I ran across this post by Joshua Rabotnick over at PJ Media and at first I thought it was well written and worthy of one of those rare times where I just put up the entire post as it “speaks for itself” on its own without any commentary. However, as I read through it, even after the well written history of WHY the Electoral College was (and still is) important, contra of what Rabotnick believes as his ending premise and conclusion is wrong. Thus, this is ripe for an old fashioned fisking (emphasis mine, some reformatting):
****
With politicians beginning to announce their candidacies for the 2020 presidential race, the topic of the Electoral College is once again emerging to the forefront of American politics. Since Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election with 2.9 million more votes than Donald Trump, and Al Gore lost the 2000 election despite outpacing George Bush by half a million votes, little has had a greater effect on the presidency in modern times than the institution of the Electoral College.
Dunno if I’d agree with this in its entirety – I’d go with the Judiciary from the Supremes downward first. Executive decisions bereft of Constitutional or authorizing legislation second (re: DACA as a primary example), but let’s go with it.
As background / reminder, the Electoral College was to create a series of State level elections for President instead of a single national one and each of those State level ones were for, no surprise here, another level of representatives who would cast their votes for President and not the entire State electorates themselves.
At the founding of the United States, there was plenty of controversy regarding the means by which the president would be elected. Many thought that Congress should elect the president directly, although others feared that such an establishment would give Congress a tyrannical degree of power. James Madison worried extensively about a true democratic election, fearing that the masses would vote to elect men who would encroach on the constitutional rights of other citizens in the name of the public good (an eerie thought in light of Senator Bernie Sanders’ recent announcement of his second presidential bid).
“elect men who would encroach on the constitutional rights of other citizens in the name of the public good”
Good point as we see the Democrats here in NH doing exactly that – further infringing on Constitutional Rights of others under the rubric of “safety and security”, emotional pitches for the non-existent “right” of “freedom of fear”, and of course, putting the Collective above the Individual using “public good“. The EXACT thing that our Founders feared.
And now, advocating for state level legislation that does an end around the Constitution’s idea of the Electoral College with legislation that is now making the rounds in mostly blue States called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. This legislation would bind each State to instruct its Electors to vote in lockstep with the national popular vote regardless of how their particular State actually voted. Thus, in 2016, Maine would have had all of its Electors (1 was set for Trump) for Hillary simply because California’s massive overvote for Hillary definitively swung the national popular vote. In effective, it would have negated those Maine voters entirely.
But then, again, Progressives / Socialists already decimated one of the most important check and balances of our vertical / horizontal Federalist based system with the 16th Amendment which repealed the original Constitution value where each of the two Senators from each State elected by their State Legislatures – and turned this part of our representative Republic on its head. They’ve simply become the same as the House of Representatives except they get elected for 3 times as long, they’re one of only one hundred (instead of four hundred) and there is FAR more ability for corruption of all kinds. More on this later
With a term later popularized by Alexis de Tocqueville as “tyranny of the majority,” the Founders sought to develop a system in which a small body of well-informed, educated, and passionate citizens would themselves elect the next president of the United States who would best represent the interests of the nation. In 1787, James Wilson created the Electoral College we know today which is enshrined in Article 1 Section 2 of the Constitution; however, the college today is effectively just a shell of the founder’s original intent, with most electors being legally bound to vote in direct accordance with the popular vote.
Joshua nods his head to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact with that. That, however, doesn’t make it right. To make it “right”, the change should be done by actually changing the Constitution. However, following the rules is not the hallmark of Socialists when they see an opportunity to wreaking havoc.
While there is little debate over whether the Constitution was pivotal to prospering America’s development, modern issues ranging from gun control to eminent domain leave many questioning the document’s efficacy and applicability in the 21st century. The question boils down to: Does the Constitution misunderstand modern America, or has America lost touch with the Constitution?
Thus far, I have agreed with Joshua – but now our paths diverge. As he proceeds, you will see that he makes the same mistake that the current (and early 1900s) Progressives make in that they believe that the Constitution was merely about a form of Governance. In this, they show their ignorance in that it is first a document about human nature and that it must be contained and compartmentalized. They knew, from studying history (something that the current crop of Progressives should do – actually learn the history that came before our Revolution) that it is human nature that destroys a nation and not just its form of Government.
I believe that with the constant and increasing acceleration of the Democrats to the anti-Republic foreign political philosophy from Germany, as are seeing not a “lost touch”, however, but a complete rejection of it.
Really, only the second clause of his question applies – and it really should be a declarative sentence. There is no doubt that America (or, at least its Leftist part) has not just lost touch with Constitutional values but is openly disdainful of it (right back to Woodrow Wilson et al) and only picks it up when they can worry some piece of it in rationalizing their headlong rush to shove us into being, not the Scandanavian countries they often laud but in replicating Venezuela openly Socialist Government.
Arguably, to a certain degree, it is a question of semantics. We either need a new constitution because this nation’s most sacred basis for law is an outdated document written by a bunch of drunk libertarian farmers, or Americans need to realign their philosophy after losing touch with the values of the Founding Fathers due to political apathy and a century of complacency.
While I am not a Libertarian (although commenter Bruce Currie believes we all are here at GraniteGrok – and he’s wrong per normal), if you boil it all down, their radical idea at the time and contrary to everywhere else in the world at the time was that it was Individual Liberty and Freedom that was preeminent (I’d call Joshua “Bruce 2.0” for this but I think Bruce would take too much pleasure in it).
He is right about “political apathy and a century of complacency” bit though because Conservatives just got on with their lives while Progressives have played the long game of nation-rebuilding-in-their-ideological-image. The Founders depended on a nation of informed and active citizens – we are now far from that.
But he misses a huge point that I say often. That is “history and political philosophy” education – most younger folk have no idea of what our history really is and have been deliberately and badly education thinking
Unfortunately, when it comes to the Electoral College, the modern dialogue consists of liberals screaming that the institution is non-democratic due to it not being based on the popular vote, and conservatives regurgitating excerpts of Thomas Jefferson warning of the tyranny of the majority and arguing that we have a democratic republic — not a democracy. There is some legitimacy to this response, but one must also recognize the frustration of the Left after losing an election they otherwise had the votes to win (for the second time in two decades) in a country founded on rebellion from being governed without proper representation.
Here, he really starts to go wrong. Not once does he come clean on the most important part of the Electoral College – that electing a President was defined as a system of State level Presidential elections and not one national one. He dismisses this premise with “with most electors being legally bound to vote in direct accordance with the popular vote“.
That’s false as he gives the impression of the “popular vote” is the national one. It isn’t – it is State by State (or until the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Constitutional bypass started) still. He also didn’t mention that while the election is set at the Federal level, the way that the Prez elections are handled are at the State level. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would obviate that completely…
…without going through the Constitutional Amendment process that it should go through. We all know why that it, don’t we?
Anyone who honestly reflects on the issue quickly realizes that Republicans and Democrats are simply advocating for whatever stance is politically advantageous to their party, and the conservative response doesn’t adequately address the underlying dilemma: Is a democratic republic more appropriate for 21st century America than a pure democracy?
Certainly, that which the Founders also feared was the tribalism that political Parties would bring and we see the unShiny example of that in Congress where originally it was felt that each Branch, House and Senate, would jealously guard its perogatives, we now see that Party lines cut across the House and the Senate in that Democrats spar against Republicans regardless of where chamber their butts sit.
In this, we have traveled far away from the original intent and much closer to the Pure Democracy the Founders knew would destroy us.
To properly address this question, one must reevaluate not just the Founding Fathers’ words, but their intent given the sociopolitical climate of the time in designing a democratic republic.
First, in 1788 when the Constitution was ratified, individuals weren’t American. Sure, they were prideful citizens of the great new nation that fought off the greatest military in the world in the name of liberty. But first and foremost, they were New Yorkers, Virginians, Pennsylvanians, Rhode Islanders, etcetera. They identified with the state in which they lived which most accurately represented their personal interests.
And now, we have the Left and the Right, the Democrats and the Republicans – and the Collectivist-Government-runs-everything and those of us who still believe that it should be not “people before profit” but “Individuals before Government”. The Founders had it right but where geo-locations, the affiliation to one’s Colony was preeminent, it is now a divide of Urban/Rural, Socialist versus Conservative. It is, however, a divide just as wide as it was in Revolutionary times – the small vs large, the Royalists (the old “Collectivists”) versus the true Resistance / rebellion.
Sidenote – the Democrats are all about #RESIST – what they cannot admit to is that they #RESIST against what was won for us 240 odd years ago.
In large part, this was due to the different economic interests of the new states. Northern coastal states such as New York had principle interests in manufacturing and international trade, whereas Southern and non-coastal states were concerned primarily with agriculture. In addition to the fundamentally different means of revenue, their currencies weren’t even identical. “Money” ranged from coins to paper to trading commodities, and cash was not equivalent from state to state. A Massachusetts pound was worth less than a Pennsylvania pound, which was worth less than the internationally-accepted British pound.
Further, there were logistical barriers between the states. In the era of quill pens and horseback, it would take days to weeks for the more distant states’ representatives to reach Philadelphia. Some of the new states such as Rhode Island often wouldn’t send representatives to conventions at all. Then there were ideological disagreements. Thus, with varying cultures, economies, and political climates, there was a natural degree of disconnect between the states.
While Joshua is trying to draw a difference of colonies, I maintain that we still have that divide still among the States. NOTHING changes – while Joshua is starting his point that things are so different from then, I maintain that the basic differences still holds even as they are different. Same circle, just a different spot on the circumference of that same circle but still on opposite side. Like I just said: Urban/Rural and Collectivist/Individual. You can easily add in more differences – it would help but only in shaping the degress of difference between Freedom of the Individual versus the Preeminence of The State and its subsuming of the Individual.
There was, of course, a federal government. That was the whole purpose of the Constitution, after all. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay recognized that a unifying government was necessary for the security and wellbeing of developing America. The Founding Fathers were acutely aware of the disproportionate security risks posed to the coastal states, the unequal tariffs burdening those involved more heavily in international trade, the risk of neighboring states detrimentally taxing one another’s goods and waging war over border disputes, the need for uniform arrangements and dealings with foreign nations, and the like. But, the purpose of the federal government was solely to aid in the functioning of the states themselves.
And if it had stayed that small, and the financial and “Power” stakes had remained that low, we’d be in a different spot now. Instead, starting with Woodrow Wilson and steadily increasing in intensity and size, the political stakes are enormous. Even Democrats “say” they are unhappy with the acrimony that now exists. The problem is that they are unwilling to let go of the root problem – the size of Government that can be wielded.
Me? Return it to the size it was pre-1900 and let the Individual go back to running their own lives. It won’t happen because Democrats 1) believe we are incapable of self-governance and 2) too addicted to the power it brings.
That said, the founders of this nation were equally cognizant of the risk of “tyranny of the majority.” In 1770, Virginia had a population of 447,000, while Georgia had a population 19 times smaller, at 23,000. Surely the Georgians did not want the Virginians 500 miles away governing their way of life, regardless of the size of their state. The Founding Fathers recognized this and purposefully assigned states one elector per congressman, meaning it was a compromise between the population-based House of Representatives and the uniformly-allotted Senate. But again, this was at a time when Georgians and Virginians would hardly interact.
And this disparity still exists – compare the population of NH (at around 1.3 million) to California’s of 39.6 million; a ration of 1 to 30. The Founders still had it right between large and small.
The problem nowadays is compounded by the population density of some states still far exceeding their allotted number of electoral votes. California has 39.5 million residents and 55 electors, equating to one elector per 718,182 citizens. By contrast, Wyoming only has a population of 579,315 and has three electors, which equates to one elector per 193,105 citizens. Thus, a Wyomingite’s vote is worth 3.7 times more than a Californian’s. Comparing Louisiana, which is allotted eight electors and has a median population in the United States of 4.66 million, Louisianans’ votes are worth three times more than Californians’.
Still, the rules of the election are known and every candidate knows how to play the game. It is only when the Democrats lose that they start howling about the popular vote if they won that.
Too bad – it has only happened four times in our history. That’s enough to complete kill off the Electoral College?
Even if one is to argue that such a disproportionate system is necessary today to protect the interests of the “flyover” states, the way this is executed on a state level is horribly flawed. Every state in the country, with the exception of only two, has a “winner-take-all” system, meaning if 51 percent of Ohioans vote Democrat and 49 percent vote Republican, all 18 electoral votes will go blue. Only two states — Nebraska and Maine — have an allocation system in which the winner automatically gets two electoral votes, and the remainder are divvied based on proportional support.
Again, that is set at the State level. The Founders set up our system of both horizontal and vertical Federalism – between the various States and then between the States and the Federal Government. They, wisely in my opinion, kept the Federal Government out of the States’ business in this matter.
Joshua wants to shove it in. Frankly, I give the Founders more trust than to him given the strawmen he’s been growing thus far.
So let’s take a look again at California — a state that controls 10 percent of the Electoral College — in which 44.4 percent voted Democrat and only 25.1 percent voted Republican in the last gubernatorial election. Should California adopt such a system, the Democratic nominee would earn 26 electoral votes, the Republican nominee 13, and Independent nominees 16 (although in such a system it is highly unlikely that Independent parties would gain 26 percent of the votes). Thus, Republicans in California would be given a voice actually equal to the entire state of Virginia. This is the system the Founding Fathers truly intended: one in which Republicans can live in New York and Democrats in Texas without having their votes entirely marginalized, all while still respecting the rights of the smaller states.
But his “problem” speaks to that which I’ve already identified – that of Party Tribalism and it is one that will be solved over time. You see, having California now being a single Party State and that being the Democrat Party, they have moved from simple governing (which is what the Founders believed should happen) to ruling. As a result, they have “over ruled” and over taxed – their population is moving out (if one puts aside that they are being replaced by illegal aliens). Voting by foot. To States that have better policies – and politics. Like Texas. That, over time, will compensate for that Tribalism to a far degree.
And here is where is really goes off the historical / ideological rail in a strategy of “hope”:
Again, though, the fundamental issue with the Electoral College is Americans today are first and foremost citizens of their country — not their state. While this is partially due to the increased power that’s been exponentially given to the federal government — which the drafters of the Constitution would abhor — it’s also due to a degree of connectedness that was unfathomable in 1776. Between the inventions of planes and trains, the internet and television, and Facebook and Twitter, it’s absurd to think that a line could be drawn between two states making them somehow unconnected.
I’m not sure that holds – here at GraniteGrok, we have a phrase that holds to be diametrically opposite of his supposition:
Screw DC, save NH
Yes, we are Americans but I think he underestimates the affinity for our States. Is it as large as it was for the Colony affiliation back in the day? Perhaps no – but I do know folks that would argue differently here in the Live Free or Die State (you know, that State motto that drives the Democrats crazy).
He’s also a bit wrong on the “connectedness” part as well. I am one of those “travelers between the States” having flown over 500,000 miles in the air and thousands of miles by car. While it was nice to visit, that alone didn’t make me any more connected to those other States than not. And remember, that “connectedness” also works the other way – it is far easier to stay connected within a State than before as well. I do remember seeing somewhere that while the “experts” thought that we’d develop a “national dialect”, what they found is that regional dialects actually grew stronger. Thus, it cuts both ways in that the ties within a State can grow stronger using the same technologies.
And to the next, I vehemently disagree:
In addition to the ethical conversation of marginalizing votes, the consequences of abolishing the Electoral College are further beneficial to this nation. Should America transition to a system in which the president is appointed by popular vote, Democrat and Republican platforms would be forced to shift toward a more moderate stance. If Republicans weren’t gaining enough votes due to being too rigid on their social stances, or Democrats too unwavering on their socialist policies, the parties would need to adjust their stance to one that would be universally accepted (or at least tolerated).
Further dismantling the Checks and Balances that were first set up by the Founders is an act of regression to the governance forms the Founders already studied – and found to be lacking. While much of the Constitution is about compartmentalizing and actively denying the possibility of the individual human proclivity to acquire and hold onto Power, Federalism was that same mechanism between the States and in between the States and the Federal Government. You may say that the President is the President of us all – and still be wrong. The Office of the Presidency is of the Federal Government. Period. not the States.
I also have grave doubts about the moderation that he expects would happen. Does he really believe that a State like California would immediately vote for a moderate Democrat even as its State level politics continues to regress in having the State almost at the level of ruling at every nook and cranny of its residents lives? I hardly believe that would happen and I don’t see the Regressives here in NH stopping their Leftward lurch toward Ruling either.
Thus, abandoning the Electoral College is not just arguably justifiable in a political climate entirely dissimilar to the one in which it was instituted, but it is reasonably appropriate given the plausibility of it bringing this country closer together in a time of legislative polarity. In the non-parliamentary and dichotomous political system we embrace, perhaps what this nation needs is less red and blue, and more purple. After all, we are all American
As I have shown, Joshua concentrates too much on the micro level differences in his effort to dismiss any efforts to the contrary. He, however, fails to see that the “dissimilarities” are still there – just different ones and still diametrically opposing; the exact problem the Founders were trying to solve. They are, also, differences that are not ones he can see (or is unwilling to see – your choice).
I mentioned “hope” earlier, here he’s trying “hope” as a strategy again. I have large doubts that the political chasm can be overcome given that the two sides can’t even agree on a common language (and if you’ve been reading GraniteGrok for a while, you know I keep blogging about this redefinition of our common language) and that the end games are completely opposite even to the point that the phrase “we win, they lose” is seemingly the only outcome. Socialism REQUIRES absolute control over the Individual – and they won’t stop until they have reached that point in which the Founders’ philosophy is merely a footnote in history (if that).
As Reagan said:
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
