He That Has Ears To Hear, Let Him Hear (Matthew 11:15-30)
Challenging both secular wisdom and religious doctrines. - Will our descendants know moral virtue?
Why is it that Democrats think Super delegates are fine, but they have a problem
with the Electoral College?
"It's important to remember when America was being formed, it was basically 13 sovereign entities having to agree to come together to form a nation, and each one of those entities had to be respected to win their acquiescence."
The Founder's answer in preventing mob rule. The Electoral College Represents a Constitutional Republic, not a tyrannical "pure" Democracy of bullying that the "National Popular Vote" advocates, where only every California vote counts more than any other vote from almost half the rest of the country. (See "A Republic, not a Democracy.")
What is “undemocratic” is an agreement that means that even if every single voter in a state voted against a presidential candidate who won the national popular vote, the state would still have to give all its electoral votes to that candidate. --Hans von Spakovsky
Back to Resource Index
See also: Save Our States defends our state-by-state presidential election process—the Electoral College—as an essential part of our constitutional system of states and a protection of our freedom.
The Enduring Value of the Electoral College - By Jeff Jacoby ...In some democracies, such as France, Brazil, or Ghana, the head of state is elected directly by the people. That has never been the system in the United States. At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the framers debated at length the question of how presidents should be chosen. In the end they rejected the idea of electing presidents in a single national plebiscite. They settled, rather, on a federal plan — one in which Americans would come together to choose a president (and vice president), but would do so as citizens of their respective states. That compromise reflected America’s fundamental identity not as a single broad mass of people, but as a union of individual states, each with its own social, political, and cultural character. Massachusetts, Montana, and Mississippi are very different entities. The Electoral College system ensures that those differences are respected, while guaranteeing the right of all adult citizens to participate in the vote. Like anything manmade, the Electoral College has its drawbacks, which its foes loudly bewail. But give those drawbacks a closer look, and they turn out to be fairly insubstantial.
Why There Would Be No America without the Electoral College - By Paul Strand - ...The Birth of the Electoral College Back in the 18th century, after winning a war for their independence, colonists weren't about to surrender their newly-won power and freedom. It's important to remember when America was being formed, it was basically 13 sovereign entities having to agree to come together to form a nation, and each one of those entities had to be respected to win their acquiescence. Those cursing the creators of the Electoral College should remember the tough sales job the Founders had. "They forget that these Founders had to get agreement of all the states to form this union, and part of that agreement was how we came up with a system to elect people," frequent political commentator Rich Kelsey told CBN News. This system makes a presidential candidate have to win the states, not just individual voters. That ensures less-populated states have a voice.
Video: Is the Electoral College at Odds With the Constitution? — Matt Christiansen rebuts Chris Hayes for an absurd argument against American government.
This Day in History: The Constitutional Convention discusses presidential selection - Posted on July 8, 2019 by Tara Ross
... Despite these random ideas, two election methods stayed at the forefront of the discussion for much of the Convention: legislative selection (i.e. Congress chooses the President) versus a national, direct popular election.
The small states, in particular, worried about a direct election. They were sure that they would be constantly outvoted by the large states.
Roger Sherman of Connecticut believed that the “largest State will have the best chance for the appointment.” Charles Pinckney of South Carolina agreed. “An Election by the people,” he observed, “[is] liable to the most obvious & striking objections. They will be led by a few active & designing men. The most populous States by combining in favor of the same individual will be able to carry their points.”
At one point, another delegate from Delaware admonished the large states rather forcefully. “I do not, gentlemen, trust you,” Gunning Bedford thundered. “If you possess the power, the abuse of it could not be checked; and what then would prevent you from exercising it to our destruction?”
Ultimately, the delegates brokered a compromise. As it operates today, our elections are a blend of democracy (state-level elections among individuals on Election Day) and federalism (an election among the states themselves in the Electoral College vote). Large states have more electoral votes, reflecting their greater populations. But small states are guaranteed a minimum of three votes, no matter what.
The Electoral College has come under attack in recent months. It’s been called archaic, a relic of slavery—and even worse. Some of these allegations are in danger of becoming conventional wisdom, yet nothing could be further from the truth. To the contrary, the delegates had at least one, much bigger concern that summer: How could the needs of large vs. small states be balanced? They took the matter seriously, discussing the issue of presidential selection on 21 separate days at the Constitutional Convention. The matter prompted more than 30 distinct votes.
The Electoral College was created with much thought and great care. If nothing else, the system deserves serious study before it is too casually thrown away by a generation that didn’t first take time to understand it.
National Popular Vote: When states are idiotic enough to exploit and abuse the Tenth Amendment to undermine the Republic for which it stands.
Federalism: In the United States, the Constitution grants certain powers to both the U.S. government and the state governments. These powers are granted by the Tenth Amendment, which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Video: The Electoral College & Why It's So Important. A lot of people don't seem to understand why the Electoral College is so important. Here's the Simple Truth. ...Don't forget that we are a Federation of states. Why would a small state want to be a part of it if they don't get a say in who the commander in chief is. Part of the reason we're the "United States" is because of the Electoral College. It would be foolish and eventually devastating to forget that and that's the simple truth.
Is the Electoral College Worth Keeping? [VIDEO] - By Jake MacAulay ...In their infinite wisdom, the United States’ Founders created the Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation? Consider the following statistics:
- There are roughly 3,100 counties in the United States.
- Trump won approximately 2,600 of them.
- Clinton won just under 500.
- Trump’s county win covered about 84% of the geographic United States.
- Clinton won 88 of the 100 largest counties.
- Without these counties, she would have lost by 11.5 million votes. Even so, Clinton only garnered about 2.8 million popular votes more than Trump.
...Here is a very quick civics lesson: Article 4, Section 4, of the United States Constitution states: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”
Nowhere in the Constitution does the word “DEMOCRACY” appear. It also appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence.
...The Electoral College was to be a wholly separate body for choosing the president. Developed at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, it was a compromise among plans for a national popular vote and to have Congress choose the president. It also acts as a State check on Federal power, thus protecting smaller States.
Liberty and justice for all Americans is the goal of the Constitution, making the Electoral College both right and American.
And in the words of Alexander Hamilton: “If the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.”
Rural Americans would be serfs if we abolished the Electoral College - By Trent England - Should rural and small-town Americans be reduced to serfdom? The American Founders didn’t think so. This is one reason why they created checks and balances, including the Electoral College. Today that system is threatened by a proposal called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, or NPV.
Rural America produces almost all our country’s food, as well as raw materials like metals, cotton and timber. Energy, fossil fuels but also alternatives like wind and solar come mostly from rural areas. In other words, the material inputs of modern life flow out of rural communities and into cities.
Do You Understand the Electoral College? - PragerU Video By
Tara Ross ...The President and Vice President of the United States are not
chosen by a nationwide, popular vote of the American people; rather, they are
chosen by 538 electors. This process is spelled out in the United States
Why didn't the Founders just make it easy, and let the Presidential candidate with the most votes claim victory? Why did they create, and why do we continue to need, this Electoral College? The answer is critical to understanding not only the Electoral College, but also America.
The Founders had no intention of creating a pure majority-rule democracy. They knew from careful study of history what most have forgotten today, or never learned: pure democracies do not work. They implode. Democracy has been colorfully described as two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. In a pure democracy, bare majorities can easily tyrannize the rest of a country. The Founders wanted to avoid this at all costs.
...The Presidential election happens in two phases. The first phase is purely democratic. We hold 51 popular elections every presidential election year: one in each state and one in D.C. On Election Day in 2012, you may have thought you were voting for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, but you were really voting for a slate of presidential electors. In Rhode Island, for example, if you voted for Barack Obama, you voted for the state's four Democratic electors; if you voted for Mitt Romney you were really voting for the state's four Republican electors.
Part Two of the election is held in December. And it is this December election among the states' 538 electors, not the November election, which officially determines the identity of the next President. At least 270 votes are needed to win.
Why is this so important? Because the system encourages coalition-building and national campaigning. In order to win, a candidate must have the support of many different types of voters, from various parts of the country. Winning only the South or the Midwest is not good enough. You cannot win 270 electoral votes if only one part of the country is supporting you. But if winning were only about getting the most votes, a candidate might concentrate all of his efforts in the biggest cities or the biggest states. Why would that candidate care about what people in West Virginia or Iowa or Montana think?
...The Electoral College is an ingenious method of selecting a President for a great, diverse republic such as our own -- it protects against the tyranny of the majority, encourages coalition building and discourages voter fraud. Our Founders were proud of it! We can be too.
The Biggest Lie in American Politics: Abolish the Electoral College to Make Things Fair – ACTUALLY, Most U.S. Voters Will Have NO Say at All - By Greg Holt ...The truth of the matter for anyone who can manage to rub two brain cells together is that eliminating the Electoral College will in effect render the majority of U.S. voters ballots useless. Electing the president by popular vote would mean a simple majority of U.S. voters would determine who the president is going to be. That sounds fair, and it sounds good right?
In actuality, determining the presidential election by popular vote is NOT fair at all, and the Democrats know this – why do you think they are pushing so hard for it? The Democrats will manipulate every situation to their own advantage regardless of whether or not it is good for the country. The popular vote, given the current geo-political state of the United States, would almost certainly guarantee a Democratic (liberal) president without fail.
Let me explain the Electoral College and why it IS the best and fairest election system vs. utilizing a popular vote.
...A large portion of the U.S. geographically – voted for Donald Trump, but in a popular election, Hillary Clinton would have won the presidency. How then is this representative of the entire population of the U.S.? It is obvious that the better part of the U.S. favored Trump, not Hillary.
...The largest cities all across the U.S. are predominately liberal, the Democrats might be (they are) a bunch of immoral crooked players, but that in no way makes them stupid. They KNOW the liberals will lock up the presidential elections – permanently. The only way that this would change would be if the big cities populations changed over to being conservative, not likely to happen.
The Republicans need to step up to the plate and fight this foolishness and fight it hard. The Electoral College insures a fair vote across the entire country, not just for the liberal strongholds. But the Democrats do not want you to know that. The framers of the Constitution were aware of all this, that is why they designed the Electoral College.
If you want YOUR vote to matter, it’s time to make some noise; it’s time to vote the Politicrats out of office.
Don’t say you were not warned.
‘Every vote matters’: Elizabeth Warren defies her own ‘logic’ with small-state call to abolish Electoral College - By Tom Tillison She then turned her attention to the Electoral College, and used the location of the town hall, Jackson, Mississippi, to undermine the wisdom of our Founding Fathers — never mind that the process was put in place to protect the smaller states from being subjected to the whims of larger, more populous states! To protect the country from direct democracy, which is what Warren and her fellow Democrats are proposing with their stranglehold on the more populous urban areas in the country.
...Except every vote won’t matter. California, a solidly blue state, has more residents than the bottom 20 states in the country combined — with the majority of these states, to include Mississippi, being red states. Which means one state can essentially offset the votes of almost half the country.
Blue States Ready to Subvert Electoral College - The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact means the winner takes all votes. - By Lewis Morris - The weapon of choice in their effort to destroy one of our last vestiges of federalism is the Compact. You may recall that the Compact, which began in 2007, calls on its state signatories to pledge their electoral votes in presidential elections to whichever candidate wins the national popular vote. The Compact goes into effect when there are enough states on board to reach 270 electoral votes. It currently has 181. It’s unlikely to reach the magic number by the 2020 election, but it hopes to be a game changer by 2024. Fortunately, the Compact has pretty much exhausted the pool of true-blue states, making the going tougher for states with split legislatures that are solid red. Republican voters in general don’t have a problem with the Electoral College.
...What would you think as a voter if the majority of your state voted for one candidate, but the state decided that, since the other candidate won the national vote, your vote was being awarded to someone you did not support? You wouldn’t feel like your vote mattered, that’s for sure. If anything, 2016 proves that we do need an Electoral College. Clinton almost had it locked up by campaigning in only a handful of urban areas — mostly the big blue vote buckets like LA, NYC, Chicago, and San Francisco. None of this can be explained to leftists, though. They cannot win in the arena of ideas, so they want to change the rules of the game. So far, they have been very clever about exploiting the so-called problems of the Electoral College. The first thing to remember is that there is no problem with the Electoral College. Except if you are a Democrat who can only win by pitting segments of the nation against one another.
Why the 'Excellent' Electoral College Is Well Worth Keeping - by Jeff Jacoby ...The standard indictment against the Electoral College is that it’s anti-democratic. It is, of course: The framers of the Constitution devised it deliberately as a check on direct democracy, one of many such checks and balances — think of the power they entrusted to unelected Supreme Court justices, or to a Senate in which states, not people, are equal. Again and again, the Founders went to great lengths to thwart blind majority rule, not wanting important national decisions to be driven by unbridled public emotion, populist demagoguery, or the passions of the mob. The direct election of the president, argued Elbridge Gerry as the Constitution was being drafted in the summer of 1787, could lead to “radically vicious” outcomes. Hence the interposition of an Electoral College, which ensures that presidents are elected not in one national plebiscite, but through elections within each state to choose electors.
...The ticket that racks up the most votes nationwide nearly always wins a majority of the Electoral College. But twice in the last two decades, the popular-vote winner lost the electoral vote. Both times a Republican ended up in the White House, which explains why so many Democrats are now on the warpath against the Electoral College. All the states that have voted to join the National Popular Vote compact are solid blue states; except for Colorado, none has voted Republican in a presidential election for at least 30 years.
...Critics of the Electoral College denounce it as undemocratic — but what could be less democratic than state legislatures deliberately nullifying the choice of a majority of their state’s voters? For a nation like ours — ideologically quarrelsome, geographically vast, socially diverse — the advantages of the Electoral College far outweigh its drawbacks. It guarantees that no one can become president without demonstrating an appeal that crosses state, regional, and communal lines.
...Above all, it balances federalism with democracy: It preserves the central role of the states in American life without sacrificing the principle of one-person, one-vote. With good reason, Alexander Hamilton pronounced the Electoral College system an “excellent” arrangement. With good reason it has endured for 225 years. Presidents come and presidents go, but the Constitution’s system for choosing them is here to stay.
Abolishing the Electoral College Is Unconstitutional and Wrong - By Michael Busler - The Electoral College was established to try to balance the popular vote with the need for states rights. There are 538 electors in the electoral college. Each state is given one elector for each member of the House of Representatives (435 in total) plus one additional electors for each of the two senators (100 in total). The District of Columbia gets three electors. If the Electoral College was abolished and the president elected simply by a majority in the national vote, the majority of people from smaller, less populated states would lose their voice in presidential elections. A number of states have already considered having their electors vote for the candidate who gets the majority of the national vote. This would mean candidates would campaign mostly in densely populated states while ignoring the less populated states.
The Electoral College is Genius It is one of the Constitution’s accidentally great procedural features for deterring the concentration of political power. Sean J. Rosenthal - ...according to Madison, having a lot of people with diverse interests restrains federal power and protects liberty by deterring the formation of oppressive majorities (Federalist #10:).
Election 2016 Numbers
Election 2016 By State
Election 2016 By County
John Michael Saraceno - THE IS ONE OF THE BEST CASES FOR THE ELECTORIAL COLLEGE I'VE EVER READ...SO EASY A PROGRESSIVE LIBERAL CAN UNDERSTAND!
For all the people who fell asleep in civics class...
1: There are 3,141 counties in the United States. Trump won 3,084 of them. Clinton won 57.
2: There are 62 counties in New York State. Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16.
3: Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
4: In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond) Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
5: These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
6: When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t & shouldn’t speak for the rest of the country.
And this children is WHY you have an Electoral College. It's a safety net so that EVERYONE's vote counts.
Exodus 18:17-27 is the basic foundation of our Republic and its premise of how representative Republic is framed. The Electoral College was designed to keep this foundation from being undermined by preventing parts of the country being tyrannical over the other parts.
Exodus 18:17-27 (BBE) - And Moses' father-in-law said to him, What you are doing is not good. Your strength and that of the people will be completely used up: this work is more than you are able to do by yourself. Give ear now to my suggestion, and may God be with you: you are to be the people's representative before God, taking their causes to him: Teaching them his rules and his laws, guiding them in the way they have to go, and making clear to them the work they have to do. But for the rest, take from among the people able men, such as have the fear of God, true men hating profits wrongly made; and put such men over them, to be captains of thousands, captains of hundreds and of fifties and of tens; And let them be judges in the causes of the people at all times: and let them put before you all important questions, but in small things let them give decisions themselves: in this way, it will be less hard for you, and they will take the weight off you. If you do this, and God gives approval, then you will be able to go on without weariness, and all this people will go to their tents in peace. So Moses took note of the words of his father-in-law, and did as he had said. And he made selection of able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, captains of thousands, captains of hundreds and of fifties and of tens. And they were judges in the causes of the people at all times: the hard questions they put before Moses; but on every small point they gave decisions themselves. And Moses let his father-in-law go away, and he went back to his land.
The Hijacking of a Presidential Election - By Jon N. Hall - ...Because Trump didn’t get any electoral votes in California and New York, when we subtract the electoral votes of those two states, Clinton won just 143 electoral votes in the rest of the nation while Trump’s electoral total remains unchanged at 304. In the Electoral College, which is what we use to elect our presidents, Trump beats Clinton by more than 2-to-1 when California and New York are excluded. Even if the votes of the seven faithless electors were given to Clinton, Trump would still have trounced Clinton by more than 2-1 in the 48 states of “real America.”
It takes a bare minimum of 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. Had Clinton received all 46 electoral votes in the blue wall states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, she would have gotten 273 electoral votes. She then could afford to lose only the least populous of those three states, Wisconsin, and still prevail, but only if she were also awarded all seven votes of the faithless electors. In which case, Clinton would have won with a grand total of 270 electoral votes.
...Some progressives think we should junk the Electoral College and elect presidents with the popular vote. Other progressives think we should rejigger the College and allocate its votes in a way that is closer to the popular vote. But if one believes in federalism, the above data argues just the opposite. We can’t have the preferences of two populous coastal states being imposed on the other 48 states merely because they have some tiny majority. That’s especially so when those two states are so very different from the rest of the country. Let California have its tent cities, its free healthcare for illegal aliens, and its San Francisco values, but leave us “hicks” in the heartland alone.
Given the above, I think we can say that in 2016 the Electoral College worked as intended, and that America got the correct president, the one she needed. Even so, the electoral vote is derived from the popular vote, so there’s still the nagging little question of what the legitimate popular vote count really was.
Preventing 'The Tyranny of the Majority' - By Edwin J. Feulner ...Being a republic, we also don’t pick our president through a direct, majority-take-all vote. We have an Electoral College. And a lot of liberals don’t like that. Their attacks on the College are nothing new, but the defeat of Hillary Clinton in 2016 renewed their fury. After all, as they never tire of pointing out, Mrs. Clinton captured more of the popular vote than Donald Trump did. They see the Electoral College as an impediment to their political victories, therefore it’s got to go.
...Were it not for the Electoral College, presidential candidates could act as if many Americans don’t even exist. They could simply campaign in a small handful of states with big populations. Who would care what the people in Iowa think? Or Wyoming? Or any number of other states with smaller populations? The people in “flyover country” don’t get enough attention as it is, but without the Electoral College, they’d be completely at the mercy of the majority.
INTERVIEW: The Electoral College is Under Threat - By
Nelson - ...In explaining why the Presidential election should be decided
via the Electoral College and not the Popular Vote, Monk stated: “Proponents of
the National Popular Vote play on the misinformation and lack of education of
many American voters, especially young people. They make the (false) claim that
the popular vote method will truly value ‘each individual vote’.
Under their misleading premise, by “making each vote count equally”, political candidates will have to campaign in every state equally to earn those votes. In reality that could not be further from the truth. The purpose of the electoral college is to prevent the densely populated urban areas, where a majority of the population lives, from picking all of our presidents.
By distributing the electoral votes to the states based on their number of representatives in Congress, each state is given a voice, even a small one, despite having a fraction of the population. Take Wyoming, which has barely 600,000 population, and California which has nearly 40,000,000. That means for every one voter in Wyoming, there are 66 voters in California. In a popular vote system, candidates would be smart to go where the voters are, and at a ratio of 66 to 1, the voters are in California (or other highly populated states.)
The Electoral College allows for all states to have a say in our executive branch whereas the National Popular Vote would give the power of deciding the Executive branch over to the large urban areas of California, New York, Illinois, Florida, Texas and the like. The CITIES would pick the president.
The National Popular Vote, instead of enfranchising all of our votes, would actually disenfranchise the votes of all of the “fly over states” and much of the known Republican base. It is no secret that the Democrats have much more control of the urban areas.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is nothing more than an attempt to greatly empower the Democrat strongholds while robbing the Red States of their voting power.”
No, the Electoral College Is Not a ‘Shadow of Slavery’s Power’
- by Tara Ross - The
discussions at the Constitutional Convention were shaped more by the delegates’
study of history and political philosophy, as well as their own experiences with
Parliament and the state legislatures. They wanted to avoid the mistakes that
had been made in other governments. They sought to establish a better
constitution that would stand the test of time.
...The delegates were discussing separation of powers. Slavery was not their focus. Indeed, the debates about the presidential election process never focused on slavery. Instead, the delegates discussed whether legislative selection or a national popular vote was preferable. The division was between large and small states, not between slave and free states.
Some of the larger states had slaves, some did not. Some of the smaller states had slaves, some did not. All of the small states, however—slave and free—were worried about the dangers of a simple national popular vote. As slavery opponent Gunning Bedford of Delaware had said so eloquently, the small states simply feared that they would be outvoted by the large states time and time again.
The Electoral College had everything to do with balancing power between large and small states in America’s new experiment in self-governance. It had nothing to do with slavery. What an inconvenient truth for those who would like to eliminate the system.
Excerpts from “The Indispensable Electoral College: How the Founders’ Plan Saves Our Country from Mob Rule” (Regnery Gateway, 2017).
Hillary Clinton (Naturally) Wants to Abolish the Electoral College - By Gary DeMar ...Consider this scenario: Imagine that Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in every state except California. In each one of these states, Trump’s margin of victory was 20,000 votes. In California, Clinton defeated Trump by more than 2,000,000 votes. This would have made Clinton the popular vote winner of the country by more than 1,000,000, but Trump would have won the election with an electoral vote landslide. In this case, California overturned the will of all the other forty-nine states. Only twelve percent of the people in the United States live in California. In effect, a state representing twelve percent of the people had a disproportionate impact on the election. Because the majority of votes for Clinton were concentrated in one state, under a popular vote election, state sovereignty would be a thing of the past. By having the Electoral College in place, it ensures that this scenario could never happen.
Constitutional Ignorance — Perhaps Contempt - By Walter E. Williams - Hillary Clinton blamed the Electoral College for her stunning defeat in the 2016 presidential election in her latest memoirs, What Happened? Some have claimed that the Electoral College is one of the most dangerous institutions in American politics. Why? They say the Electoral College system, as opposed to a simple majority vote, distorts the one-person, one-vote principle of democracy because electoral votes are not distributed according to population.
...Many people whine that using the Electoral College instead of the popular vote and majority rule is undemocratic. I’d say that they are absolutely right. Not deciding who will be the president by majority rule is not democracy. But the Founding Fathers went to great lengths to ensure that we were a republic and not a democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution or any other of our founding documents. ...The Founders expressed contempt for the tyranny of majority rule, and throughout our Constitution, they placed impediments to that tyranny. Two houses of Congress pose one obstacle to majority rule. That is, 51 senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators. The president can veto the wishes of 535 members of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto. To change the Constitution requires not a majority but a two-thirds vote of both houses, and if an amendment is approved, it requires ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures. Finally, the Electoral College is yet another measure that thwarts majority rule. It makes sure that the highly populated states — today, mainly 12 on the East and West coasts, cannot run roughshod over the rest of the nation. That forces a presidential candidate to take into consideration the wishes of the other 38 states.
...Currently, seven states with populations of one million or fewer have one representative, thus giving them disproportionate influence in Congress. While we’re at it, should we make all congressional acts be majority rule? When we’re finished with establishing majority rule in Congress, should we then move to change our court system, which requires unanimity in jury decisions, to a simple majority rule?
...My question is: Is it ignorance of or contempt for our Constitution that fuels the movement to abolish the Electoral College?
The final three weeks of the Constitutional Convention, 1787. Congressional matters have largely been decided, and the delegates move their attention to the executive branch. After much debate pitting national and federal powers against each other, the Electoral College is proposed and adopted: as with the Connecticut Compromise, the president would be elected by a combination of the people and the states.
From James Madison's point of view the Electoral College is an important technology that gives both the people and the states an important voice of approval - and veto - to the election of the President who must represent both the people (House) and States (Senate) in faithfully executing the laws stemming from the representatives in either house. Originally US Senators were appointed by the states, it has only been this century they have been elected directly as representatives. From Madison's point of view the legislation that was vetoed in California would break the federal nature of the system. Making it a one-electorate nationalist system.
"Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms." - Aristotle (384-322 BC)
"[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 fundamental principle of our Constitution, which enjoins that the will of the majority shall prevail." (Within the framework of the Constitution and Biblical Law, not mob rule.) George Washington (1732-1799) Father of the Country, 1st President of the United States
"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
Why We Use Electoral College, Not Popular Vote - By Jarrett Stepman ...The system empowers states, especially smaller ones, because it incentivizes presidential candidates to appeal to places that may be far away from population centers. Farmers in Iowa may have very different concerns than bankers in New York. A more federalist system of electing presidents takes that into account. ...Additionally, if the president were elected by unfiltered national vote, small and rural states would become irrelevant, and campaigns would spend their time in large, populous districts.
Why the Electoral College? - By TheJohnBirchSociety - In the aftermath of every presidential election, the Electoral College comes under scrutiny, even attack. Many Americans have no clue of its important role in safeguarding us from the tyranny of the majority. Watch the video to learn more. Then contact your state representatives to tell them to protect the Electoral College as it is under attack from those who want to see it replaced with the national popular vote. Contact your state reps: https://www.votervoice.net/JBS/2/camp...
Electoral College Myth #6: Eliminating the Electoral College would make
every vote equal - by Tara
Myth number 6 in my series on Electoral College Myths! Please don’t miss the earlier installments here:
Myth #1: Only swing states matter, other states are ignored
Myth #2: The Founders did not trust the people
Myth #3: The Electoral College is undemocratic
Myth #4: Votes cast for a 3rd-party candidate are wasted
Myth #5: Eliminating the Electoral College will make it harder to steal elections
Myth: A national direct election system would be better than the
Electoral College. It would force presidential candidates to run truly national
campaigns because votes in every corner of the country would have the
same weight. Every voter will matter only if every vote is equal.
Fact: The real question is not whether voters are or are not equal with each other. Every voter in this nation is equal with every other voter in his same election pool. The question is whether the relevant election pool should be one national election pool or 51 state (plus D.C.) election pools. Second, it’s important to remember that there is an important difference between giving votes the same legal weight and making voters equal in practice.
Perhaps it helps to remember how our system operates today. Americans don’t hold one single, national election for President. Instead, we have an election that operates in two phases. In the first phase of the election, Americans participate in 51 completely separate elections—one in each state and one in D.C. The purpose of these purely democratic, state-level elections is to determine which individuals (electors) will represent your state in a second phase of the election. In these state-level elections, your vote carries the exact same weight as every other voter in your election pool! In other words, every vote cast in Kentucky has the same legal weight. Likewise, every voter in Florida is equal with every other voter in Florida.
The second phase of the election occurs in December. This latter election is an election among the states’ 538 electors, which were elected on Election Day. A majority of them (270) can elect a President.
Electoral College opponents correctly note that eliminating the Electoral College would change our two-phase process into a single, national election. Thus, instead of votes that have the same legal weight at the state level, we’d have votes that have the same legal weight at the national level. But there is an important difference between making voters legally equal and making them equal in practice. If we conduct one single national election, we will have the former, but not the latter. If we keep our current system, we ultimately do better with both.
Presidential candidates have limited time and resources; they must strategize and prioritize. They won’t run out to a remote city like Worland, Wyoming, simply because the 4,000 potential votes there have the same legal weight as 4,000 votes cast anywhere else in the country. As a strategic matter, candidates are immensely more productive if they head to a large urban area to get those 4,000 votes. It’s simple math. In a big city like Los Angeles, they will obtain not only 4,000 votes but probably millions more. In a world without the Electoral College, rural areas and small states will never again matter in the presidential election. It won’t matter that their votes have the same legal weight as voters in big cities. Practically speaking, candidates have little incentive to care how they vote.
The Electoral College, by contrast, forces presidential candidates to broaden their appeal as much as possible. If a candidate has already won California, then the 4,000 extra votes in Wyoming or another small state really might be what he needs. He doesn’t need any more votes in L.A. His campaign strategy must take into account the fact that his support must cross state and regional boundaries if he is to win a majority of states’ electoral votes.
Electoral College opponents sound irrefutable when they argue that the Electoral College should be eliminated because “every vote should be equal.” They forget—or choose to ignore—that the Founders incorporated state action into our presidential election system for very important reasons. And it turns out that giving votes equal legal weight within state boundaries (instead of national boundaries) ensures that voters are not only legally equal, but also much more equal as a pragmatic matter.
Please don’t miss my new kids’ illustrated book about the Electoral College!
THERE’S A REASON WE LIVE IN A REPUBLIC - By
D.C. McAllister -When people say our president should be elected directly by
the people with a simple plurality of the votes, they’re rejecting the
republican system of government established by our founders. The framers of the
Constitution soundly rejected the concept of a pure democracy where the people
elect leaders directly. Such a system would lead to mob rule where the rights of
the minority are crushed by the will of the majority. As Ben Franklin said,
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.” Is that
the kind of country we want to live in? The founders certainly didn’t, and they
rejected it. They understood that a representative republic rooted in
constitutional law is best. Our liberties are not determined by the fickle
passions of the majority but by the steady rule of law. Under our system, a
single sheep is armed with the Constitution to face off two ravenous wolves.
...James Madison explains why this is necessary in Federalist 63: There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?
National Popular Vote: a perfectly horrendous idea - By Bryan
Fischer - The NPV has now been adopted by 11 states, with New York being the
latest to sign on just this week. NPV provides that, if enough states sign
compacts with other states, every state which belongs to the compact will
automatically award all of its electoral votes to whichever presidential
candidate wins the nationwide popular vote. New York just added its 29 electoral
votes to the plan, bringing the total number of electoral votes controlled by
NPV to 165, or 61 percent of the total needed for the plan to take effect.
Thus the citizens in states which cast a majority of votes for the candidate who loses the nationwide popular vote would be instantly disenfranchised. The Founders would roll over in their ballot boxes to see this monstrosity make any progress in the nation they built. The Founders established the Electoral College instead of a direct popular vote precisely because pure democracy quickly descends into mob rule. They understood fallen humanity, and knew how easily and quickly the masses can be deceived by charlatans and populists into voting for whoever will tickle enough ears and promise enough goodies.
Said James Madison, the Father of the Constitution: "Democracy is the most vile form of government. ... 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."
You naturally will ask, does this mean the Founders did not trust the collective electoral wisdom of the people? That's exactly what it means. They knew the susceptibility of frail human beings to demagoguery and how quickly a society could unravel under pure democracy. This is how John Adams put it: "Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable [abominable] cruelty of one or a very few."
As a protection against mobocracy, in virtually every circumstance the Founders sought to insert a layer of insulation between the people themselves and the selection of public officials and the formation of public policy. The whole point of the Electoral College was that voters wouldn't even vote for a president. They would vote instead for electors, who in turn would select a president for them. The only, absolutely the only, public officials who were placed into office by a direct vote of the people were members of the House of Representatives.
Presidents were to be chosen by electors, not by the people. Senators were to be chosen by state legislatures, not by the people. Judges were to be chosen by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, not by the people. The original design of the Electoral College was that we the people would not choose a president but rather would choose the people who would choose a president for us. November elections were intended to be elections in which we chose electors, not presidents.
The intention of the Founders was that there would be, in today's terms, 538 separate campaigns for the office of elector, in which candidates for that office would seek to convince us that they could be trusted with that most important of decisions, the selection of the next president of the United States. Once they had chosen a president, their term of office would come to an end.
This is a subject for another day, but it would be best for us to award electoral votes congressional district by congressional district rather than state by state. Nebraska and Maine already do this. Rural districts in states with huge population centers such as New York and California often feel disenfranchised, as if their votes don't count and don't matter. It would be far better to award one electoral vote to every single congressional district, with two additional electoral votes (for each of the their two senate seats) awarded to the winner of each state's popular vote. We should be moving toward this as a goal, not toward the republic-destroying National Popular Vote.
The NPV is a drastic lurch away from a republican form of government and should be firmly, immediately and persistently resisted. Benjamin Franklin famously told us that the Founders had given us "a Republic, if you can keep it." The NPV is just about the fastest way to destroy what is left of that republic. As Founding Father Benjamin Rush put it, "A simple democracy is the devil's own government." I prefer the government of the Founders over the government of the Prince of Darkness. And so should you.
Conservatives and tea party win White House with Electoral College reform
By Kevin Fobbs (Feb. 11,
1013) - Presidents Day is nearing and conservatives will have something to
celebrate that day four years from now when the Electoral College is returned to
the voters. Currently, there is a movement in motion in several key presidential
electoral battle ground states to return constitutional selection of the
president to the voters by using congressional district selection of Electoral
College electors. This move would even the playing field in presidential
campaigns, to be more reflective of the true will of the people of a state,
instead of voters being held hostage by the large urban population centers.
Large urban centers typically out vote the majority of congressional district by stealing votes in cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Philadelphia and Chicago. This results in state winner-take all electoral votes swinging unfairly and even illegally to a candidate like Barack Obama. In 2008 and 2012, Obama's Chicago-style thuggish election machine worked to intimidate, manipulate and otherwise steal a presidential election in dozens of precincts in urban areas with impunity. This process has created a false narrative that America has chosen a left-leaning socialist agenda that gives permission for citizens to be stripped of their Second Amendment gun rights, or states being forced to stand down against illegal aliens taking their health care, jobs and now their rights.
The solution has been clear for many years, and states like Nevada and Maine have already set the pathway toward a more balanced true representation of a state. They have initiated congressional district selection of presidential electors. In these states citizens can select their presidential candidate of choice, without being held hostage to the will of another congressional district or districts. Currently, there are several states that have launched efforts to create a more fair and balanced Electoral College initiative.
Michigan, Virginia, Ohio and Florida are some that are entertaining the idea. Yet their governors are showing timidity in fully embracing this patriotic concept. Michigan's governor, Rick Snyder who is up for re-election in 2014, had previously suggested his consideration for the move for voting fairness. Now, according to TPM, he is backing away. If Snyder and a few other Republican governors are appearing weak in the knees about restoring electoral power to the state voters, this is probably the best time to know this.
It gives the conservatives, the Tea Party and other like-minded voters the opportunity to put them on notice: No support for voter rights – No re-election! Why is this crucial? Think about how the presidential election would have been turned on its head. Obama would have been shown the White House door, if the will of the people had been truly expressed by each congressional district! In Virginia, Mitt Romney would have beaten Obama 2 to 1, with Romney picky up 9 electoral votes to Obama's 4 electoral votes. A similar result would have occurred in Ohio, and other key battle ground states. Obama would have had his lease terminated by the true representative vote of America.
o There’s No Good Reason To Get Rid Of The Electoral College By DOUG MATACONIS - As for myself, as I’ve noted here in the past I tend to support the continued existence of the Electoral College, with the modification that I would like to see the individual states adopt the District Method for allocation of electors as Maine and Nebraska have done. More importantly, though, I’ve found the arguments against the Electoral College to be lacking.
...Over at National Review Daniel Foster lays out his version of the positive case for the Electoral College: In short, the College reflects the formal and constitutional fact that the president is elected chief executive of a union of states — federated but sovereign — and not a conglomeration of people. The executive of the Constitution, of the Founders, is president of the United States, not president of America. Its detractors consider it an anachronism, but if federalism still means anything — and sadly, that’s something of an open question — then the College is as vital as ever. It affirms that we vote as citizens of the several states, not mere residents of arbitrarily drawn administrative districts.
...As Foster says, the Electoral College serves to make Presidential elections truly national, requiring candidates to register support not just in the high population areas on the East and West Coasts but also in the interior of the nation where interests vastly different from those of the Boston-New York-Washington corridor and the San Francisco-Los Angeles-San Diego corridor motivate voters. It also reinforces whatever remaining strands of Federalism still exist in this country, thus challenging the idea that all wisdom must come from Washington.
...The advocates of eliminating the Electoral College are proposing what is, without a doubt, a radical change to our Constitutional structure. Potentially, it would have a significant impact on the relationship between the Federal Government and the states regarding the question of who exactly is the final authority when it comes to deciding the outcome of an election.
o FOOL ME TWICE: OBAMA'S SHOCKING PLANS FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS EXPOSED Book By Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott - Progressive organizations are quietly pushing a "popular vote" that could see only 14 states - those with the largest populations - decide the presidency for voters in all 50 states, according to a book released this week that's now skyrocketing up bestseller charts. The book contains a bonus chapter on the subject and documents concerns over voter fraud in the upcoming presidential election. It also presents new information about a foreign-based company – Scytl – running hundreds of online U.S. voting systems.
...National Popular Vote: The vote for president is the only one in which all Americans vote for a national leader. In framing the U.S. Constitution, Klein and Elliott write, the Founding Fathers displayed their characteristic wisdom and subtlety in firmly rejecting a purely popular vote to elect the president, in order to balance the power of the larger states against the smaller. The Electoral College was fashioned as a compromise between an election of the president by direct popular vote and election by Congress. However, "Fool Me Twice" documents how a group backed by a who's who of the progressive left, calling itself the National Popular Vote, or NPV, has already been successful in quietly pushing for abolishing the Electoral College in favor of a "popular vote."
"Under the rubric of a 'National Popular Vote,' this plan would allow the 14 most populous American states, mostly majority-Democrat, to determine the outcome of future presidential elections. The voters of the 36 less populous states would then effectively be disenfranchised," warn Klein and Elliott. The plan is already gaining traction. In 2007, Maryland became the first state to approve a "national popular vote" compact. As a result, in a theoretical winner-take-all contest, Maryland would allocate all of its 10 electoral votes to the candidate who won the most votes nationally – even if the same candidate did not win the most votes in Maryland.
By March 2012, eight states – California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont, Washington, plus the District of Columbia – had enacted the "national popular vote" into law. Two other states, Colorado and Rhode Island, had passed it in both houses, but it had not been enacted. Ten more states had passed it in one house, and 10 others had passed it in a committee. Eleven states had held hearings on it, and nine more states had introduced bills. While organizational support comes almost exclusively from left-leaning groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the League of Women Voters, the Soros-funded Common Cause and the Demos group, NPV's army of lobbyists has also been pushing its plan to the Republican National Committee, the American Legislative Exchange Council and conservative think tanks such as the Heartland Institute and the Heritage Foundation. There is, however, one hitch in the NPV plan: For a "national popular vote" to predominate, the full 270 electoral votes must be based on identical legislation (the "interstate compact") passed by each state. See the "Fool Me Twice" trailer. Dozens and dozens of second-term plans are uncovered in "Fool Me Twice."
o Bill Whittle Explains the Electoral College (PolitiChicks.tv)
o National Popular Vote: Goodbye, Sweet America By Publius Huldah - Our Constitution is under constant attack.1 One of the most pernicious attacks is being waged by those who seek to override the constitutional provisions under which The States, as political entities, elect the President; and to replace it with a national popular vote (NPV) under which inhabitants of major metropolitan areas will choose the President. What Form of Government Did We Create In Our Constitution? Before you can see why it is so important that The States elect the President, and why the NPV is so execrable, you must understand how our “federal” government was structured and intended to operate. “Federal” actually referred to the form of the national government created in our Constitution, and to the division of powers between the national government and The States. The “Federation” created by our Constitution is an alliance of independent and sovereign States associated together in a “confederation” with a national government to which is delegated authority over the States in specifically defined areas ONLY (national defense, international commerce & relations; and domestically, the creation of an uniform commercial system: weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a monetary system based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, and mail delivery). Those enumerated powers are the only areas wherein the national government has lawful (constitutional) authority over The States. In all other matters, the States retained supremacy, independence, and sovereignty.
o ELECTORAL COLLEGE BATTLE: SHOVELING THE USURPER BACK INTO OFFICE By: Devvy - The chicanery being played against the American people by lunatics working so hard for their own destruction is cranking up: Eliminating the Electoral College Eliminates States Rights and Obama Remains As President "While we are paying attention to the OWS and to Republican debates where the candidates annihilate each other, the Progressives have a plan to keep themselves in power forever, starting in 2012. "They plan to do this by eliminating the role of states, a protection written into our Constitution, and they are doing it covertly while in plain sight. The Progressive initiative is called the “National Popular Vote Compact” aka NPVC and their information is being spread nationwide via the Internet since 2008. "They claim it is “true democracy” but “democracy” to them is interchangeable with “socialism” and worse, as it was in the sixties. They are moving state by state to bypass the Constitutional amendment process, relegating our SCOTUS to complete insignificance. As per the Communist Manifesto, “popularism” is the means of “democracy.” It achieves a monopoly of democratic parties for the worldwide Socialist order. "Their goal is to have all the required 270 Electoral Votes needed for a “winner” given to the candidate who wins the largest number of popular votes nationally – no matter how small the win margin and no difference how many states voted to oppose him.
o Abolishing the Electoral College? By Darlene Casella - Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied in the Presidential Election of 1800. Jefferson was subsequently elected by a vote in the House of Representatives. To ensure that this could not happen again, Congress proposed and ratified a new design of the Electoral College which was ratified in 1804, as the 12th Amendment. The popular vote idea was presented at that time, and rejected. The Founders were acutely aware of the populist degeneration into dictatorship that resulted from the recent French Revolution. They saved our country from a similar fate.
The United States of America is a Republic, not a Democracy. This leads to misconceptions about our election processes. The Founders conceived a concept to prevent a majority from infringing upon the rights of a minority. They accomplished this by establishing a representative, rather than democratic, election process. The majority mob rule of France had taken away property rights and eventually civil rights from the minority with which they disagreed. The Wall Street protestors appear to have a similar goal. The founders disavowed the popular vote to insure fundamental freedoms of all citizens; and to protect minority interests from a majority mob influence.
In 1804 the Electoral College established fair representative electors. Each state’s electors are determined by the combined number of senators and congressmen in that state. Each state has two senators. The number of Congress Members is determined by population poll statistics. California has two senators and 53 members of Congress, for a total of 55 electoral votes. Tiny Vermont has two Senators and one Congressman for 3 electoral votes. Elections for President and Vice president of the United States are indirect elections. Voters cast ballots for a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or other slate. The state electors in turn directly elect the President and Vice President.
The Founders strongly desired that small population states, as well as large, have a voice in determining the Presidential outcome. That is accomplished through the Electoral College system. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) has been a populist movement since 2007. Their goal is to replace the Electoral College of the 12thAmendment. NPVIC uses a technical detail in the Constitution to bypass the two thirds majority vote in both houses required to overturn an Amendment. The 18thAmendment, Prohibition, was overturned by the 22nd Amendment which repealed Prohibition. As of September 2011 the NPVIC bill has passed the state legislatures of California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont and Washington. This gives it 132 of the required 270 electoral votes needed to enact the popular vote legislation. Votes are pending in the states of Alaska, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. The bill passed twice in the uber liberal legislature of California; however it was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The third time through, Gov Jerry Brown signed it into law.
If the NPVIC gets the required 270 electoral votes, 8 cities will elect the president. The latest statistics show that the largest population centers in the country are Chicago, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, Phoenix, San Francisco, and San Jose. Eight cities in six states would determine the election. This is not the geographic distribution desired by the Founders. The populist path to hell, paved by George Soros and Michael Moore, seems the route that liberal Americans wish to take. Claims that the democratic process is incompetent and failing and needs an overhaul may be true. However holding the Electoral College responsible for problems of government is wrongheaded. This rhetoric plays well to the masses who may have degrees, but are not educated. Their slogan could be “We are mad as hell, and we don’t know why”. If your state is pending this legislation, please contact your elected representatives. Under the radar, the NPVIC virus is spreading across the country.
o Don’t Get Rid of the Electoral College By Rachel Alexander - The election of the president is determined by the Electoral College, not a national popular vote. In every state but two, Maine and Nebraska, all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. Each state is allotted as many electoral votes as they have U.S. Senators and Representatives. This results in smaller states having more electoral votes proportionate to their populations, and larger states having less. Since smaller states tend to be more conservative, this makes it more likely that a Democrat could win the popular vote by winning large urban areas in big states, while still losing the election. Realizing they can rig the system, Democrats are advocating replacing our current system with the National Popular Vote Compact (NPV). They would get around the difficulty of amending the Constitution by instead having states voluntarily enter into a compact to participate. States would agree to assign all of their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the total popular vote across the country, not just within that state. As soon as enough states pass this legislation and surpass half the electoral votes, 270, it will go into effect. Currently eight states and the District of Columbia have joined, totaling 132 electoral votes so far.
o 'A Government of Laws, and Not of Men': The Electoral College By Nancy Salvato - One cannot help but notice, asJames R Whitson explains in President Elect, “only the House of Representatives was voted on by the people.” What becomes clear, when one studies the Founders deliberations, is that every method of selection was to protect the rule of law and to prevent rule by majority, democracy. So a movement to elect the president through popular vote, rather than through the Electoral College, is extremely disconcerting.
As Whitson points out, “The 17th Amendment took the states out of the federal legislature and indirectly out of the federal judiciary (they had a vote in the Senate on judicial appointments). By getting rid of the Electoral College, the states would lose their power over the third branch of the government, the executive branch.”
How does the Electoral College work on behalf of the states’ rights? Whitson explains: “The Electoral College helps prevent a candidate from pandering to one region, or running up their votes in certain states. In the Electoral College system, once you win a majority of the votes in a state there is no need to get more. In a direct election, the more votes in a state the better. Here's an example why this can be a bad thing. Massachusetts is very Democratic. The Democrats will almost always easily win 50% of the vote. In the Electoral College system, the Democratic candidate visits a few times to make sure he'll win and then moves on to other states. In a direct election, the Democratic candidate would spend a lot more time in Massachusetts trying to push his vote total to 70-80%. In a close election, why visit a state where the polls say it's 50-50%, spend a bunch of money and time, and maybe get 1-5% more votes when you can go to a safe state that says you're leading 60-40%, spend less money and effort, and maybe get 5-10% more votes. In direct election, candidates would spend more time in states they're easily going to win in order to run up their vote total. With the Electoral College, candidates have to actually fight the close states.”
The Electoral College prevents candidates from ignoring smaller states in favor of big metropolitan areas. In a direct election, Chicago IL has twice as much voting power as the entire state of New Hampshire. If there were direct election, Ken Burnside explains in Should the electoral college be abolished? “A political candidate need only appeal to the 91 percent of the population that lives in five metropolitan areas: Los Angeles/Orange County/San Diego County (78 million people), the Boston-Washington Corridor (106 million people), Chicago and surrounding areas (38 million people) and Houston, Texas (33 million people). In a direct election, only the residents of those cities matter in choosing the Presidency. The person who carries those precincts carries the country. While the current system is still heavily weighted towards certain states (New York, California, Florida and Texas chief among them), the disparity of electoral college votes is merely 27 percent of the total. A candidate, as a result, has to appeal to a broader range of constituents, and cannot simply be beholden to the larger urban areas. This results (in theory) in a President who represents all of America.”
The Framers had compelling reasons for dividing political power, reasons which are still applicable today. As Hoebeke explains, “While all political power ultimately derived from the people, each branch answered in an immediate way to an essentially different constituency from that of the others, and was thus considered less liable to fall victim to the same errors, the same impulses, or the same corrupting influences.” In other words, as Hoebeke correctly points out, the U.S. Constitution fragments… “...the power of the majority, deliberately supplying ‘opposite and rival interests’ as a more reliable guarantee of individual freedom and minority rights than could reasonably be expected from merely relying on the good will of the superior number of citizens.”
When citizens understand the reasons for the Electoral College, they can understand why direct election would undermine a Constitutional Republic. Enactment of such legislation might sound like a good idea, but, in the end it would lead to majority rule and our rule of law would no longer protect the rights of our citizenry. This is because majority rule inevitably leads to tyranny. To borrow the words of the rock band R.E.M., it would be, “the the end of our world as we know it.”
o Vermont Joins National Popular Vote Effort (April 2011) - We all recall the result of the 2000 election, in which George W. Bush won despite receiving fewer popular votes than opponent Al Gore. In its wake, a compact was formed where some states agreed to cast their Electoral College votes based upon the winner of the nationwide popular vote, regardless of state results. Vermont has now become the eighth state to join the compact, joining the District of Columbia, Hawaii, New Jersey, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington. Supporters claim it will become effective once the plateau of states representing 270 electoral votes (a majority) is reached. This could also be called the "sore losers law." Since these eight states are reliable Democrat strongholds, we can't help but wonder what would happen if a Republican candidate these states didn't support was the winner of the popular vote. In theory, such a candidate could be rendered a loser if the states allowed the Democrat electors who won their state to vote in the Electoral College. How quickly would the compact be broken should these blue states' own ox be, er, Gored? While backers claim that National Popular Vote (NPV) makes "every vote equal," we all know that candidates will still focus their efforts on large population centers -- states in "flyover country" would still be ignored. Why campaign throughout the entire state of Wyoming when nearby Denver has just as many voters in a concentrated area? If anything, NPV would enhance the power of urban areas -- which, not coincidentally, tend to be Democrat strongholds. The next target for NPV is California, where it's on the fast track to passage and would place the measure into effect in states representing nearly 150 electoral votes.
o The United Cities of America By Arnold Ahlert - I'm beginning to wonder how many Americans still understand why this country is called the United States of America. I suspect a combination of dumbed-down public schools, the unconscionable expansion of federalism and an activist judiciary contribute to a certain level of ignorance regarding the true nature of our democratic republic, but it still amazes me how many Americans don't get it. The true genius of that democratic republic is that it consists of fifty separate constituencies loosely united under a federal umbrella.
...The expansion of federalism at the expense of the states is little more than a grand attempt to centralize as much power as possible in Washington, D.C. It is the attempt to make individual Americans as impotent as possible by moving as many decisions as far possible away from the local, county and state level, where an individual's power is greatest, towards the federal level--where the overwhelming majority of Americans don't count for anything.
The great irony of those championing the demise of the Electoral College is that they are ostensibly ( I say ostensibly because I believe there is nothing pure about the motive here) doing so to promote more freedom, not less.
What a load of baloney. ...Let me be a bit indelicate here: any American who thinks investing more power in the federal government is a good idea is either a moron--or working for that government. The fact that state legislatures in six states have voted to make their states less influential in selecting the person who would occupy the highest office in the land is clear evidence that historical ignorance is a burgeoning phenomenon.
As for the people who think the elimination of the Electoral College means every vote 'will count equally,' try selling that garbage in North Dakota or any other low-population state which would be routinely ignored in every presidential election thereafter. What these 'do-gooders' are really advocating is the eventual dissolution of states' rights altogether, and the permanent entrenchment of all meaningful power in Congress and the Oval Office -- or more accurately, in the King and His Court. The United States of America? The United Cities of America would be more like it. No doubt that works for those who believe centralized government is the be-all and end-all. For those who still believe in freedom and representative government, it's a complete crock.
o Guess what part of the Constitution goes next! (July 24, 2010) Drastic change in works to revamp whole Electoral College - Democrats have found yet another way to circumvent the U.S. Constitution: Bypass the Electoral College and elect a president by popular vote without first passing an amendment to the founding document, Jerome Corsi's Red Alert reports. The Massachusetts Senate has joined five other states in passing a National Popular Vote bill to do just that. It approved the legislation July 15 by a margin of 28-10. The National Popular Vote, which already passed the Massachusetts House, is within one final "enactment vote" in the Massachusetts Senate before the measure can be ready for the governor's signature, the Boston Globe reported. "Under the proposed law, all 12 of the state's electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally," according to the report. "The idea is that Massachusetts will instruct its electors in the Electoral College to vote for the candidate receiving the majority of presidential election votes nationally, regardless of how the state's own voters cast their ballots," Corsi explained. The Massachusetts National Popular Vote bill, if signed into law by Gov. Deval Patrick, will not go into effect until states possessing a majority of Electoral College votes pass similar legislation. The movement is popularly characterized as "One Person, One Vote for President," a slogan designed to suggest the Electoral College method of counting presidential votes is "unfair" under a 14th Amendment "One Vote, One Person" definition of voter rights. ..."If the National Public Vote movement succeeds," he added, "the president might be chosen by the popular-vote winner in 10 or 11 of the most populous states."
o 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.
o 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.
o 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 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.
o The wolves are at the door! By Henry Lamb - America is not a democracy. It was never intended to be a democracy. The founders worked hard to see that the new government they created was not a democracy, but a growing segment of the population seems hell-bent on transforming this great nation into a democracy in which the rights of the minority are systematically ignored.
o Republic vs. Democracy - (Video 10:35) "A Republic, If You Can Keep It" - The American Form of Government. An explanation of the various forms of government, and why America is not a democracy. (More: Republic vs. Democracy)
Back to Resource Index
Home | About | Search | Newsletter | Contact