Electoral College Representing a Republic, not a Democracy.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Thomas Jefferson

"The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy." -- Benjamin Franklin (Emblematical Representations, Circa 1774) Reference: The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Sparks, ed. (457) - The Patriot Post Founders' Quote Daily

The Logic of the Electoral College - The Founders sought to allow the "sense of the people" to be reflected in government without imposing a "tyranny of the majority," writes Tara Ross. The Electoral College was part of their solution, and it serves that same end today. The Electoral College ensures that Presidents' ideas and values represent the country's wide diversity. And for that reason, candidates who practice moderation, compromise, and coalition building fare well within it.

How to Make Your Vote Not Count by Todd F. Gaziano and Tara Ross - Electoral College critics argue that the system causes some votes to be "wasted." Coloradans who voted for Gore in 2000 should have their votes reflected in the national tally, they say. But this argument is disingenuous. Votes are not wasted simply because they are cast on the losing side of an election. Is any vote for governor wasted simply because it wasn't cast for the winner? America holds democratic presidential elections at the state level for an important reason: to protect smaller, less populous states. Under a national popular election system, presidential candidates would have precious little reason to focus time and energy on states like Colorado. They would have much more to gain by focusing on the big media and population centers.  This is why almost every state uses the winner-take-all system. It magnifies their electoral voice, forcing presidential candidates to pay attention even to small states. The initiative would have Colorado unilaterally weaken its position among the states. With only one or two net electoral votes at stake, presidential candidates would have little incentive to respond to Colorado's special concerns or visit the state in future elections. Obviously, the folks in San Francisco don't care about that.

WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE??? by Dorothy Robbins - How is the Electoral Method of Voting Supposed to Work? The system of voting for a President of the United States of America by the creators of the Constitution has been perverted. Millions of people qualified to vote and who have voted have been disenfranchised. Disenfranchised means our votes have been nullified, made useless by the current method of voting. Is this because the method designed by our Founders is faulty? No. It is because the method has been perverted. So who says so and why? Here is how it works so see for yourself. ...

The Electoral College: Enlightened Democracy by Tara Ross  - (Excerpts below)

America's election systems have operated smoothly for more than 200 years because the Electoral College accomplishes its intended purposes. Some academics have criticized the Electoral College for years. It has been called an "anachronism" that "thwarts" democratic principles, "constitutional stupidity," or even a "dangerous game" with "many built-in pitfalls" that are "bound to destroy us." In 1967, the American Bar Association blasted the system, calling it "archaic, undemocratic, complex, ambiguous, indirect, and dangerous." The negative views of today's academics are starkly at odds with the universal admiration for the system at the time it was created. Alexander Hamilton, for instance, publicly deemed the Electoral College "excellent. Other delegates at the Constitutional Convention agreed with him: They viewed the Electoral College as one of the new Constitution's great achievements. Today's unenthusiastic views would almost certainly surprise these early patriots.

The Electoral College Vote. The Constitution provides for a presidential election among the states, rather than among individuals. In this election, each state is granted a certain number of representatives, called electors, to cast votes on its behalf. This national vote among the states is often referred to as the vote of the Electoral College.

States are allocated one elector for each of their representatives in Congress. Each state therefore automatically receives a minimum of three votes, as it is entitled to at least two Senators and one Congressman, regardless of population. Adoption of the 23rd Amendment in 1961 provided the District of Columbia with at least three electoral votes, as if it were a state. There are currently 538 total electors. Following the 2000 census, California has the most electors (55), while seven states plus the District of Columbia have the minimum number of electors (3).

State legislatures decide how to appoint electors for this national election, and it is generally agreed that the legislatures may appoint electors in any manner that they choose. Each state except Maine and Nebraska currently uses a "winner-take-all" system, whereby the presidential candidate winning the state's popular vote is awarded the state's entire slate of electors. Maine and Nebraska each give two electoral votes to the winner of the state's popular vote and select the remaining electors by congressional district.

To be elected President, a candidate needs a majority of these states' electoral votes, which are cast in December. He does not need a majority of the direct popular vote cast on Election Day. At this time, 270 votes constitute a majority of the Electoral College and will win the presidency for a candidate.

Contrary to modern perceptions, the founding generation did not intend to create a direct democracy. To the contrary, the Founders deliberately created a republic--or, arguably, a republican democracy--that would incorporate a spirit of compromise and deliberation into decision-making. Such a form of government, the Founders believed, would allow them to achieve two potentially conflicting objectives: avoiding the "tyranny of the majority" inherent in pure democratic systems, while allowing the "sense of the people" to be reflected in the new American government. Moreover, a republican government, organized on federalist principles, would allow the delegates to achieve the most difficult of their tasks: enabling large and small sovereign states to live peacefully alongside each other.

The authors of the Constitution had studied the history of many failed democratic systems, and they strove to create a different form of government. Indeed, James Madison, delegate from Virginia, argued that unfettered majorities such as those found in pure democracies tend toward tyranny. Madison stated it this way:

"[In a pure democracy], [a] common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies 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

The Electoral College was considered to fit perfectly within this republican, federalist government that had been created. The system would allow majorities to rule, but only while they were reasonable, broad-based, and not tyrannical. The election process was seen as a clever solution to the seemingly unsolvable problem facing the Convention--finding a fair method of selecting the Executive for a nation composed of both large and small states that have ceded some, but not all, of their sovereignty to a central government. "`[T]he genius of the present [Electoral College] system,'" a 1970 Senate report concluded, "`is the genius of a popular democracy organized on the federal principle.'"

The Founding Fathers created a stable, well-planned and carefully designed system--and it works. Past elections, even the elections of Presidents who lost the popular vote, are testaments to the ingenuity of the Founding Fathers. In each case, the victor was able to succeed only because his opponent did not build the national coalition that is required by the Electoral College. In each case, smaller states were protected from their larger neighbors. In each case, the presidential election system functioned effectively to give the country a President with broad-based support.

Alexander Hamilton was right when he described the Electoral College in The Federalist No. 68. Perhaps the Electoral College is imperfect--but a perfect solution is doubtless unachievable. Nevertheless, the presidential election process devised by the Framers is certainly excellent.