Posted on 01/17/2018 5:21:04 AM PST by Kaslin
Hillary Clinton blamed the Electoral College for her stunning defeat in the 2016 presidential election in her latest memoirs, "What Happened?" Some have claimed that the Electoral College is one of the most dangerous institutions in American politics. Why? They say the Electoral College system, as opposed to a simple majority vote, distorts the one-person, one-vote principle of democracy because electoral votes are not distributed according to population.
To back up their claim, they point out that the Electoral College gives, for example, Wyoming citizens disproportionate weight in a presidential election. Put another way, Wyoming, a state with a population of about 600,000, has one member in the U.S. House of Representatives and two members in the U.S. Senate, which gives the citizens of Wyoming three electoral votes, or one electoral vote per 200,000 people. California, our most populous state, has more than 39 million people and 55 electoral votes, or approximately one vote per 715,000 people. Comparatively, individuals in Wyoming have nearly four times the power in the Electoral College as Californians.
Many people whine that using the Electoral College instead of the popular vote and majority rule is undemocratic. I'd say that they are absolutely right. Not deciding who will be the president by majority rule is not democracy. But the Founding Fathers went to great lengths to ensure that we were a republic and not a democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution or any other of our founding documents.
How about a few quotations expressed by the Founders about democracy? In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison wanted to prevent rule by majority faction, saying, "Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." John Adams warned in a letter, "Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide." Edmund Randolph said, "That in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." Then-Chief Justice John Marshall observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."
The Founders expressed contempt for the tyranny of majority rule, and throughout our Constitution, they placed impediments to that tyranny. Two houses of Congress pose one obstacle to majority rule. That is, 51 senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators. The president can veto the wishes of 535 members of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto. To change the Constitution requires not a majority but a two-thirds vote of both houses, and if an amendment is approved, it requires ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures. Finally, the Electoral College is yet another measure that thwarts majority rule. It makes sure that the highly populated states -- today, mainly 12 on the East and West coasts, cannot run roughshod over the rest of the nation. That forces a presidential candidate to take into consideration the wishes of the other 38 states.
Those Americans obsessed with rule by popular majorities might want to get rid of the U.S. Senate, where states, regardless of population, have two senators. Should we change representation in the House of Representatives to a system of proportional representation and eliminate the guarantee that each state gets at least one representative? Currently, seven states with populations of 1 million or fewer have one representative, thus giving them disproportionate influence in Congress. While we're at it, should we make all congressional acts be majority rule? When we're finished with establishing majority rule in Congress, should we then move to change our court system, which requires unanimity in jury decisions, to a simple majority rule?
My question is: Is it ignorance of or contempt for our Constitution that fuels the movement to abolish the Electoral College?
I recall reading somewhere that for many years, “democracy” was a bad word in civics as it represented (beyond moderated, controlled circumstances) mob rule.
It does, if you think about it.
Cali has 52electoral votes. WY is 2? Looks to me the EC is based on population and the electors based on population.
Silly Hillary, Democracies are for Thugs....
It is a good thing we are not a “democracy”- simple majority vote type of electoral process.
I find it hard to believe that so many folks think we are a democracy. No where in our founding principles is the word found to my knowledge. Rather, we are clearly a representative republic- a form of government where all power to govern is vested in the people, who then form a government to secure their rights ( while giving some liberty up for common society) and we elect people directly who then speak for the body politic.
The separation of influence from direct election through the lens of representative principles checks the mass/mob rule tendencies of a population. We change things by increments, not saber slashes.
Goodness Lady, even school kids know that bullying is wrong-that’s why we have adults supervising school kids- to assure that the most popular/powerful munchkin doesn’t injure everyone else....
How’s that “Foundation” working out for you these days?
I think they are right. What we should do is vote based on county. Most counties won in the state gets the electoral votes. This way a city like Philly where it is normal for 105% of the population to vote only gets one point. If illegals in LA county want to cheat, go ahead. It’s still only one point. Add up the points, assign the electoral votes.
Now, not only is it one man one vote, but you also have a built in fail safe to prevent cheating. What are the rats going to say?
WY has 3; every state has at least three...
Art II-...a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state is entitled in the congress...
Wyoming has 3 electoral votes. No state has less.
Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, New York City, Newark, Baltimore and Miami are all enemies of the Republic
I could agree to counties, but there are how many? 3144 is a lot of entities to monitor. Perhaps the founders originally were correct to assign electors/representatives based on a fixed population within a geographic boundary- originally the number was not more that one representative per 30,000 people. Today, with a population of 315 million, that would be a lot of representatives..... some 10,500-
The 435 number is fixed by law since 1911- I guess too many makes for an unwieldy process? Or they thought too many makes the peoples voice more clear?
I do like the county example- 3144 is better the 435 and is better than 10500. Whatever the number, it has to be an odd one so no ties can occur.
1. A state gets only two senators no matter the population.
2. The senate created rules requiring a super majority rather than a simple majority to pass most legislation.
Do they want to do away with the Senate too?
They say the Electoral College system, as opposed to a simple majority vote, distorts the one-person, one-vote principle of democracy because electoral votes are not distributed according to population.
.
Imagine a “recount” of a national popular vote election. Am I the only one who remembers Florida 2000? How is recount not part of this conversation?
If they’re going to get all huffy about it, then let’s repeal the 17th Amendment, and return appointment of a State’s Senators back to the State legislatures.
As envisioned by the Founders, to give the States (as sovereign entities) a voice in the Government (Article I, Section 3). Likely the most effective way to (a) reduce the “big money problem” in the Senatorial races, and (b) keep Senators’ performance closer to their constituents expectations.
As a California taxpayer, I have to question why I am subsidizing the decadent lifestyle of, say, a Wisconsinite, so that he may rule over me come Election Day.
Many years indeed, the point was made by Plato around 400BC.
The original intent of having a bicameral legislative branch was to assure that the states had an equal say in how things transpired. The popular election of senators has defeated this balancing and is directly opposed to the founding principle of the body.
I truly can't see how the elimination of the U.S. Senate could harm (aside from the already mentioned consent function) the effectiveness, responsiveness or representativeness of the government in any way.
Nice summary.
Instead of senators actually representing their states and balancing the presumed more populist views of the House of Representatives the senate has become
more of a legislative impediment than a positive force.
Their various in-house rules that allow one senator, or a small group of senators, to undermine the collective will of all other legislators combined
is not something envisioned by the Founders or in keeping with the intent of the constitution.
Even at best, with honorable and patriotic men, the senate as we know it today would not be in keeping with the constitution or the general will of the people.
But with the avaricious blackguards and hate mongers who commonly populate the senate it is more a force for mischief and evil than anything else.
It is easy to understand why the senate, collectively, has a lower approval rating than used car salesmen and bill collectors.
Thks
Donald Trump - The Echo of our Framers' Uncorrupted President.
The problem seems to be that Woodrow Wilson referred to the first world war as the “War to protect democracy”. Once the press took up the habit of referring to the country as a democracy and touting the virtues of democracy people began to forget what it really meant. Most people now seem to think that words can be tossed like a salad with no concern for real meanings, “decimate” is just one example, it is used daily by meany people who have no idea of its original meaning. They think it means essentially the same thing as to destroy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.