- Joined
- Jun 22, 2013
- Messages
- 22,430
- Reaction score
- 32,665
- Location
- Mid-West USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
We hear much outrage over the existence of the Electoral College system, because the current President lost the Popular vote by the largest margin in any prior situation. (There were four: George W. Bush 2000; Benjamin Harrison 1888; Rutherford Hayes 1876; John Q. Adams 1824).
People cry "Outmoded system! A national popular vote should elect a President!" That the USA is a Democracy and the Electoral college is a barrier between the will of the people and the holder of the office. That the 12 Amendment created the problem and did not go far enough to solve it.
IMO that thought process is wrong; and I point out the following:
1. Our nation is called a Republic because after the Revolution there were 13 "Colonies" which became independent "States" under a loose Articles of Confederation. Those "States" later opted for closer ties under the Constitution, but still considered themselves sovereign. This is where the Secession argument that eventually led to the Civil War came from.
2. The Electoral College was established under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. NOT the "12th Amendment."
3. There were four elections before the 12 Amendment rectified a problem originating with the development of political parties, resulting in two candidates from the same Party tying for President. It was not an attempt to make things "more democratic," but simply to clear up which candidate held which office.
4. Despite the Civil War, our nation remains a union of "Sovereign States." The only element of government that was originally designed to be Democratic was the House of Representatives. Recall "No Taxation Without Representation?" Article I allowed for citizens to vote directly for those elected representatives that had the power to tax and spend. The Senate and the Presidency remained the purview of the State's to choose, and the Electoral College was the method for selecting the President.
5. Senators were not elected by "popular vote" until the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913. Their purpose has not changed however, there are still only 2 per State elected to represent each State in approving government appointments, treaties, appropriation bills coming from the House, etc.
6. The Presidency was always designed to represent the entire Nation, not just the most populous States. The holder of that office is supposed to consider even the least populated State when deciding whether or not to veto laws passed by Congress. If elected by purely popular vote, then States like New York and California would be the focus of all attention and decide the fate of all the other States in this Union.
Now despite the claim that the Civil War put an "end to the secession argument," nothing could be further from the truth. :no:
The Declaration of Independence states that revolution is a basic right of those oppressed by government tyranny.
The greatest fear among the Founding Fathers was central government tyranny, either that of a monarchy or that of a popular majority. The leaders of our nation with few exceptions preferred a Republic with checks and balances over a pure Democracy. Looking at our society today, I find that many of our citizens fail to see the problems with pure Democracy without such checks. Those who tend to argue for it are those who want to use current popular trends to impose their ideologies on the rest who do not agree.
The problem is that they failed to see two classic issues; one that this system can be eventually turned against them as popular opinions change, and the other is that it can easily lead to a populist dictatorship ala Nazi Germany, Maoist China, Leninist Russia, Islamist Indonesia, etc., etc..
Our process is designed to elect the President via State, not Popular voting. The number of electors is determined by State population, giving each State one elector for each Senator and House Representative slot it has. That means each States has at least 3 votes for President. This means that no State can be completely ignored simply because of it's lower population level.
The Constitution leaves it up to each State to decide how their Electors are allocated. The "winner-take-all" rule most States use is a State choice, and if you don't like it lobby to change it. I personally prefer the district award system used by Maine and Nebraska, where each House District gets one elector while the 2 Senate electors are given to the popular vote majority winner in each State.
My argument is that the Electoral College is the last barrier to Tyranny of the Majority in America. That it is one of the wisest things our Founders devised to prevent it. Otherwise, we might be looking at constant civil revolts, and efforts to secede via outright civil war as smaller populated states, or even larger populated states with differing political leans (Texas as opposed to California) decide union is too oppressive and independence might be better.
People cry "Outmoded system! A national popular vote should elect a President!" That the USA is a Democracy and the Electoral college is a barrier between the will of the people and the holder of the office. That the 12 Amendment created the problem and did not go far enough to solve it.
IMO that thought process is wrong; and I point out the following:
1. Our nation is called a Republic because after the Revolution there were 13 "Colonies" which became independent "States" under a loose Articles of Confederation. Those "States" later opted for closer ties under the Constitution, but still considered themselves sovereign. This is where the Secession argument that eventually led to the Civil War came from.
2. The Electoral College was established under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. NOT the "12th Amendment."
3. There were four elections before the 12 Amendment rectified a problem originating with the development of political parties, resulting in two candidates from the same Party tying for President. It was not an attempt to make things "more democratic," but simply to clear up which candidate held which office.
4. Despite the Civil War, our nation remains a union of "Sovereign States." The only element of government that was originally designed to be Democratic was the House of Representatives. Recall "No Taxation Without Representation?" Article I allowed for citizens to vote directly for those elected representatives that had the power to tax and spend. The Senate and the Presidency remained the purview of the State's to choose, and the Electoral College was the method for selecting the President.
5. Senators were not elected by "popular vote" until the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913. Their purpose has not changed however, there are still only 2 per State elected to represent each State in approving government appointments, treaties, appropriation bills coming from the House, etc.
6. The Presidency was always designed to represent the entire Nation, not just the most populous States. The holder of that office is supposed to consider even the least populated State when deciding whether or not to veto laws passed by Congress. If elected by purely popular vote, then States like New York and California would be the focus of all attention and decide the fate of all the other States in this Union.
Now despite the claim that the Civil War put an "end to the secession argument," nothing could be further from the truth. :no:
The Declaration of Independence states that revolution is a basic right of those oppressed by government tyranny.
The greatest fear among the Founding Fathers was central government tyranny, either that of a monarchy or that of a popular majority. The leaders of our nation with few exceptions preferred a Republic with checks and balances over a pure Democracy. Looking at our society today, I find that many of our citizens fail to see the problems with pure Democracy without such checks. Those who tend to argue for it are those who want to use current popular trends to impose their ideologies on the rest who do not agree.
The problem is that they failed to see two classic issues; one that this system can be eventually turned against them as popular opinions change, and the other is that it can easily lead to a populist dictatorship ala Nazi Germany, Maoist China, Leninist Russia, Islamist Indonesia, etc., etc..
Our process is designed to elect the President via State, not Popular voting. The number of electors is determined by State population, giving each State one elector for each Senator and House Representative slot it has. That means each States has at least 3 votes for President. This means that no State can be completely ignored simply because of it's lower population level.
The Constitution leaves it up to each State to decide how their Electors are allocated. The "winner-take-all" rule most States use is a State choice, and if you don't like it lobby to change it. I personally prefer the district award system used by Maine and Nebraska, where each House District gets one elector while the 2 Senate electors are given to the popular vote majority winner in each State.
My argument is that the Electoral College is the last barrier to Tyranny of the Majority in America. That it is one of the wisest things our Founders devised to prevent it. Otherwise, we might be looking at constant civil revolts, and efforts to secede via outright civil war as smaller populated states, or even larger populated states with differing political leans (Texas as opposed to California) decide union is too oppressive and independence might be better.