An Essay: The Case FOR the Electoral College... and a challenge

[BoomerVet]

Why do I and many others think that it is so critical for the survival of this Republic, the USA, that the current Constitutional Electoral College system of electing a President and Vice President remain the law of the land and be vitally protected constitutionally?

The system was set up the way it was as the heart of a Republican process of government which would guarantee that the nation's highest office holders would be the choice of not only "most of the people", but also "most of the states" which insures nationwide approval by population, geography, culture, and in some cases race and other aspects of society universally.

For each state's members of the US House of Representatives and US Senate, they receive one electoral vote.

In the states, the delegates are selected by the result of the vote for Pres and Veep within the state. Whichever party has the most votes shall nominate delegates to the electoral college. This maintains the distribution of electoral voters across the whole country thereby preserving the geographical political interests insured by state sovereignty within the United States of America.

These delegates, some locked in their votes and some not, then meet in one place and cast their votes for Pres and Veep. Winner takes all. The only use for the "general or popular election" is to provide the "people's voice" for selecting the delegates proportional to it's statewide population, aslo insure that the vote is culturally and geographically balanced.

This process is beautiful in its incredible simplicity and absolute genius for the way it preserves the rights of smaller, less populous states who would otherwise be doomed to live under the sheer power of a few larger, more populous states. Otherwise it would mean that the leadership of the nation would forever be concentrated in the domain of the fewest number of large states forming a population majority.

The election of 2000 is one of the most relevant and clear examples of how one candidate could win the "popular" election and the other wins the electoral votes from the majority of each individual state. There were 16 states which went for Gore by majority vote individually. There were 34 states for Bush. Because of the fact that there are two Senators for each state regardless of size or population, it meant that there were, in this election example, a 68 to 32 "head start" for George Bush/Dick Cheney. Even this puny amount is meaningfull when "regional populations", just outside of major cities in some cases, were able to outnumber the population of the cities. You see, it is almost perfectly balanced politically in a two party system. Hence, Gore wins by a paltry 1% popular, and loses by 4% electorally. The unlitmate assurance of proper and fair political representation.

Answer me this... can you imagine someone of any race or sex who is native to New York or Chicago moving to Salt Lake City or Sante Fe without considerable "culture shock"? It's because they are indeed different cultures technically speaking. The don't read the same newspapers or listen to same political speeches or enjoy the same pasttimes. We're different. And we each have a God-given right to be counted and represented.

Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and the entire bodies of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the Black Caucus, the Hispanic Caucus, (representing almost entirely the larger population states) suggested or demanded that the Electoral College should be abolished. We ALL know why! At some point, the populations of the 16 large states wins out either way. If leadership and political power come by the smallest possible mathematical minorty of large states being able to cancel out the entire vote-counting fairness of the vast majority of the rest of the nation, the Republic and state sovereignty cease to exist. Pure democracy! NOT Constitutional Republic under the Constitution of the United States. They could willfully and quickly change ALL the laws, appoint ALL the federal even Supreme Court judges, control all of the financial tentacles of the nation's treasury and virtually enslave or tax to death the minority parties and political rights in the majority of the "small states" occupying the vast majority of the states.

Read the Federalist Papers and educate your children and grand-children right now! Your public schools are not. I challenge you to go to an area just off your favorite high school campus and prepare 10 simple questions such as:

1. How many total Senators are in the US Senate?

2. How many judges are there on the US Supreme Court? Can you Name 3 of them?

3. Give me the titles or purposes of 4 of the 10 amendments in the US Constitution.

4. What was name of the American uprising leading to it's independence?

5. In what year was the US Constitution approved by the US Congress?

6. Explain the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic?

7 How many countrires in the world copy the US political system, which is a constitutional republic?

8. From which specific country did the 13 Colonies win a war of independece against?

9. In what year did the war end?

10. Explain the Electoral College system of electing President and Vice President.


Present this simple quiz to 12 kids from each grade level (9,10,11,12) for a total of 48 and send the totals to the admins of your favorite message board. See if each grade gets higher percentages than the preceding one. Average out the total scores of all 48. Do they exceed 60%?

Then be prepared to get a little surpised, somewhat worried, and more than a little upset... perhaps even down-right pissed off! And if you get mad enough, let me know... I can post a 10 question basic economics quiz and English quiz which would show even more problems.

I leave each of you with these sobering thoughts. Remember that faith is brutally supressed in ANY and ALL public schools. Each of those kids is the inevitable majority of voters which will be called on to be smart enough, and conscious enough of their precious liberties to preserve the Republic and protect God-given liberties. Unless we preserve the integrity and power of the Electoral College, we, or better they, will lose every vestage of state sovereignty and personal liberty! Your offspring will live in a "Socialist Democracy" at the mercy of those few large states. The Constitution, and along with it their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, will die the death of majority rule within the next two generations. Do NOT doubt it!

[DrShrink]

I guess it boils down to : Are you a democracy or a republic first ?.

It seems to me, that whilst maintaining states rights is certinaly worthwhile, it should not be done at the expense of democracy. The president is leader of the people, not the states. Thus his mandate must come from popular support.

We're different. And we each have a God-given right to be counted and represented.

Yes, and you should have the right to be counted equally too. One man, One vote. Though those in New York read different papers to those in Iowa, doesnt mean their votes should count differently in an election. Neither can be considered 'wiser' as to who should be president. But under the current system, one has more of a say than the other.
How is that fair ?

if leadership and political power come by the smallest possible mathematical minorty of large states being able to cancel out the entire vote-counting fairness of the vast majority of the rest of the nation, the Republic and state sovereignty cease to exist

I dont think that makes sense.If the electoral college is removed it would have to be replaced with a popular vote, requiring a majority of the votes. Thus the 'smallest possible mathematical minority of large states' would have to be 51% of the votes if the electoral college was removed. (or 50.01% to be technical)

However in the next sentence you claim this would cancel out the rights of the "vast majority of the rest of the nation". If your talking about people, then obviously your numbers dont match.
(Of course they could since not all Americans vote. That too damages your democracy, but is another issue)But its not likely.

If your talking about states, then your arguing the president is a rep of the states and not the people. Fine for a republic, not so good for a democracy.

And i dont see how this would instantly lead to the republic and states not existing. The president would still have to please the majority of the nation. Its extremely unlikely he would get enough votes in the top 16 states to overcome the rest of the nation. Even if it happened, the president couldnt rely on those 16 states to uniformly vote for him next time. He would have to try to earn votes from the rest of the country, and would know those in the 16 states would judge him by how he treats other states not just their own.

In Australia, states rights are protected through mandated # of seats in the senate (our upper house). Of course our Prime Minister is only chosen by vote of his collegues in the House of Representives, so likewise we too have representitves who choose our leader instead of real democratic choice. But then our representitves in the House of Representives are based on population not states, and the PM's must get these representitves votes at all times to govern.

The unlitmate assurance of proper and fair political representation.

The ultimate assurance of proper and fair politicial representation is one man, one vote. NO hodge podge systems with 'head starts' and weighted votes.

[Liberty]

What you seem to be ignorant of is the history of pure democracies. They simply don't work in large scale situations. Our Founding Fathers knew this which is why they opted for a democratic Republic instead. If you knew US history, you would have known that.

[BoomerVet]

Well, DrShrink, my friend... you certainly have a lot to learn about the difference between a democracratic form of government and a republican form of government and why the latter is the better choice when striving to preserve protection of the minority against the oppression of the majority. The "factional" tyranny of a majority vote driven by emotions such as greed, hatred, envy, slothfulness, etc. is the hallmark of democratic societies which is why they ALWAYS "progress" into socialism and eventually dictatorial despotism.

Get yourself a copy of The Federalist Papers and read paper #10 which explains all this. Who could explain it better than the man who thought of it in the first place, eh? You will DEFINATELY learn something.

[DrShrink]

The "factional" tyranny of a majority vote driven by emotions such as greed, hatred, envy, slothfulness, etc. is the hallmark of democratic societies which is why they ALWAYS "progress" into socialism and eventually dictatorial despotism.

They do ?

Australias government is chosen by a majority vote. And yes we've got some socalist policies (evil i know!) Havent yet got to dictatorial despotism yet. Any case studies you care to show me.


It also seems odd that you would denounce the democratic process as one "driven by emotions such as greed, hatred, envy, slothfulness, etc". You dont seem to have much respect for those who participate in the democratic process. Surely at least some people choose whos better for the job.

You of course can see my argument. Wheres the line between a system which supports a minority and one which twists even over-rides the will of the majority.
Without that majority support there can be no moral mandate to govern in a democracy.

I will though go read the Fed papers n#10.

[Rapunzel]

Boomer, E Pluribus Unum. Excellent essay.

What the electoral college also accomplishes is the dilution of heavily populated congressional districts in terms of the most meaningful vote, the electoral vote. Therein lies equitability among the states and throughout each state, and it is indeed genius. Nevertheless, the system still corresponds to population.

Dr. Shrink should be reminded that the electoral college only applies to the election of our nation's president, and evolved from a much different intention set forth by the framers of the constitution. It should be noted that the reason the election of the president is counted differently from all other elected offices, which are elected via the popular vote, is because it is the only elected office in which the 'winner' is charged with protecting the liberties and security of all the people.

Here is what I consider to be an outstanding treatise on the evolution of the electoral college (and, hehehehehe, one can clearly see that it was the crats who opened Pandora's Political Box of Election Manipulations):

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=545