Posted on 06/30/2007 12:18:22 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Is it possible? Is it really possible to have too much democracy? Isn't democracy what the war in Iraq is about? Isn't democracy what all previous wars were about? How, then, can it be possible to have too much democracy?
If you're the only sheep among a group of wolves voting on what to have for dinner, you might want some limitation on democracy.
On the other hand, if you voted for Al Gore in 2000, you probably dislike the limitation on democracy that the Electoral College places on the election of the president. In fact, since 2000, there has been a growing effort to abolish the Electoral College in favor of election of the president by direct popular vote.
Sadly, schools stopped teaching about the Electoral College – and why it was written into the Constitution – a few generations ago. Consequently, when Hillary Clinton and others say it's time to abolish it, there's little public outcry, and less resistance.
The Electoral College is an ingenious scheme to balance the power among small and larger states. Without the Electoral College, a few large states could elect the president, and the small states would be left completely out of the voting. But the wisdom of our founders foiled the monopoly of power for the big states.
Under the present "winner-take-all" Electoral College system, the winner of the popular vote in a state gets all the state's delegates to the Electoral College (except in Maine and Nebraska).
This means a candidate may receive one vote less than 50 percent of the popular vote and get no votes in the Electoral College from that state. This is how Al Gore stacked up more popular votes than George Bush in 2000, but the distribution of the Electoral College delegates, awarded on a winner-take-all basis, pushed Bush over the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win the presidency.
Maine and Nebraska do not use the winner-take-all distribution of Electoral College votes. They assign delegates on the basis of the winner of the congressional districts. If candidate A wins a particular congressional district, then the delegates from that district are awarded to candidate A, regardless of who gets the most votes in the state.
In 2007, no less than 41 states considered, or are considering, some change in the winner-take-all system of the Electoral College. It would take a constitutional amendment to repeal the Electoral College outright, which would be extremely difficult to do. But changing the way delegates are awarded does not require any constitutional amendment; it requires only legislative action. The result could very well be the same as repealing the Electoral College.
This is not an issue that has gained a lot of press. It has gained a lot of work and a lot of money from folks who don't like the Electoral College, but most folks have no idea that this effort is under way.
It is entirely possible that one day in the not too distant future, the Electoral College will become an exercise in futility, and the president of the United States will be elected by New York, California, Florida, Pennsylvania and another large state or two. Wonderful – if you live in these areas and agree with the politics practiced there. Horrible – if you live in Utah, Wyoming, Alaska, Arkansas and other small states that may disagree with the politics of the big states.
The current system forces candidates to visit both large and small states and listen to the concerns of the people. The current system forces candidates to be equally concerned about winning the Electoral College delegates in small states and large states. The current system – as is the case with the rest of our Constitution – has proven to be the best system of self-governance yet devised. Those who pester it do so at great peril to current and future generations.
Case in point: for all who are totally disgusted with the bickering and political posturing that has become the norm in the U.S. Senate – and, therefore, in Congress – consider what the political landscape might be like in Washington today had not the 17Th Amendment been ratified – and all senators were chosen by the state, rather than by popular vote. The 17th Amendment gave us a little too much democracy.
The United States of America is a republic, unique in its structure, sovereign by the consent of the governed, expressed through the election of representatives empowered by the people to effect public policy. This government has produced greater freedom and prosperity than previously known in all of history. The effort to bypass the Electoral College is an effort to tinker with the structure of this government. Woe be unto the one(s) who weaken the foundation of the world's best hope for freedom.
In Maryand, the Legislature proposed that the Electoral votes of MD be awarded to the candidate with the plurality of the NATIONAL popular vote, making it futile for MD voters to even cast their ballots.
I was amazed that it wasn't being taught in the schools, so I educated my kids about it myself.
It came up once at a discussion during the 2004 election and some of our friends said they didn't know how all that worked.
I was a proud Dad when my 12 year old daughter, who was standing by, piped up and said "I know how that works", and proceeded to explain what it is and why it was written into the Constitution.
Doesn’t one of the Midwestern states split their electoral votes (which is also extremely unwise)?
Lamb is wrong about the efficacy of the 17th amendment. Far from being a good thing it has removed any control of the people OR the states from the Senate and made it a body controlled entirely by the National Parties.
Otherwise, his article was OK for a brief overview.... all too brief, unfortunately.
Ping for later read.
aving
One of the checks prevents election by popular vote. It is by popular vote that Hitler gained power. All dictators claim to have been “elected” by the people.
The function of the Electoral College is a brilliant system of preventing mob-rule. It’s too bad the system is not taught in government schools.
The Left has been very careful in deciding what is and isn’t taught in public schools.
SAVING THIS ONE
There was a lot of discussion of the electoral college system back in late 2000 at the time of Gore's attempt to steal the Florida electoral votes. One argument that was made was that without the electoral college, which turns the election into 51 contests, the two-party system would break down.
The District of Columbia has cast electoral votes since 1964 and always for the Democrat nominee, but since 1964 there is no state which has cast its electoral votes for the same party in every election.
Perhaps you are right. I thought he was saying the original idea was too much and the amendment “fixed” the problem.
mark
The Electoral College is also a check on election fraud, and mitigates the effects of regional natural disasters/severe weather. It also makes it possible to do recounts...can anyone imagine doing the Florida thing throughout the whole country?
I keep looking but I can never find the word Democracy in the Constitution.
Where do these people keep getting this idea that we have mob rule?
Great point. How much effect can the few million (don’t have the exact population statistics) people in Maryland have compared to the 10s of millions of people in California, New York, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and my own state of Texas. Voters in most red states and half of the blue states might as well not even bother showing up.
Same with Colorado.
Nebraska and Maine do, based on who wins the Congressional districts. Whoever wins the most votes statewide wins the two leftover EVs. It was discussed as a possibility that Maine might split its two districts between Bush and Kerry, but that never came to fruition. Nebraska’s CD’s usually go 60-70% R, so it wasn’t an issue there.
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.