1.26.2013

Electoral College? No School Like the Old School


Today I hear many liberals calling for an end to the Electoral College and to simply elect our president through a popular vote.  That may sound good on the surface, but there is a reason why the Founders set it up that way.

The Electoral College is not a good system as it is managed today.  It does not seem fair as certain states seem to carry all the power and voters feel that they throw their votes away as winner-takes-all voting rules decide the balance of the electoral votes.  So is the answer to make it a poplar vote instead?  No, bad idea.

As the founders originally designed it there should be a district vote in each state where electors are chosen and whose votes are counted toward the election of candidates and not a winner-take-all as it is today. In 1820 James Madison proposed a constitutional amendment that would require states to use the district method, writing that "The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket & the legislative election, as the only expedient for baffling the policy of the particular States which had set the example."

1824 was the tipping point election for presidential electoral systems, as twice as many states used the winner-take-all statewide method as used the state legislature method. The defeated Andrew Jackson joined James Madison's plea for a constitutional amendment requiring a uniform district election system, but to no avail. In every U.S. presidential election since, the statewide method has been predominant. 

The whole purpose of the Electoral College is to give power to the states in a Presidential election and balance the election process. The current winner takes all system gives power to the political parties and not the states as it was intended. It's all about balance of power and the checks and balances that protect our liberties. 

Even the election of Senators used to be from the states until they changed that with the 17th Amendment and see how the popular vote has led to the chaos we see today in Washington as Senators are more loyal to special interest groups than their own states by whom they used to be appointed. The Founders knew what they were doing when they designed the checks and balances of power.

Nope, as with other things, there is no school like the old school.




16 comments:

  1. I agree with you on this. I like the idea of apportioning electoral votes to congressional districts like Maine and Nebraska do. However, the two extra votes allotted to each state present a problem. Do you support giving those votes to the winner of the state's popular vote? Or do you prefer the way Virginia has proposed of assigning the votes to the person who wins the most Congressional districts? I am inclined toward the former, and I'm interested to hear your opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think each state should count the votes and offer up their district accordingly. No winner take all. If one candidate doesn't get the 50% of total votes it goes to the popular vote. There was a time that they suggested going to 40%, I think during the Andrew Jackson election, but it didn't pass. The electoral votes should be about state voting power, not popular votes or party votes as it is today.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sorry, I realized that I didn't answer your question. I think you divide the two extra votes based on the popular vote. I think each state should really vote on how they want to do it. The problem is that the dominant party in each state has an incentive for things to stay as they are. It stinks and is not truly "Constitutional" in the pure sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Yep. The current system stinks. Too bad we can't have the district based system so that Republicans in Upstate New York, Downtown Salt Lake City, and other minority political factions could have a voice in the presidential election. It would be the perfect compromise between the winner-take-all and purely popular vote! Major bummer that it will never happen.

      Delete
  4. *Democrats in Downtown Salt Lake City. I really should have done better proffreading.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I've often wondered about that system. You're right on. I never involved myself in politics as I always felt like however it turns out we have the best of worst systems of government and all will be fine. But I've got to tell you John lately now that I'm not a sheople anymore. I'm extremely worried about our Country. Now that I have 8 grandchildren I have a dire need to learn as much as I can and do all that I can for them. But like many I've thrown my hands up in frustration and ignored things. Not anymore. My excuse was what's a low born single vote going to do. I've got some serious internet marketing skills and although I'm ignorant enough not to know the true.definition of any party I do know this. The things depicted in your paintings seem like projections of my visions and feelings. Your narrations are my own voice. I'm weary of posting this for fear of being categorized. But if I see myself in your pictures and narrations what does that make me? I don't care what anyone thinks anymore, I just know in order to help and secure my grandchildrens . I'll take it easy or take it by force. I'll ascend or descend. Whatever it takes to secure their future freedoms and ensure they grow up in this country with the Delegation of Independence and the bill of Rights as originally formatted. Tell me where is a good place for three average " forgotten man" to rise up from that park bench and do something.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Gary Goel.....I feel the same way. I also know that in life when you suround yourself with "good people", good things happen. Simple philosophy. The problem is that we all have isolated and insulated ourselves to the point where we have all awakened and the damage has been done. Kind of like a home that has been neglected. It can be fixed rebuilt, and made beautiful again, but at what cost? Are we all willing to pay that cost is so many various ways. We all must get involved, starting with our children and tha education systems of this country...the "BRAIN WASHERS"! I am in my own business and when the subject come up, I express my beliefs and concerns no matter who I deal with. If people do not like what I have to say, so be it. I respect their opinion, just like I would want them to respect mine. If you are afraid of an answer, then do not ask the question. This entitlement mentality and inclusiveness is what is destroying the founding core principles of this country. The term assimilation to be an AMERICAN has faded and is never even in the vocabulary of anyone these days. The object is to destroy this country by eliminating accountability and consequences. The media exemplifies nothing more than the propaganda tactics of Joesepf Goebbels in NAZI Germany! I love Mr McNaughton's paintings and prints. I just wish I could afford them at the moment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Carl. How is our educational systems (public, private) brain washing our children?

      And, what do you mean specifically regarding the entitlement mentality (what programs) and inclusiveness are destroying the founding core principles (and what are these principles)?

      How does assimilation relate to being an American? Are you saying that cultural differences need to be wiped out?

      And how are we specifically eliminating accountability and consequences, and what do you propose should be done?

      And which media exemplifies Goebbels techniques? Would this include Fox News?

      Just trying to clarify.

      Delete
  7. PART 1

    Ok Jon. I usually delay responses until many (mostly the choir) have posted their input.

    This is an important issue for two reasons: first, the Right to Vote (15th Amendment) is the linchpin of all our rights. Without it your other rights would be in jeopardy. Why? Because if public officials are not answerable to the electorate, then they will simply advocate for special interests.

    Second, the Republicans (as Jon is aware) are trying to alter Electoral College state laws in swing/battleground states so that they represent the congressional districts' votes, as opposed to the popular vote within the state. Why is this a problem? Because districts are gerrymandered; this means that district boundaries are altered to establish a partisan advantage. And the states in which this is occurring have Republican governors (Virginia, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania).

    Often gerrymandering is used to ensure incumbents will be reelected by reducing competition. This works for incumbents not only at the state level, but also the federal level in Congress. If the Electoral College laws are altered to use the votes of the electoral/congressional districts, then you have effectively eliminated the popular vote (i.e. you might vote, but your vote won't impact the election).

    Gerrymandering is also blamed for creating a partisan divide; the worst in modern times. Btw, both parties employ this process. See http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2010/06/15-gerrymandering-frankel

    Given that, let's go thru Jon's post.

    First comes the vilification: "Today I hear many liberals calling for an end to the Electoral College". Here's the latest poll on the subject (at the bottom half of the article) that shows a significant majority of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents favor eliminating the Electoral College. See http://www.gallup.com/poll/159881/americans-call-term-limits-end-electoral-college.aspx

    Second, Jon says: "The Electoral College is not a good system as it is managed today. It does not seem fair as certain states seem to carry all the power and voters feel that they throw their votes away as winner-takes-all voting rules decide the balance of the electoral votes." Now here I agree that the winner-take-all is a bad process; it should be apportioned based on the popular vote within the state; or simply eliminate the Electoral College and go with the popular vote.

    ReplyDelete
  8. PART 2

    Third, Jon points to James Madison to imply that the founding fathers favored a district model with "In 1820 James Madison proposed a constitutional amendment that would require states to use the district method, writing that "The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket & the legislative election, as the only expedient for baffling the policy of the particular States which had set the example.""

    Actually, this is taken from a letter Madison wrote to George Hay (Aug 23, 1823) in which they were trying to resolve the complaints of the smaller (in population) southern states. A stipulation to this method was ""The Electors to be chosen in districts, not more than two in any one district, and the arrangement of the districts not to be alterable within the period of ------ previous to the election of President." In other words, Madison liked this approach only if the districts were NOT gerrymandered. See http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_1_2-3s10.html

    Now understand that Madison and the defeated Andrew Jackson were the only ones pushing for district model in 1824 (an Amendment); it was rejected by everyone else in favor of the statewide model.

    Fourth, Jon states "The whole purpose of the Electoral College is to give power to the states in a Presidential election and balance the election process. The current winner takes all system gives power to the political parties and not the states as it was intended. It's all about balance of power and the checks and balances that protect our liberties."

    I agree that Madison's intent was to minimize partisan control; however, the extreme level of gerrymandering that occurs today is not a system that Madison would approve (given that he stated so above).

    And fifth, Jon's last point "Even the election of Senators used to be from the states until they changed that with the 17th Amendment and see how the popular vote has led to the chaos we see today in Washington as Senators are more loyal to special interest groups than their own states by whom they used to be appointed."

    Let's start with understanding that the 17th Amendment passed in 1913; 100 years ago.

    What was the impact? "The reputation of corrupt and arbitrary state legislatures continued to decline as the Senate joined the House of Representatives implementing popular reforms." In other words, the corrupt state legislatures lost control over the Senate, which now become more responsive to the voter and not special interests; the exact opposite of Jon's interpretation. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Impact

    So who are the special interests? At the top of the list are the super PACs, and numerous large corporations. See http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2012 and http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s

    In conclusion, now that the Republicans cannot win elections on their policies, they are now focusing on rigging the election process legally (supposedly failing at election fraud) by changing the Electoral College laws at key swing states. The states are far easier to corrupt and control thru partisan gerrymandering; giving control back to the states will lead to further corruption and control by special interests.

    One last thought. We are the only free nation that uses the Electoral College; it is time to join the rest of the free world and use the popular vote.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The more we swing to democracy, the more corrupt we will become. Mob rule isn't the way. The 17th stripped state representation from the government, eliminating an important balance. They fixed the problem of state corruption (mentioned above) by ignoring it. This is a union of states, not well divided geographical areas. The states gave up autonomy in return for a say in what happens; the 17th took that say away. Gerrymandering corrupts further, and eliminating the electoral college would completely destroy state representation in the federal government. It was already mostly taken away with the 17th.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. This is a common fallacious argument confusing democracy with ochlocracy (which refers to mob rule).

      With the Constitution, we have a Constitutional Republic (formally called a Democratic Republic) in which all groups are protected by the rule of law, including minority groups.

      How does democracy work within our form of government? "Democracy allows eligible citizens to participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

      Does this mean that minority groups should control the election process? NO. Does it mean that minority opinion should outweigh majority opinion? NO. What it does mean is we have the popular vote, which allows individuals to select their representatives.

      What the 17th Amendment did (primarily) was to enable the voters within the State to select their Senators; as opposed to leaving this to state legislators. This has (as previously posted) reduced corruption within the Senate.

      Has State corruption been eliminated? NO. The states with corruption exposed receive immediate oversight and corruption declines temporarily; for those states in which corruption has not been exposed, it continues (till exposed). Now if you don't agree, then provide support for your statement. See http://247wallst.com/2012/03/22/americas-most-corrupt-states/

      Btw, the only statement I do agree with is "Gerrymandering corrupts further".

      Delete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete