The provision gradually being voted out of existence is important, as it balances power between large and small states in national elections and limits the influence that one highly populated region can wield in determining who will be President of the United States. The Constitutional provision is commonly misunderstood, as most voters never take the time to read Article V of the Constitution, and is thus easily misrepresented in the media by groups who favor eliminating the Electoral College. These groups cite arguments for the change that are disingenuous statistically and historically, yet they rely on voter ignorance to achieve their goal.
Americans should always be wary of any movement that claims the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned a particular circumstance and thus the Constitution must be altered to reflect “reality” or “modern developments.” In the case of the movement to abolish the Electoral College, the motive of the movement’s ardent supporters should be closely evaluated. In sound bites and news articles, the leaders of this movement claim to be fighting for minorities, for “making votes count,” and for the winner of the popular vote to automatically be elected. What is the reason for this renewed any rapidly advancing campaign to eliminate the Electoral College and republican system? Why, George W. Bush, of course.
Four times in American electoral history, the winner of the popular vote did not win the Electoral College and was denied the presidency, in 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000. While some dissatisfaction with the Electoral College system arose from the first three of these occurrences, the 2000 election which denied Al Gore of victory generated multiple recounts, court decisions, and accusations of dishonesty unparalleled in U.S. history. No president since Abraham Lincoln took office with more animosity and bitter division confronting him than George W. Bush. Opponents immediately declared his presidency to be illegitimate because “the people” had chosen Al Gore. The rancor this electoral environment produced has hampered the Bush administration and has given added impetus to the current drive to abolish the Electoral College. Although that movement disguises itself as an innocent lamb Constitutional improvement, it is in reality a dangerous wolf counting on Anti-Bush sentiment to assure the desired change.
Maryland’s legislature recently approved a measure that will guarantee its Electoral College votes will automatically be given to the winner of the popular vote. Some Maryland legislators questioned the wisdom of giving away the state’s 10 Electoral College votes to a candidate the majority of its own voters may not have chosen, but the anti-Bush hotheads succeeded in passing the measure. State legislators have cleverly understood that changing the U.S. Constitution to abolish the Electoral College is a very lengthy and difficult process, while changing their own state constitutions can achieve the same end by simpler means. By automatically assigning a state’s Electoral College votes to the popular vote winner, the Electoral College would no longer have the ability to serve the purpose for which it was created: balancing power between large (highly populated) and smaller states. The Electors’ votes would be meaningless.
The recent World Net Daily article about this issue refers to two groups: one, National Popular Vote, is spearheading the drive to abolish the Electoral College. The other, Wallbuilders, is advocating against the change and for preservation of our government as a republic rather than a true democracy. The Wallbuilders Internet site offers historical explanations for the origins of the Electoral College, and detailed counterarguments to the claims that the Electoral College is undemocratic, outdated, unfair, discriminatory, or ineffective in balancing power. It is worth reviewing, as this movement to destroy our republican form of government appears to be gaining momentum.
Of equal importance, Wallbuilders also debunks the dangerously false assertion that the Founding Fathers would embrace the proposed change to a virtual democracy rather than a republic. Those who argue that the Founders never intended for a popular vote winner to lose an election have clearly never read, or are choosing to ignore, both Article V of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, both of which strenuously work to convince Americans to avoid a popular democracy. The founders, in fact, mandated that all state governments also be republics rather than democracies. The following quotes from Founders illustrate that they knew the difference between a republic and a democracy and wisely chose a republic, courtesy of Wallbuilders:
[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. James Madison
Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. John Adams
A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way. The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness [excessive license] which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be, liberty. Fisher Ames, a framer of the bill of rights
We have seen the tumults of democracy terminate . . . as [it has] everywhere terminated, in despotism. . . . Democracy! savage and wild. Thou who wouldst bring down the virtuous and wise to thy level of folly and guilt. Gouverneur Morris, signer and penman of the constitution
[T]he experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating, and short-lived. John Quincy Adams
A simple democracy . . . is one of the greatest of evils. Benjamin Rush, signer of the declaration
In democracy . . . there are commonly tumults and disorders. . . . Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth. Noah Webster, responsible for article i, section i, ¶ 8 of the constitution
Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state — it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage. John Witherspoon, signer of the declaration
The desire for large, densely populated states to wield more influence on elections has not changed since the days of the Founders. One need only look at the recent decisions by California, Florida, and several other large states to move their election year primaries to February to see why small states need protection. Why was this done? Simply, large states felt that smaller, insignificant (in their view) small states like Iowa and New Hampshire were having too much influence on national elections through their early primaries and caucuses. These same large states are also championing the back door approach to abolishing the Electoral College by passing state legislation dictating that Electoral votes are given to the popular winner nationwide.
If you are unsure whether you reside in a state that is acting behind the scenes to eliminate the Electoral College, contact your state legislators and voice your opinion. While it is true Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000, President Bush carried 2436 counties nationwide as opposed to only 676 for Gore. Gore’s support was concentrated in a few densely populated cities on the East and West Coasts. President Bush’s appeal was truly national in scope, indicating that the majority of localities felt he best represented their interests and values. Spy The News! encourages voters to educate themselves about this issue and why the Founders established the Electoral College. Readers should work to prevent state legislatures from destroying a measure the Founders applied as a cement to hold the large and small states together despite population concentrations or popular trends.
2 comments:
Good to see you write about this issue. However, you are mixing up the notion of "representative democracy" with "pure democracy" (as quoted in the Wallbuilders article).
We are a representative democracy; in fact, we have steadily expanded participation in election of public officials for more than 200 years without creating "mob rule" or reducing the power of the states as entities at the federal level. (Small-state senators can still block *anything*; in fact, senators reprenting only about 15% of the population can stop any legislation at all.)
A national popular vote would ensure that all voters in all states have a meaningful say in selecting the president. It would not change anything about our republic, or the separation of powers, or even federalism (which has to do with powers exercised by the federal vs. state governments, not how our leaders are chosen).
Also, history shows that the movement for a national popular vote goes back many decades before the election of 2000. Remember, too, that it's not just the possibility of a "popular-vote reversal," like we've seen four times, that supporters cite. It's also that today's focus on a handful of "battleground states" leaves 2/3 of American voters on the sideline. Remember as well that of the 13 smallest states, 12 of them are not in play in presidential elections. Only NH is competitive in the general election.
So any "benefit" to small states is simply a fiction, even if they have a mathematical electoral-vote bonus. Small states are ignored by candidates and campaigns as much as big states that are "safe" for one party or the other.
It will be good to have a national debate about this, and you're right to encourage your readers to study the issue(s) and voice their opinions.
I appreciate your opinions on this issue. However, I respectfully disagree with your assertions that I have confused representative democracy with pure democracy. The Electoral College was created by the Founders to preserve representative democracy, while the current movement for a popular national vote is precisely what they wanted to avoid, and for good reason.
I respectfully perceive that you did not read the entire paper at Wallbuilders, as it refutes each of the arguments you presented in favor of a national popular vote. In a popular vote the "battleground states" will always and only be those with huge population bases, CA, NY, FL, IL, etc. With the electoral college system, battlegound states can and often do include small states like NV and NM, who, despite only having 4-5 electoral votes, become important in a way they never could under a direct popular vote system. Candidates would NEVER even visit WY, UT, SD, ND, NV, ME, AK, and other states with relatively small populations. In their aggregate, they don't total the population of CA. I suggest reading the entire Wallbuilders piece, as I believe the rebuttals there to your arguments here, are rather convincing.
I reiterate my warning that the Founders were indeed more prescient than modern "scholars" give them credit for, and that further steps toward a national popular vote, were not what they envisioned and already raised voices of alarm about 200+ years ago.
Thanks again for your views and readership.
Post a Comment