The Electoral College was designed to protect America from a demogogue like Obama

Men for Palin Blog ^ | October 30, 2008 | Charlie Fairbanks

[Charlie Fairbanks]

As the dynamic race between the McCain-Palin ticket and the Obama-Biden ticket hurtles toward Election Day, many respected private analysts have predicted that there is a very strong possibility that McCain-Palin will win an Electoral College victory despite the fact that Obama-Biden will win the popular vote nationwide. The Founders’ vision was of a body of electors that would protect the Republic from masters of the political arts who would not best serve the nation. If the Electoral College defeats the popular vote, then in this case, it is doing its job.

In six weeks, America will elect a new president. No, this is not an outdated blog entry. According to the process established in Article II and codified in Title 3 of the United States code takes place in two phases. First, on November 4, there will be presidential elections each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia. Each of those fifty-one separate elections, the popular vote will decide a slate of electors, who then meet on December 15 in accordance with the law to select the president and vice president.

The Electoral College is a cornerstone of our unique federalist sytem. In The Federalist No. 68: The Mode of Electing the President, Alexander Hamilton (pictured above) explained that the Electoral College was designed to protect the nation from a demogogue. Hamilton was concerned with candidates with “ . . . talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity . . .” who might be able to persuade voters in some states to elect them, but the system should not allow those same arts and talents to elevate a candidate to Commander-in-Chief.

A demogogue is standing on the doorstep of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Senator Obama has not won a debate over policy. Senator Obama has not won a debate over the relative credentials of the two candidates. Those debates have been obscured by several elements, the chief of which are: (1) the power of not a mountain, but an entire mountain range of campaign money; (2) the power of a corrupt news media that is in the tank for the Obama campaign; and (3) the powerful rhetorical gifts that the Almighty has bestowed on Senator Obama. With those advantages, Senator Obama has transformed his image from that of the most liberal, most anti-military, most anti-family and most anti-growth Senator in America into a sort of friendly Rockefeller Republican.

But no, Senator Obama is no centrist. And for sure, this campaign has been no Lincoln-Douglas debate. Senator Obama has made a naked appeal to emotion, to race, and to fear of the Republican Bogeyman, President George W. Bush. It is a disingenuous appeal, devoid of factual basis and supported by a widespread confederacy of voter registration crooks (ACORN).

Despite the total emptiness of the Obama rhetoric, Senator Obama appears to have a popular vote lead. He will no doubt increase the Kerry/Gore margins of victory in big states such as New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Michigan and California, states that have not been the subject of contest by both sides. While he may increase Democratic vote totals in those states, he will not gain any more electoral votes. Obama can increase margins in those states without winning Ohio, Florida or Missouri, and perhaps without winning Pennsylvania.

The result would then be that Obama would win the constitutionally-irrelevant national popular vote while losing the consitutionally-important electoral vote. Millions of emotional Obama supporters would cry foul. Their cries would make the nation long for the far more placid days of whining and lawyers in the wake of AL Gore’s defeat in 2000. Many experts anticipate rioting and unrest in the wake of such a result, with the attendant contrived constitutional crisis.

But would it be a tragedy? No. Would it be wrong? No. Modern scholars argue that the Electoral College is designed to protect us from a tyrrany of the majority, and that it is a key component of our federalist system that will help protect us from total domination of our lives by the ever-expanding federal government. If the election resutls in a split result, then so be it: The Electoral College will have served its purpose by protecting the nation from the massive expansion of federal power that will surely happen if there is no president McCain to veto the expansion of federal power that Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reed have in store for us.

[Ruth C]

Wait for it! When Obama loses the Electoral College there will again be a big move to abolish that part of our election process. And, with the media firmly in the far left camp there will be a full on press to change the constitution.

[Rocko]

And we'll continue to fight to marginalize the LSM.

[VOR78]

Too late. Several states are already pushing a system whereby their electoral votes would be guaranteed to go to the popular vote winner. Its not binding for the entire country, but once they have enough states to break the 270 EV mark, it will become law in those particular states:

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/explanation.php

[dragonblustar]

I’m sure the democrats are working on how to cheat that too. Bob Beckel tried to persuade some members of the electoral college to vote for Democrats

[geologist]

excerpt

“The Electoral College is a cornerstone of our unique federalist sytem. In The Federalist No. 68: The Mode of Electing the President, Alexander Hamilton (pictured above) explained that the Electoral College was designed to protect the nation from a demogogue. Hamilton was concerned with candidates with “ . . . talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity . . .” who might be able to persuade voters in some states to elect them, but the system should not allow those same arts and talents to elevate a candidate to Commander-in-Chief.

A demogogue is standing on the doorstep of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Senator Obama has not won a debate over policy. Senator Obama has not won a debate over the relative credentials of the two candidates. Those debates have been obscured by several elements, the chief of which are: (1) the power of not a mountain, but an entire mountain range of campaign money; (2) the power of a corrupt news media that is in the tank for the Obama campaign; and (3) the powerful rhetorical gifts that the Almighty has bestowed on Senator Obama. With those advantages, Senator Obama has transformed his image from that of the most liberal, most anti-military, most anti-family and most anti-growth Senator in America into a sort of friendly Rockefeller Republican. “

___________________________________________________________

Important to remember.

Thank you for posting this article..

I needed the reminder and hope .

[ncfool]

Let’s pray for a McCain election.

[Ruth C]

There was a movement in CA to split the electoral votes according to what the person won in popular vote. For CA that would be a big plus for the Republicans, but in states that are generally Republican that would be a minus. There’s a down side to everything except getting McCain/Palin elected! :)

[Sequoyah101]

While this is as I understand it is supposed to work isn’t it likely that BO will now carry a majority of electorial votes? At least per the polling which I have little faith in.

Moreover, who are those in the electorial college and will they or can they vote their conscience and not the direction indicated by the electorate?

Only in 1888 (HARRISON vs. Cleveland) and 1876 (HAYES vs. Tilden) have the electorial college numbers changed the popular vote.

http://www.100bestwebsites.org/alt/evmaps/electoral-maps.htm

[Busywhiskers]

It worked in the case of Al Gore.

[pepsi_junkie]

Hamilton was concerned with candidates with “ . . . talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity . . .” who might be able to persuade voters in some states to elect them, but the system should not allow those same arts and talents to elevate a candidate to Commander-in-Chief.

Hamilton was from a different time when in order to be elected to the Presidency you had to be a towering figure, known to all because you simply couldn't effectively campaign across the breadth and width of the nation. An unworthy demagogue could gain local support but not widespread support across all the states.

But now, with mass media and airplanes, an unknown and unaccomplished person can rise rapidly nationwide. The electoral college provides some buffer but nowhere near the insurmountable barrier it was in the 18th century.

[Charlie Fairbanks]

Thank you for your interest. What I didn't say was that the Electoral College can help prevent the tyranny of the secular humanists that emanates from the cities. They don't seem to want to take a live and let live strategy. They want to impose secular values on the rest of the nation. Best wishes.

[Charlie Fairbanks]

Excellent point. It is not insurmountable. There are different methods of persuasion today, but the genius of the constitution is that it provides checks and balances that are timeless.

[adc]

I know one of those states. . . it’s the one I live in, NJ.
Corzine was at work there.

Unlike Sarah Palin, known as one of the most popular gov’s in the country, John Corzine, the other ONE who bought an election, is considered one of the WORST in the country, especially here in NJ.

[supercat]

Several states are already pushing a system whereby their electoral votes would be guaranteed to go to the popular vote winner.

Any state which didn't like that idea could pass a law providing that the official vote totals for the top two candidates would be aggregated; the individual vote totals for the top two candidates would be released to the runner-up candidate, but would not be released to the public until after the EC vote, unless the runner-up candidate requested general release.

So if Joe Quimby loses Fredonia by 2,000,000 votes but the popular vote outside Fredonia would leave him ahead by 1,000,000, Mr. Quimby can decline to have the precise vote totals in Fredonia released. Joe's opponent gets Fredonia's EC votes, but it would be impossible for anyone to show that Joe lost the popular vote until after the EC had voted.

Is there any reason that anyone besides the runner up would have standing to demand the release of the breakdown of votes between the top two finishers? The top finisher gets all the Fredonian EC votes to which he's entitled, so he has no basis for complaint. If Joe is satisfied that his opponent is entitled to those EC votes, I see no reason anyone else should squawk. If the number three candidate's vote total can't possibly exceed half the combined total for the top two candidates, there's no way he can be the top finisher. If it's close enough to require a recount, aggregate the top two finishers when reporting the recount results. If the revised number of votes for the apparent #3 finisher is at least half the total number of votes for the apparent first two candidates, the apparent #3 finisher must be either the winner or runner up, and thus would have the right to demand the release of the totals.