elections were deemed unacceptable by southerners. As the Virginian slaveholder and Founding Father James Madison put it, “[t]he right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” By allowing the South to “count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount,” states with a large slave population were allocated a significant number of electors—enough to allow the biggest slave state, Virginia, to supply the winning candidate for the presidency “[f]or 32 of the Constitution’s first 36 years.”
Leaving aside the controversial historical origins of the EC, contemporary advocates of the EC, such as Richard Posner, the renowned American jurist and economist, note that the EC typically creates a stronger appearance of result than the popular vote, given the winner-take-all allocation of votes in most states. Moreover, the EC prevents the election of regional candidates who do not have broad appeal, thus leading to candidates who can create broader consensus. Finally, the EC places an emphasis on swing states and swing voters, whose awareness of their importance in the country's electoral decision should result, in theory, in the most educated and invested voters choosing the President.
Critics of the EC point out that the contemporary merits of the EC are unsubstantiated. For example, the claim that an election via the EC produces a president with a broad appeal and a strong mandate to govern glosses over the fact that President Trump has been called out by the media for “resurrect[ing] the divisive language of his campaign” since taking office. Also, ignoring the popular vote has “lead to backlash and resentment,” as the numerous anti-Trump protests since November 8 demonstrate. Opponents of the EC also argue that tyranny of the minority is now clearly a problem, instead of tyranny of the majority. For instance, a vote in Wyoming is worth 3.6 times more than a vote in California, which some argue violates the principle of equal protection under the law. Along the same lines, the EC is, at its foundation, undemocratic, insofar as it deprives each vote of equal voice—and is oligarchic. However, given that the rules for a Constitutional Amendment to replace the EC are only likely to change with the consent of the minority states that have a reason to want to maintain their electoral power, there are serious barriers to any change in the system.
*This case comes from the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics (APPE) Regional Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl competition. If you’re interested in learning more about APPE and Ethics Bowl, click here.
This essay is designed to see how you reason through a moral case, but it also gives you the opportunity to understand how a collegiate ethics bowl team would reason through a moral case. Use the rubric below to help structure your essay and guide your argument.
There are three main goals your essay should seek to accomplish. These goals (A, B, and C below) are the same as those a team at an ethics bowl competition are striving to present. The numbers indicate how many points a team would receive according to their presentation’s achievement of these goals. How does your essay fit into this rubric?
A) Did the essay clearly and systematically address the case’s question?
5 = Extremely clear essay that systematically addressed the key dimensions of the
4 = Reasonably clear essay that systematically addressed most key dimensions of the
3 = Hard to follow the argument. Significant dimensions of the question missed (passable).
2 = Serious logical problems or underdeveloped argument (poor).
1 = Incoherent presentation.
B) Did the essay clearly identify and thoroughly discuss the central moral dimensions of the case?
5 = Clearly and precisely identified central moral dimensions, and discussed these
4 = Mostly identified central moral dimensions and discussed major issues.
3 = Adequately identified and discussed some central moral dimensions (passable).
2 = Misidentified some moral dimensions of the case and inadequately discussed (poor).
1 = Misidentified the central moral dimensions.
C) Did the essay indicate both awareness and thoughtful consideration of different viewpoints, including especially those that would loom large in the reasoning of individuals who disagree with the essay’s position?
5 = Insightful analysis and discussion of the most significant viewpoints, including full
and careful attention to opposing points of view.
4 = Solid analysis and discussion of some different viewpoints.
3 = Underdeveloped discussion of different viewpoints (passable).
2 = Minimal consideration of different viewpoints (poor).
1 = Minimal awareness of different viewpoints.
Additional Ethics Resources:
The Prindle Institute for Ethics, located at DePauw University, also offers scholarships to attend DePauw. If you’re interested in learning more about Prindle's scholarships and applying to DePauw, click here. We'd welcome your application!
If you're having trouble accessing or completing the submission form below, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org for a link to the form.