Posted on 09/08/2004 2:34:50 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
Hands off the Electoral College
If you think the next president of the United States will be elected on November 2 by the American people, think again. George W. Bush will be re-elected, or John Kerry elected, by the 538 members of the Electoral College on the Monday following the second Wednesday of December.
The Electoral College is the quintessential expression of representative ? not direct ? democracy. In the words of Randall G. Holcome of Florida State University, "The Founders intended for the electoral college to be composed of knowledgeable electors, as a kind of search committee to forward a list of the top candidates for the presidency to the House [of Representatives]..."
This fits nicely with the idea that America is a republic. By express design the people have only a limited, indirect role in its governance.
The first 21 presidents were elected without much popular involvement (1789-1868).
Nowadays voters in most states select Electoral College delegates pledged to a particular candidate. States have as many electors as they have senators and representatives combined (plus three more for Washington DC).
It's not only "the people" whose power is limited. The American founders designed a system where power was diffused even among the elite ? a system of separated powers and checks and balances.
Not surprisingly, this arcane system is under renewed attack. An August 29 editorial in The New York Times called for the abolition of the Electoral College on the grounds that it "thwarts the will of the majority."
And occasionally it does. For instance, in 2000, Al Gore received 500,000 more votes than George Bush, but still lost the White House. Back in 1824, Andrew Jackson won a fragmented Electoral College vote but the House of Representatives picked John Quincy Adams to be president.
In 1876, Samuel J. Tilden won 51% of the popular vote, but Rutherford B. Hayes captured ? by one vote ? an Electoral College victory. Finally, in 1888, Benjamin Harrison became president even though he received slightly less of the popular vote than Grover Cleveland.
Something else perturbs the Times. In the event of an Electoral College tie, the 435-member House of Representatives selects the president, with each state delegation casting one vote. As the Times puts it, "one for Wyoming's 500,000 residents and one for California's 35.5 million."
That dilution of the popular will is precisely what James Madison, architect of the constitution, intended. "The public voice, pronounced by representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves."
Madison's elitism suits me just fine because I'm convinced that, overall, "the people" are more prone than the ruling elites to intolerance, conspiracy theories and the passions of the moment.
Reforms in these areas were wrought by an elitist federal judiciary ? in opposition to the express desire of the masses.
I've seen street vendors in Tel Aviv selling books claiming the Twin Towers didn't collapse, but were exploded from within ? a view widely embraced in the Arab world.
The ultra-Right and hard-Left opponents of globalization are convinced that the Bilderbergs or the Trilateral Commission are conspiring economically and politically to dominate the world.
And what of popular will in the international arena? At the UN General Assembly a tyrannical majority invests itself in scapegoating Israel at every turn, while only the power of Washington's veto saves Israel from the Security Council majority.
Fear of uninformed popular sentiment is also why I am not enamored with "bringing democracy" to the Middle East. From the Maghreb to the Mashriq, genuinely free elections are unlikely to install Jeffersonian democrats in power.
And no one doubts that Yasser Arafat would win any fair election in the Palestinian Authority (unless he ran against Osama bin Laden).
At last week's Republican National Convention, President George W. Bush talked about transforming Iraq into a "successful democracy at the heart of the Middle East." From everything we know about Iraq and about the opinions of the Arab and Muslim masses, my hunch is Bush is overreaching.
He struck a more realistic note, however, when he said, "This young century will be liberty's century. By promoting liberty abroad, we will build a safer world."
It is precisely in the name of liberty that we must be wary of too much democracy. Relative to most of the rest of the world, the US has struck just the right balance in giving "the people" their say while limiting their tyrannical impulses.
The writer seems to have a better understanding of the EC than many Americans.
The electoral college this year could be a big concern.
Keep in mind that although the 'electors' are SUPPOSED to vote according to each states election outcomes, they are not REQUIRED to do so.
If enough of the electorates prefer Kerry, this election could be lost in Washington.
No, in the respective state capitols. Actually, if i were an elector, I don't think I would want to have to spend the rest of my looking over my shoulder if I voted for someone other than who I was pleged to vote.
I wonder how long this 'right balance' will last, though.
That's why only well-known, experienced party loyalists are allowed to serve as electors. But GWB needs to win by a comfortable margin so it doesn't come down to a victory by 1 or 2 electoral votes. In that case, the despicable Dems could attempt to blackmail a few GOP electors. ("If it's not close, they can't cheat.")
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
