An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Clueless About America: Why Civics Education is Essential to America’s Health (Guest Voice)

Clueless About America: Why Civics Education is Essential to America’s Health

by Daniel Reeder

I recently had a conversation with my father, who was questioning a long-held tenet of American Government, specifically the need for a judiciary free from political consideration. That conversation brought to mind an article I read some time ago in a legal publication about the need to teach Americans the rules of civics.

It was my father’s ignorance that most disturbed me. Here was a man who grew up in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, had gone to school, had excelled at school, and who could not conceive that an independent judiciary required the judiciary to remain unaffected by the buffeting winds of political and social turmoil. It became clear to me that his civics education had failed when, while I was quoting chapter and verse from the Federalist Papers, and other documents from the founding of the United States, my father simply looked at me and repeated his mantra that judges at the federal level needed to be replaced because they became too academic, and did not take into account what was happening in society.

Civics education in the United States is, at best, abysmal. Most Americans do not understand even the most basic rules about the structure of our government, beyond that it is tripartite, and that each branch is independent. Few Americans actually understand the purpose behind many of the constitutional rules and requirements against which they fight, such as the Electoral College, the United States Senate, and the lifetime appointments of Article III judges, not to mention the difference between the generic term “federal judge” and an Article III judge.

Now, you may be asking yourself, what is the purpose of this post, and why is it relevant to anything important? Well, what we have been seeing of late regarding constitutional issues, even on the floors of the House of Representatives and Senate, are the result of a poor education in civics. Examples of these problematic issues include discussions on such things as threats to impeach Article III judges over decisions with which Senators and Representatives disagree, or set term limits on Article III judges, as well as attempts to circumvent or abolish the Electoral College. These movements show what seems to be an appalling lack of interest in or awareness of the basic system of government set up when the framers of the Constitution drafted it. What makes that fact so disturbing is that even our elected representatives are not completely aware of what the Constitution says, and what the Constitution requires.

The point of this is, America should be focusing less on many of the other subjects that high schools have nowadays, such as computer science, communications, and other, less important courses. Math and science are important, but so are English, history, and, most important, civics. Civics, especially, is something that all Americans, regardless of their status in life, should know in and out. Many pieces of legislation and constitutional amendments are drafted without the author or cosponsors knowing what, exactly, they are doing. Many Americans support movements without understanding the reasons behind the systems and rules that they are opposing.

Frankly, we cannot afford any more undereducated voters or undereducated politicians. That is why civics education needs to be back as one of the most important subjects that American students take.

Daniel Reeder is a Third Year Law Student at Pennsylvania’s oldest law school. He was raised in Upstate New York, and spent four years in DC studying economics, international relations and theater. He also has been active in Republican and Conservative politics, especially campaigning for the election of John McCain and Sarah Palin.

  • shannonlee
    Clueless about America? How about just clueless?

    "Math and science are important, but so are English, history, and, most important, civics"

    This author seems to think that understanding politics is more important than algebra. It is no wonder our children are so far behind the rest of the world in math and science.

    Math and science is what made this country a super power. Microsoft "computer science" helped win the cold war.

    It seems to me that this author is blaming the defeat of McCain and Palin on stupid voters. (Edit...I realize this was not stated anywhere in the article, but from what I read...I think the author also believe this to be true, hence the driving force for writing the article.)
  • DLS
    Cluess, overall, definitely. Name just one other side subject on which people's errors are notorious: Geography.

    I suspect the author has an interest (revealed here) in civics.

    As to civics, simply make all prospective voters pass a civics test similar to the tests foreigners have to take in order to become citizens.
  • Ryan
    Well, now I'm highly curious why Daniel thinks the Electoral College is a good idea. I would also note that the Federalist Papers are documents written by men, not handed down from the Almighty to be eternally praised.
  • pacatrue
    Unfortunately, the post sounds a little bit too much like me in my college years: sure my parents didn't know a thing, since they didn't know about the stuff I was studying.
  • PJBFan
    To those responding, I do not believe that the Constitution and the documents related to the founding of our nation were handed down by the Almighty. That being said, I do regard the Founders as much wiser, and much more aware of the needs of a functioning, well-structured republic than the modern day American. I also do not believe, as Pacatrue states, that I am saying that my parents are clueless. I am merely pointing out a flaw in my father's education that fails to understand what the Founders intended and not only to merely disagree, but to display utter cluelessness about why the Founders' opinions could even be important in understanding the issue we were discussing. I believe his exact words were "The opinions of Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison and other men long dead are irrelevant to understanding the Constitution."

    To Shannonlee: I do not disagree with you that math and science are important. But I think it is important that citizenship, and all the information attendant thereto be taught, since people no longer seem to think citizenship matters. I am joined in this belief that civics needs to be taught more than courses like computer science and communication by such luminaries as Justices Souter, and O'Connor, and the First Lady of Pennsylvania, Hon. Marjorie Rendell.

    To Ryan: I believe the electoral college is important because it takes the element of direct democracy out of the choosing of the President. The electoral college was created to balance not only the power of larger states, but also to give voice and electoral power to the voting minority, allowing them to have a voice, and not be drowned out (that is to say, slowing or preventing tyranny of the majority that is the bane of direct democracy). In other words, it is to protect voters in rural Nebraska from being totally dominated by voters in places like New York City, and Los Angeles. I think it is important to prevent total majority rule, and I believe that the Electoral College is a bulwark against that possibility.
  • Rudi
    Microsoft "computer science" helped win the cold war.

    No - The operating system on military equipment is similar to Unix. If MS ran the OS on the Abrams tank we would be a Russian province...
  • You know, it isn't as if we have to choose whether to teach our kids about computers or about civics. A primary education lasts twelve years, we can pack a lot into that. We could pack even more if we would abandon the agricultural based school calendar and quit wasting half the school year either reviewing or preparing for high stakes testing.
  • mvy
    The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
    Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
  • mvy
    The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

    The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.

    The bill is currently endorsed by 1,659 state legislators — 763 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 896 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

    The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

    See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
  • mvy
    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware --75%, Maine -- 71%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 73% , Massachusetts -- 73%, New York -- 79%, and Washington -- 77%.

    see www.NationalPopularVote.com
  • mvy
    What the Founding Fathers said in the U.S. Constitution about how electors should be awarded is: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

    Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

    In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote.

    In 1789 only three states used the winner-take-all rule.

    There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.

    As a result of changes in state laws, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.


    The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.
  • mvy
    The people vote for President now in all 50 states and have done so in most states for 200 years.

    So, the issue raised by the National Popular Vote legislation is not about whether there will be "mob rule" in presidential elections, but whether the "mob" in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, get disproportionate attention from presidential candidates, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states.

    The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
  • mvy
    The small states are the most disadvantaged of all under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus.

    Small states are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Only 1 of the 13 smallest states are battleground states (and only 5 of the 25 smallest states are battlegrounds).

    Of the 13 smallest states, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska regularly vote Republican, and Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC regularly vote Democratic. These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has "only" 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 smallest states as important as an Ohio voter.

    The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically "radioactive" in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.

    In small states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by a total of eight state legislative chambers, including one house in Delaware and Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by Hawaii.
  • mvy
    Most of the medium-small states (with five or six electoral votes) are similarly non-competitive in presidential elections (and therefore similarly disadvantaged). In fact, of the 22 medium-smallest states (those with three, four, five, or six electoral votes), only New Hampshire (with four electoral votes), New Mexico (five electoral votes), and Nevada (five electoral votes) have been battleground states in recent elections.

    Because so few of the 22 small and medium-small states are closely divided battleground states in presidential elections, the current system actually shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in a handful of big states. The New York Times reported early in 2008 (May 11, 2008) that both major political parties were already in agreement that there would be at most 14 battleground states in 2008 (involving only 166 of the 538 electoral votes). In other words, three-quarters of the states were ignored under the current system in the 2008 election. Michigan (17 electoral votes), Ohio (20), Pennsylvania (21), and Florida (27) contain over half of the electoral votes that mattered in 2008 (85 of the 166 electoral votes). There were only three battleground states among the 22 small and medium-small states (i.e., New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Nevada). These three states contain only 14 of the 166 electoral votes. Anyone concerned about the relative power of big states and small states should realize that the current system shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in a handful of big states.
  • mvy
    The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and that a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However, if anyone is concerned about the this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states -- that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.

    Of course, the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely act in concert on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five "red" states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

    Moreover, the notion that any candidate could win 100% of the vote in one group of states and 0% in another group of states is far-fetched. Indeed, among the 11 most populous states, the highest levels of popular support were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
    * Texas (62% Republican),
    * New York (59% Democratic),
    * Georgia (58% Republican),
    * North Carolina (56% Republican),
    * Illinois (55% Democratic),
    * California (55% Democratic), and
    * New Jersey (53% Democratic).

    In addition, the margins generated by the nation's largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
    * Texas -- 1,691,267 Republican
    * New York -- 1,192,436 Democratic
    * Georgia -- 544,634 Republican
    * North Carolina -- 426,778 Republican
    * Illinois -- 513,342 Democratic
    * California -- 1,023,560 Democratic
    * New Jersey -- 211,826 Democratic

    To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 votes for Bush in 2004.
  • mvy
    When presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as in Ohio and Florida, the big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004.

    Likewise, under a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.

    Another way to look at this is that there are approximately 300 million Americans. The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities is only 19% of the population of the United States. Even if one makes the far-fetched assumption that a candidate could win 100% of the votes in the nation's top five cities, he would only have won 6% of the national vote.

    Further evidence of the way a nationwide presidential campaign would be run comes from the way that national advertisers conduct nationwide sales campaigns. National advertisers seek out customers in small, medium, and large towns of every small, medium, and large state. National advertisers do not advertise only in big cities. Instead, they go after every single possible customer, regardless of where the customer is located. National advertisers do not write off Indiana or Illinois merely because their competitor has an 8% lead in sales in those states. And, a national advertiser with an 8%-edge over its competitor does not stop trying to make additional sales in Indiana or Illinois merely because they are in the lead.
  • mvy
    The National Popular Vote bill is supported by "the voting minority."

    The Asian American Action Fund, Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action, NAACP, National Latino Congreso, and National Black Caucus of State Legislators endorse a national popular vote for president.

    The influence of minority voters has decreased tremendously as the number of battleground states dwindles. For example, in 1976, 73% of blacks lived in battleground states. In 2004, that proportion fell to a mere 17%.

    Battleground states are the only states that matter in presidential elections. Campaigns are tailored to address the issues that matter to voters in these states.

    Safe red and blue states are considered a waste of time, money and energy to candidates. These "spectator" states receive no campaign attention, visits or ads. Their concerns are utterly ignored.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC