Post by TRIPWIRE on Feb 7, 2006 20:54:48 GMT -5
February 7, 2006
The Electoral College
Written by David M. Hickerson
Originally Posted at tripwire.hickersonfamily.net/2006_0207.html
On November 1, 2004 I posted an article titled "Electoral Process," [1] at which time I ranted about several complaints I have about our electoral system, from not requiring identification at polling places, along with cemetery residents voting, to the ridiculous, and in my opinion fallacious, two-party system. At that time I round-aboutly forcasted a future topic, the Electoral College. I figure it is due time that I get around to handling this subject. I'll probably veer off topic a bit here and there, but if you're a repeat offender-- er I mean visitor to Tripwire, you're probably used to that.
I must be honest that part of my delay in writing this topic was due to indecisiveness -- I just haven't been certain where I stand on the subject. There is nothing wrong with that really, in my opinion, as long as you're ready to admit it. I'm not really sure what did it for me; what put that last bit of clarity on the subject, but it has seemed so much more obvious to me lately.
Our country's founders were not big fans of majority rule. They probably rolled in their graves On April 8, 1913 when the 17th Amendment was ratified. [2] In case you don't know, this is the amendment that made the job of senator a position filled by popular vote rather than by being chosen by the states' legislatures, as stated in Article 1 Section 3. [3] I stand by the rather unpopular idea that this was a bad idea, as it revokes the representation of the State governments in Congress, and I would support any movement to repeal this amendment. If one existed, that is.
My opinion that the framers of our Constitution knew what they were doing compels me to believe that they would not want the President to be elected strictly by popular vote. They outline quite clearly in Article 2 Section 1 [5] how they thought it should be done, and we've only modified the process slightly since then, once in 1804 with the 12th Amendment [4], and again in 1960 with the 23rd Amendment. [8] I firmly believe, based on this and the above, that they would all agree with our current system over a one of mob rule.
Think about it for a moment with me. Our government wasn't intended to be an absolute democracy, as such a regime would easily and often be prone to mob mentality. "Majority rule; Government by the people," as democracy is commonly quoted to be, would ensure that the so called right to an abortion (which you likely already know I disagree with) is no more, that homosexual marriage never gets off the ground, and would likely have left blacks and other minorities without the right to vote. Democracy is the absolute worst thing that could ever become reality in our great nation, and strangely enough, many proponents of creating it are the very people that benefit the most without it.
The Electoral College attempts to equalize the immense power of the largest states by emphasizing the smaller states. For instance, in a state like North Dakota (754,840 people and 3 Electoral College votes) each vote represents 251,613 people. On the other hand, a state like Texas (20,851,790 people and 34 votes) each vote represents 613,288 people. I can reasonably infer that, not only did the founding fathers not necessarily believe in the idea of "one man, one vote," they wanted to make sure that the peoples' votes from smaller states were given higher weight (at least when electing the President) than those from larger states.
I have put together a handy-dandy excel spreadsheet (zipped) [6] that details the ratio of population to electoral votes for each state, in case anyone cares to look at it.
It seems that some people consider the Electoral College a construct to protect the elitists in our society by attempting to lessen the impact of the "unwashed masses" on the government. I'm really not certain how this thinking factors in when you consider that the elite in society are also voting under this same system, thus giving their votes the exact same worth. Another protest I hear repeatedly is that the College is related to its winner-takes-all approach. Of course, there are exceptions (Maine and Nebraska) that guarantees two votes for the state's "winner" while the rest of the votes are based on the popular vote of each congressional district. I would prefer this method to, say, an all out proportional vote [7] because it still places some emphasis on the winner of the state rather than an a quasi-majority/mob rule system.
I think that it is easy for people to forget that many democratic societies in the past have crumbled. The best thing we can do to attempt to prevent such a fall is to make damned certain that we do things differently than ever done before, and I will stubbornly argue that the founding fathers knew this when they took to the task of creating the great social contract that is our Constitution. Changing it too drastically is to invite disaster.
References:
1. tripwire.hickersonfamily.net/2004_1101.html
2. www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am17.html
3. www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec3.html
4. www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am12.html
5. www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A2Sec1.html
6. tripwire.hickersonfamily.net/electoral_college_study.zip
7. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College#Supporters_of_an_Electoral_College_with_modified_rules
8. www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am23.html
The Electoral College
Written by David M. Hickerson
Originally Posted at tripwire.hickersonfamily.net/2006_0207.html
On November 1, 2004 I posted an article titled "Electoral Process," [1] at which time I ranted about several complaints I have about our electoral system, from not requiring identification at polling places, along with cemetery residents voting, to the ridiculous, and in my opinion fallacious, two-party system. At that time I round-aboutly forcasted a future topic, the Electoral College. I figure it is due time that I get around to handling this subject. I'll probably veer off topic a bit here and there, but if you're a repeat offender-- er I mean visitor to Tripwire, you're probably used to that.
I must be honest that part of my delay in writing this topic was due to indecisiveness -- I just haven't been certain where I stand on the subject. There is nothing wrong with that really, in my opinion, as long as you're ready to admit it. I'm not really sure what did it for me; what put that last bit of clarity on the subject, but it has seemed so much more obvious to me lately.
Our country's founders were not big fans of majority rule. They probably rolled in their graves On April 8, 1913 when the 17th Amendment was ratified. [2] In case you don't know, this is the amendment that made the job of senator a position filled by popular vote rather than by being chosen by the states' legislatures, as stated in Article 1 Section 3. [3] I stand by the rather unpopular idea that this was a bad idea, as it revokes the representation of the State governments in Congress, and I would support any movement to repeal this amendment. If one existed, that is.
My opinion that the framers of our Constitution knew what they were doing compels me to believe that they would not want the President to be elected strictly by popular vote. They outline quite clearly in Article 2 Section 1 [5] how they thought it should be done, and we've only modified the process slightly since then, once in 1804 with the 12th Amendment [4], and again in 1960 with the 23rd Amendment. [8] I firmly believe, based on this and the above, that they would all agree with our current system over a one of mob rule.
Think about it for a moment with me. Our government wasn't intended to be an absolute democracy, as such a regime would easily and often be prone to mob mentality. "Majority rule; Government by the people," as democracy is commonly quoted to be, would ensure that the so called right to an abortion (which you likely already know I disagree with) is no more, that homosexual marriage never gets off the ground, and would likely have left blacks and other minorities without the right to vote. Democracy is the absolute worst thing that could ever become reality in our great nation, and strangely enough, many proponents of creating it are the very people that benefit the most without it.
The Electoral College attempts to equalize the immense power of the largest states by emphasizing the smaller states. For instance, in a state like North Dakota (754,840 people and 3 Electoral College votes) each vote represents 251,613 people. On the other hand, a state like Texas (20,851,790 people and 34 votes) each vote represents 613,288 people. I can reasonably infer that, not only did the founding fathers not necessarily believe in the idea of "one man, one vote," they wanted to make sure that the peoples' votes from smaller states were given higher weight (at least when electing the President) than those from larger states.
I have put together a handy-dandy excel spreadsheet (zipped) [6] that details the ratio of population to electoral votes for each state, in case anyone cares to look at it.
It seems that some people consider the Electoral College a construct to protect the elitists in our society by attempting to lessen the impact of the "unwashed masses" on the government. I'm really not certain how this thinking factors in when you consider that the elite in society are also voting under this same system, thus giving their votes the exact same worth. Another protest I hear repeatedly is that the College is related to its winner-takes-all approach. Of course, there are exceptions (Maine and Nebraska) that guarantees two votes for the state's "winner" while the rest of the votes are based on the popular vote of each congressional district. I would prefer this method to, say, an all out proportional vote [7] because it still places some emphasis on the winner of the state rather than an a quasi-majority/mob rule system.
I think that it is easy for people to forget that many democratic societies in the past have crumbled. The best thing we can do to attempt to prevent such a fall is to make damned certain that we do things differently than ever done before, and I will stubbornly argue that the founding fathers knew this when they took to the task of creating the great social contract that is our Constitution. Changing it too drastically is to invite disaster.
References:
1. tripwire.hickersonfamily.net/2004_1101.html
2. www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am17.html
3. www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec3.html
4. www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am12.html
5. www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A2Sec1.html
6. tripwire.hickersonfamily.net/electoral_college_study.zip
7. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College#Supporters_of_an_Electoral_College_with_modified_rules
8. www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am23.html