Thank God for the Electoral College

[aray]

All of the final votes are not in yet, but if appears that Hillary Clinton will likely win the popular vote, with President Elect Trump taking the Electoral College. Once again, the wisdom of the Founding Fathers has been demonstrated.

Many people don’t understand the purpose of the Electoral College. Most liberals but also many conservatives would like it to be eliminated, replacing it with a straight-up popular vote system. This would be a mistake and the Founding Fathers knew that to be true.

Our Founders had recently revolted against tyranny, against a too-powerful centralized government. They took many steps to ensure Separation of Powers was put in every place possible, to act as a bulwark against the return of tyranny. That’s why we have three separate branches of government (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial). That’s why we have both a House and a Senate in Congress.

And to that point, the House is to represent the legitimate interests of the population, the popular vote as it were. But the Senate is to represent the States, or the legitimate regional interests. Without the Senate, we could have a tyranny of the majority; with minority or regional interests completely overlooked. Each state gets the same number of Electoral College votes as they have representatives in Congress – the sum of the House and Senate seats, thus reflecting this same balance of power.

Without the Electoral College, candidates would campaign only in the big cities. The interests of NYC, LA, Chicago, and a few others would be all anyone ever cared about, because that would be the surest path to victory. Urban issues, the “free stuff" crowd, Big Government, etc. would be the order of the day. Do you like former NYC Mayor Bloomberg, who for a bit toyed with running for president himself? Well that’s the sort of candidates we’d see all the time if Big Cities and Big Government were able to run roughshod over the rest of us. “Fly over country" would be just that. Agricultural issues, hunting, fishing, shooting, the Bible Belt, etc. – all the things that matter to hard working family oriented good country folk – all would be ignored. No one would care about the concerns of Kansas, of West Virginia, of North and South Dakota, and about most of the country altogether!

Without the Electoral College, we’d be discussing President Elect Hillary Clinton today.

Without the Electoral College, Al Gore would have beaten George Bush.

Without the Electoral College and with the power of incumbency, it is very possible President Gore and President Hillary Clinton would get an easy path to reelection.

Without the Electoral College, we would arguably be looking at Democrats controlling the Presidency, and of course controlling who sits on the SCOTUS for 32 years, from 1993 to 2024 inclusive.

Without the Electoral College, I seriously doubt we’d ever again see a Republican elected President again.

And without the Electoral College, the author of the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions, Justice Antony Scalia, would be replaced by President Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Five times in our nation’s history the Electoral College has given the presidency to someone who lost the popular vote. Four of the five times a Republican was the beneficiary, at the expense of the Democrat. The only time a Democrat made out was before the Republican party was even created, when two Democrats faced off against each other, and Andrew “Trail of Tears” Jackson (who founded the Democratic Party) lost to John Quincy Adams, with the election ultimately being decided by the House of Representatives via the 12th Amendment.

Is the Electoral College a perfect institution? Is any secular invention by man, or any form of government on this world perfect? Is the Constitution perfect? These are rhetorical questions of course. But we are blessed with arguably the best system of government on earth, and while always striving for improvements, I think we need to guard with caution throwing out a system that has worked well for generations, and tread lightly in substituting our wisdom for the great pioneers and thinkers who gave us this great legacy.

We are a Republic, a nation of Sovereign States, and not a pure democracy. This is by design. The Electoral College is functioning exactly as envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

I thank God for the Electoral College, and always will. I also thank God that I did not have to wake up this morning to Madame President Elect Hillary Rodham Clinton.

 

[sleepingdino]

Who thought Trump would win? It's a miracle from God delivered via the Electoral College. Rejoice!

Has there been a more inept campaign than the one run by Trump? Simultaneously offending women, minorities, and other Republicans, Trump was regularly shooting himself in the proverbial foot. Despite it all, Americans angered by Obama and Clinton have tossed the progressives on their ear.

I look forward to the day when progressives = politically incorrect. The liberal elites are not so smart.

 

[Boondock Saint]

I am on the record as saying that the Electoral College is broken. With great respect to aray and those who agree with his argument, I find it harder and harder to defend a system whereby it's possible, though unlikely, to carry a majority of EC votes while having the support of just 22% of the electorate. I think it's very important that the chambers of Congress be split as they are (though this is significantly less meaningful thanks to the 17th Amendment), but the executive is beholden both to the states and to the citizens. An executive with the backing of less than a majority of voters (or a plurality in rare three way races) is necessarily weakened by the fact that more people voted against them than did for them.

I think the argument that politicians would only campaign in large cities is mostly without merit. Surely, the densest population centers provide the most bang for the whistle-stop campaigning buck, but we know two things to be true about large cities: 1) They are overwhelmingly full of Democrats (and thus already ceded territory, for the most part) and 2) the overwhelming majority of the population of the US is actually outside of the cities. The top 10 cities in the US by population account for roughly 25 million citizens, or about 8% of the population. A campaign that focused exclusively on even the top 50(!) cities by population would cater to only ~47 million. Everyone else (read: the overwhelming majority of the US) is in "fly over country."

I'm quite eager to hear a well-reasoned argument in support of the Electoral College. In the meantime, I'd ask that those of you who are curious either way take a look at these videos that I believe make a compelling argument for change:

 

[Shoobedoo]

At last count there are 33 electoral votes outstanding and Clinton holds a razor thin lead in the popular vote, so I'm not so certain at this point that she'll come out with a popular vote win in the end, though she might, but even if she does it figures to be very very small, and what I would describe as "statistically insignificant", that's just my humble opinion and I'm not asking anyone to support it.

As for the argument for or against the electoral college, I don't have a dog in the fight, but I don't believe we'll see a change in that in my lifetime, and I have few good years left..

 

[MikeTF]

We should never abolish the electoral college. It is pure genius. We are a democratic republic, NOT a democracy. This means that we are not governed by 'mob rule' when it comes to selecting a President. The electoral college insures that 'state and regional views' are represented. I wish the news media and everyone else would remember that we are a Republic, not a Democracy. Democracies fail (2 wolves and a sheep decide by vote on what they're having for diner).

 

[Sealion]

I am on the record as saying that the Electoral College is broken. With great respect to aray and those who agree with his argument, I find it harder and harder to defend a system whereby it's possible, though unlikely, to carry a majority of EC votes while having the support of just 22% of the electorate. I think it's very important that the chambers of Congress be split as they are (though this is significantly less meaningful thanks to the 17th Amendment), but the executive is beholden both to the states and to the citizens. An executive with the backing of less than a majority of voters (or a plurality in rare three way races) is necessarily weakened by the fact that more people voted against them than did for them.

I think the argument that politicians would only campaign in large cities is mostly without merit. Surely, the densest population centers provide the most bang for the whistle-stop campaigning buck, but we know two things to be true about large cities: 1) They are overwhelmingly full of Democrats (and thus already ceded territory, for the most part) and 2) the overwhelming majority of the population of the US is actually outside of the cities. The top 10 cities in the US by population account for roughly 25 million citizens, or about 8% of the population. A campaign that focused exclusively on even the top 50(!) cities by population would cater to only ~47 million. Everyone else (read: the overwhelming majority of the US) is in "fly over country."

I'm quite eager to hear a well-reasoned argument in support of the Electoral College. In the meantime, I'd ask that those of you who are curious either way take a look at these two videos that I believe make a compelling argument for change:

Boondock, besides the coolest avatar on the forum, I've read your posts and agree with many of your thoughts, but I have to respectfully disagree with you here. My understanding of the college was to prevent the tyranny of the majority always voting against the minority. I think the Founders knew exactly what they were doing when they designed the Electoral College.

This post provides a much clearer argument than I could.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/16...ill-makes-sense-because-were-not-a-democracy/

(I'll have to wait to watch your videos until I'm in a place I can view.)

 

[ChannelCat]

At the present time, Hitlery is 220,000 votes up on the Trumpster, well within the 2% margin of error that one gets, even with carefully hand counting votes.

https://www.insidescience.org/news/even-careful-hand-counts-can-produce-election-errors

 

[ccarson]

The Electoral college is a must
Look at the map of Maryland
a few heavily populated counties get to dictate to the entire state!
I think apportioned electoral votes would be better Howard, Montgomery, Prince Georges and Baltimore Count/City get 6 and eastern shore and western MD each get 2
Not a big fan of winner take all

http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/maryland/

 

[Boom Boom]

The Electoral college is a must
Look at the map of Maryland
a few heavily populated counties get to dictate to the entire state!
I think apportioned electoral votes would be better Howard, Montgomery, Prince Georges and Baltimore Count/City get 6 and eastern shore and western MD each get 2
Not a big fan of winner take all

http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/maryland/

Agreed. We need ECs within the states, not removal of the national EC. Minus the national EC, it's a guarantee our country will Balkanize.

 

[EL1227]

EXCELLENT RAY !!!

 

[swinokur]

the passage of years has not diminished the light of their genius

me

 

[jeffie7]

Get rid of the Electoral vote and not a single person outside of a major city would get a visit by anyone running, or have a voice about anything. Want your vote to count? Move to a major city! Nothing like living in North Dakota and having Philly being my voice.

 

[Elliotte]

We should never abolish the electoral college. It is pure genius. We are a democratic republic, NOT a democracy. This means that we are not governed by 'mob rule' when it comes to selecting a President. The electoral college insures that 'state and regional views' are represented. I wish the news media and everyone else would remember that we are a Republic, not a Democracy. Democracies fail (2 wolves and a sheep decide by vote on what they're having for diner).

This is a great point. To expand upon it further, at the time of the founding, each former colony, each state was its own separate country. Those individual countries chose to bind together as a union to increase their strength and presence compared to other countries. Each state government knew that on their own, they could never fend off the British, French, or many other world powers, but together they were stronger as they had shown in their fight for independence.

When forming this union, they would need to give it a government to govern the affairs of the union (defense against outside powers, affairs with other nation states, and settling disputes between states within the union). In every country their is a sovereign, a person or persons who has supreme power and authority. The American states believed that their sovereign was not some monarch or group of nobles (as every other country at the time believed), but the individual person was sovereign. Groups of individuals chose to band together and form state governments much like the states were choosing to form a larger union of states.

The representatives of these states when forming the federal government, wanted to respect the status of individuals as sovereigns and states as sovereigns. This is one of the reasons that the federal legislature has one house of the people, with representatives chosen based on population distribution, and one house with two representatives for each state. Now the progressives screwed things up with the 17th Amendment, but the original purpose of the Senate was to represent the desires and will of the state legislatures within the federal government and legislature. That is why the Senate must ratify treaties, since the treaty would affect each of those individual countries, those states, their representatives were given the power to approve or deny a treaty. The same with Supreme Court nominees, judges who were supposed to settle disputes and interpret the law. The representatives of the states would approve or deny a nominee based on their fitness to decide such matters.


To tie this all back to the Electoral College, choosing an executive for this federal government was a power given to electors, not directly to the people. Technically, you weren't voting for Trump, Clinton, etc yesterday, you were voting for an elector, a delegate, for your state at the Electoral College. In modern times, election day is really just a presidential preference poll, which tells the electors which way to vote. Why not cutout the middleman? Again it goes back to representation within that federal government. The number of electors per state is based on the number of Senators and Representatives for that state, which was based on giving a voice to the people and the state governments within the new federal government.

If you want to see how getting rid of the electoral college would work, take a look at the US Senate over the years. Ever since the 17th Amendment, they've been a straight popular election in each state. Conversely, if we repealed the 17th Amendment, Senators would be chosen by state legislatures. Take a look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_state_legislatures to see the distribution. Not counting the recent elections, 31 are Republican controlled, 11 Democrat, and 8 split. Assuming the split ones get one each and the controlled get both Senators, that would be a 70-30 Republican-Democrat Senate.

 

[doggyjacket]

But remember also that she did NOT win the majority of the vote. She won only the plurality. And if you add up Trump + Others, then there are more people that voted against her than for her.

 

[aray]

Boondock,

With the same due respect, that video’s logic is badly flawed. (I’m speaking of the first one, the main one.)

It’s also internally inconsistent. At one point he argues for Electoral College votes to be distributed to the states, with a minimum of one vote each, but at the very end abandons that idea altogether and advocates for just a pure popular vote across the nation.

As an aside, why even bother to have states at all then? Why not just cede control to an all-powerful Federal Government? The Framers feared that, and vested the Sovereign States with certain powers, powers that sadly over time have not been exercised, have been eroded, and have led to growth of Big Government far removed from control of The People.

As for his 22% argument it’s fallacious. For example he assumes some candidate can win 50% +1 of the votes in Maryland and DC, and the same in North Dakota and South Dakota. That’s just not realistic, as the regional interests are so dramatically different no candidate would ever be able to pull that off. And the historic voting patterns and party registrations provide ample evidence of that fact. He's arguing for a unicorn and it just doesn't exist.

He also seems incensed that some voters’ votes “count more” than others. Exactly right, and that was by design. Far from being an anathema, that is inherent in why we have both a House of Representatives and also a Senate. I didn’t hear him criticize the structure of Congress at the same time, yet to be logically consistent he should have done so.

We are NOT a Democracy. We are a Republic, and I’m very glad that we are, for the Separation of Powers and complex system of Checks and Balances against concentration of power in any one location, even in tyranny of the majority, is an important foundation of our Constitution.

And the historic results speak for themselves. The only people who win by dissolving the Electoral College are Big Government, “free stuff” sorts of candidates. He would consider yesterday’s result, and I quote, “a failure”. He also labels Bush v Gore “a failure” for the same reason. I consider them both tremendous victories for the country and for the Constitution.

 

[Shoobedoo]

The Electoral college is a must
Look at the map of Maryland
a few heavily populated counties get to dictate to the entire state!
I think apportioned electoral votes would be better Howard, Montgomery, Prince Georges and Baltimore Count/City get 6 and eastern shore and western MD each get 2
Not a big fan of winner take all

http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/maryland/

If I may submit a cogent argument to support your thesis, which BTW, I agree with 100%, just take a look at this electoral map of state county's nationwide...

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president (click on "counties" map once the link opens)

It's staggeringly, and overwhelmingly RED, with a few isolated pockets of blue in the interior, and a strip up & down the East & West coast of the nation.

As the saying goes... A picture is worth a thousand words... and in this case I think it's very instructive.. this was not a defeat.. this was a "beat down" and a repudiation of Liberal policies and politics in every sense.

 

[alucard0822]

The electoral college is one of the differences between a constitutional republic and a democracy, part of the reason it's lasted as long as it has. If there were any changes, get rid of the 17th amendment, return the senate to it's place to represent the states. If they want to change the electoral college, give electoral votes to the states to appoint. The erosion of f government representing states rights alongside the rights of the people, and the concentration of power in population centers has caused far more harm than good.

 

[HokieKev]

I was reading fivethirtyeight.com last night. Evidently, there is a pact between a number of states that if the popular vote is higher for a presendential candidate they will agree to instruct their electors to vote for that person. Not enough states have agreed yet - but they are trying to overturn this.

The founding fathers were very wise - but can you save stupid people from themselves?

 

[Kharn]

Never forget Gore won the popular vote by 540,000.

 

[Brooklyn]

The founders did not provide for any popular vote for president at all.. it was the state representatives as I recall that chose electors.. with bicameral legislatures at the state level...now all but outlawed by the courts.. we are far from thier original idea..


Allocation of electors by hr districts instead of all or nothing just might help eliminate the 100 vote or so Democrat head start..

If another big state goes blue it may be impossible to elected a non Democrat an the election can be called before it's held..

We must watch this...