12/29/2004
Hands Off The Electoral College~!
December 27, 2004
The intense media focus on the divide between “red” and “blue” states in the wake of the presidential election has raised new questions regarding our federal voting system. One U.S. Senator has promised to introduce legislation to abolish the electoral college, claiming it is an anachronism that serves no good purpose in modern politics. Her stated goal is “simply to allow the popular will of the American people to be expressed every four years when we elect our president.” Many Americans agree, arguing that the man receiving the most votes should win; anything else would be unfair. In other words, they believe the American political system should operate as a direct democracy.
The problem, of course, is that our country is not a democracy. Our nation was founded as a constitutionally limited republic, as any grammar school child knew just a few decades ago. Remember the Pledge of Allegiance: “and to the Republic for which it stands”? The Founding Fathers were concerned with liberty, not democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. On the contrary, Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution is quite clear: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government” (emphasis added).
The emphasis on democracy in our modern political discourse has no historical or constitutional basis. Yet we have become obsessed with democracy, as though any government action would be permissible if a majority of voters simply approved of it. Democracy has become a sacred cow, a deity which no one dares question. Democracy, we are told, is always good. But the founders created a constitutionally limited republic precisely to protect fundamental liberties from the whims of the masses, to guard against the excesses of democracy. The electoral college likewise was created in the Constitution to guard against majority tyranny in federal elections. The President was to be elected by the states rather than the citizenry as a whole, with votes apportioned to states according to their representation in Congress. The will of the people was to be tempered by the wisdom of the electoral college.
By contrast, election of the President by pure popular vote totals would damage statehood. Populated areas on both coasts would have increasing influence on national elections, to the detriment of less populated southern and western states. A candidate receiving a large percentage of the popular vote in California and New York could win a national election with very little support in dozens of other states! A popular vote system simply would intensify the populist pandering which already dominates national campaigns.
Not surprisingly, calls to abolish the electoral college system are heard most loudly among left elites concentrated largely on the two coasts. Liberals favor a very strong centralized federal government, and have contempt for the concept of states’ rights (a contempt now shared, unfortunately, by the Republican Party). They believe in federalizing virtually every area of law, leaving states powerless to challenge directives sent down from Washington. The electoral college system threatens liberals because it allows states to elect the president, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Citizens in southern and western states in particular tend to value individual liberty, property rights, gun rights, and religious freedom, values which are abhorrent to the collectivist elites. The collectivists care about centralized power, not democracy. Their efforts to discredit the electoral college system are an attempt to limit the voting power of pro-liberty states.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
December 29th, 2004 at 8:33 pm
Spot on. Kerry almost won the election by carring 17 states. Recently, the only way Democrats can be competitive in national campaigns is pursue a “big state” strategy. Kerry won 7 of the 10 largest…a recipe for victory without the electoral college.
I make some points similar to yours in this post of mine from last October:
http://rightwingnuthouse.blogspot.com/2004/10/save-electoral-college.html
“What is the electoral college and do they have a football team?”
December 29th, 2004 at 8:55 pm
Excellent piece, Rick. My feeling is it’s important to understand how the system is supposed to work so we can stand in the way of the people who are trying to destroy it.
December 30th, 2004 at 2:41 pm
Exactly… People should understand the intentions of the founder in creating the electoral college… That way, they would see the it, in its current state, is nothing close to what they wanted.
Their intention was not for the people to vote for a candidate, but vote for someone in their state who they trusted to be wise enough to go to DC, get together with the other electoral college selectees, and debate for a couple days about who would be the best president, and then vote. If you want a good model of what the founders wanted, look at some of the older party conventions (pre-’64) where no one really knew who the candidate was going to be before the final vote. Originally, the Vice President was the person running for president who had the second most electoral college votes. This was changes with the 12th amendment.
The founders designed it this way because they did not want a party system to develope. But it did, and the electoral college is nothing like what they had envisioned. The current system does not work because it does not work out to a one man- one vote system. A person living and voting in North Dakota has a more weighted vote than someone living in California. And there is precedent for changing how we vote for elected officials. Originally Senators were chosen by the state legislatures. This was changes with the 17th amendment.
So, as you see, the electoral college was NOT what the founders envisioned would probably have not set it up like it is if they had known how it would have turned out. Maing the arguement that we can’t change the system BECAUSE it was what the founders wanted just doesn’t hold water.
Just my two cents…
December 30th, 2004 at 2:46 pm
You should read Rick’s piece. The two-party system, functioning through the winner-take-all Electoral College, is the best mechanism for maintaining a stable federal republic and avoiding the horrors of a splintered democracy.
Italy is an excellent example of why democracy through proportional representation must be avoided. In Italy, where 127 political parties vie for dominance, 57 governments have been in control since World War II. None lasted as long as three years; two lasted only 11 days. Constant turmoil is the inevitable consequence of proportional representation. Tyranny of the majority is the inevitable consequence of a pure democracy.
December 30th, 2004 at 2:58 pm
I did read his piece. I had no problems with his piece. I disagree, but it made some good points. I was referring to your comment. And, BTW, most nations have proportional representation with multiple parties and are quite stable. Italy is only one extreme. Sounds like you prefer something like the one party system…
December 30th, 2004 at 3:07 pm
What is it that you didn’t agree with? I thought it was very good. The Founding Fathers had seen the dangers of placing ultimate power into a single set of human hands. Accordingly, they feared that placing unlimited power to elect the president into the politically naive hands of the people could lead to a “tyranny of the majority.” In response, they created the Electoral College system as a process to insulate the selection of the president from the whims of the public. The Founding Fathers also felt the Electoral College system would enforce the concept of federalism — the division and sharing of powers between the state and national governments.
I don’t see how we could even go to a one party system. I think the two parties should define themselves more clearly, which will probably never happen. IMHO, the Republican party should stand for our republic-as seen through the eyes of our founders, and be working more toward preserving the documents and the spirit of the 3 branches. Actually, maybe you’re right, now that I think of it. Right now the socialists have a good grip on the democratic party, if that would go away…it would be best for everyone.
When you suggest a one-party system, I’m afraid that it would become a socialist system, which is where we’re headed–which dashes everything.
No, two parties, thank you. And neither of them should be socialist.
December 30th, 2004 at 8:01 pm
It’s “Thankyou” (One word) and socialism speaks for itself… social values! Rightwing politics are old and don’t work with progression of ethics. When will you daft backward greedy Yanks wake up and see that the Earth despises your stupid outdated methods of paranoic expression? I sympathise with the majority of decent Americans who have to live under your damned ‘democracy’ which, in itself…is a joke!
December 30th, 2004 at 8:14 pm
No, actually if you look it up it’s thank you, so says Princeton University. But I wouldn’t expect an IDIOT to know that.
Yeah it’s so outdated that Bush won. When are you guys going to stop whining about losing? Pathetic.
Yeah it’s so outdated that people are worrying about the future for the democratic party–they’re so out of touch with mainstream America.
It’s so outdated that democrats talk openly about how they’re going to fool us into voting for them. “How do we make sure the Americans don’t know what we’re really thinking? Let’s get a Southerner. Let’s talk about Jesus. Let’s talk about NASCAR–white Southern guys seem to like that. Let’s see…if we could get general on the ticket, Americans will forget how much we hate the military and long to see America humiliated.”
Don’t you know we’re onto you?
December 30th, 2004 at 8:24 pm
(Superhawk sighs deeply, realizing that if people like Mr. Goldstein ever got their hands on the levers of power, it could very well mean the end of “representative” democracy and the beginning of “peoples” democracy…you know, like in Cuba, Viet Nam, North Korea, and other enlightened nations where democracy REALLY works…just as long as you agree with people like Mr. Goldstein.)
December 30th, 2004 at 8:29 pm
“When will you daft backward greedy Yanks wake up and see that the Earth despises your stupid outdated methods of paranoic expression?”
How depressing, BTW, to think that poor old Mother Earth despises our “outdated methods…???”
And what’s this “paranoic” expression? Is that like twisting my face into some kind of horrible Freddy Krueger like grimace and falling upon unsuspecting teenagers in their dreams?
I hope this guy comes back, Cao…he’s FUN!
December 30th, 2004 at 8:40 pm
There’s something here that’s attracting them like flies, Rick. I just put things in writing and they come scurrying out from the crevices of the great beyond so my friends and I can deliver the “smack down”. I’m getting a kick out of it, too!