Posted on 12/07/2017 10:05:02 AM PST by Oshkalaboomboom
More than a year after the 2016 presidential election, supporters of Hillary Clinton continue to question that contest’s legitimacy. Apart from accusations involving Russian interference, Democratic adherents see a more homegrown culprit: the Electoral College.
This latter offender originates not in Moscow but in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Through the Electoral College, a winning presidential candidate need not obtain the most votes nationally, as the 2016 election showed. Instead, he only must garner a majority of electoral votes, which the Constitution distributes proportionally among the states according to each one’s congressional representation.
While some seek to scrap the system entirely, others wish to modify it. Modification is the easier route. The Constitution leaves it up to states to decide the manner by which they will allocate their electoral votes. Presently, all but two states allocate all of their electoral votes to the persons receiving the most popular votes in their state. Professor Lawrence Lessig, who teaches at Harvard Law School, announced recently that he will seek to change that winner-take-all system. But instead of appealing to the states, Professor Lessig believes this modification can come through a challenge before the Supreme Court.
Lessig argues that a winner-take-all system violates the Fourteenth Amendment. In particular, he claims it goes against the concept of one-man, one-vote. A presidential candidate can win a state by a fraction of a percent but still get 100 percent of the electoral votes. Lessig argues that this practice is fundamentally unequal, as half (or less) of the people get all of the state’s Electoral College representation, while the rest get none.
From one angle, this argument makes sense. Our polity stands on the “self-evident proposition that all men are created equal.” Why would our election process not mimic that proposition in allocating votes?
One answer to this question involves reclaiming a fuller view of our Constitution’s purpose. For the Founders, the Constitution accomplished two tasks. On one hand, it established a government based upon the consent of the American people. Therefore, the government operating within the Constitution should respond to the will of that people. To so respond, elected officials should bear a close resemblance to the choice of American citizens.
On the other hand, the Founders did not believe the people flawless. “If men were angels,” James Madison famously said, “no government would be necessary.” Instead, the people could fall prey to their wrongful passions, acting impulsively against their own interests and against the rights of particular individuals. To counter these tendencies, the Founders did not set up a system that merely reflected the people’s will at any particular time. Instead, they constructed a system which took the people’s will and required that will through it. That system then strained the people’s will through modes that at times refined, at others even checked, majority desires. The process did not negate popular will but made it more deliberate, more moderate, and thus more aligned with the rights of individuals and the common good.
In our debates over the Electoral College, we lose sight of this second purpose. For this institution seeks to refine the people’s vote, not just reflect it. It does this in several ways. First, it allows participation by the states as states, thus giving them an outlet to protect their interests. Second, the Electoral College forces candidates to consider the interests of a broader section of the country. Yes, the candidates often focus on a few toss-up states. But those states often contain demographics that demand attention to otherwise-ignored sections of the country. Third, the winner-take-all approach in particular, along with the requirement that a candidate receive a clear majority of electoral votes, reinforces the two-party system. Though that system can sometimes frustrate us as voters, it encourages political organizations and candidates to build broad coalitions. And those broad coalitions, as Federalist 10 tells us, often get closer in their principles to the nation’s common good.
Therefore, we should abstain from venting our partisan frustrations on foundational political institutions such as the Electoral College. Instead, we better spend our time pursuing to further inculcate the goods it seeks: a refined popular will based on the common good and on the protection of individual rights. We should see the Electoral College and like institutions not as barriers to popular government but as aids to its best manifestation. To do so will require more than allowing the Electoral College to continue to operate every four years. It will require a renewed education in the genius of our Founding fathers and a dedication to abiding by their wisdom.
Adam Carrington is an assistant professor of politics at Hillsdale College
The President of the United States is NOT a servant of the people, and never was meant to be.
The President is a servant of the STATES. Just as before the 17th Amendment senators represented their respective states and not the people directly.
So too does the President indirectly serve the citizens by coming to the office with the consent of the individual states.
The realization of that forevermore put to rest in my mind any notion that the President is to be elected by popular vote.
“Lessig argues that a winner-take-all system violates the Fourteenth Amendment. In particular, he claims it goes against the concept of one-man, one-vote. “
Do it by counties. Whoever wins the most counties in the state, wins the electoral votes for the state.
In the Catholic schools, I used to learn how evil “democracy” was which is no longer taught. Democracy, even as the Athenians knew, was evil and ended up with the tyranny over the minority by the majority. The Electoral college was the only solution in preventing tyranny over the minority—for Individual Natural Rights only from God. The masses always become emotional, so emotions rule Reason. The A. Greeks knew the power of rhetoric and emotions on the masses—how dangerous it always is. We are a Constitutional Republic for a reason—not a Democracy at all.
Our Founders all believed in Objective Truth (God) which is the only way to have Universal Truth which is enshrined in our “Justice” (virtue) System (it was/is). No other worldview works with the American Justice System—not Hinduism, satanism, paganism, etc.
Natural Rights are individual and only come from God—never the State or Man. The state can never make-up irrational “rights” like to kill your own offspring, to steal our private property (welfare), or create a “right” to sodomize others. A Just Law has to promote public Christian virtue at all times—which is the foundation of our legal system.
We killed God (Christianity—banned it from our schools) for Marxism, paganism, and Satansim which is forced into our schools since the communist John Dewey destroyed Classical Christian curricula for postmodernism (complete irrationality—removed from Reason, Truth (God) and Reality (science). All they push is anti-science and lies now to destroy the minds of our children (like boys can be girls or it is good to kill your own children, etc., government is good when it is always evil as stated by all the Founders).
Anybody state that wishes to do that is perfectly free to do so. There’s nothing in the constitution that permits the feds to impose it on them.
Damned autocorrect — Any state....
Apportioning electoral votes the way Maine and Nebraska do it would be wonderful. Upstate NY, for example, would become a battleground where a Republican could tease EVs away from the NYS total. Same for California. Since those two are solid Democrat states for the foreseeable future, it won’t happen. NYS might have had a chance when the Governor and Senate leader were both Republicans but they didn’t cash in.
Each State should be allowed 2 electoral votes to distribute as they see fit.
This guy wants to declare the constitution unconstitutional: He must be from California.
This article aside, I always find it funny that the Left (falsely) put forth this notion that Conservative voters are stupid compared to Liberals.
To those on the Left that subscribe to that notion, I propose a simple 6th grade equivalency test for all voters and those who can’t pass aren’t allowed to vote.
In other words, Detroit, Philadelphia, Atlanta, etc. would suddenly become absolutely worthless to the Left.
The states already get to distribute them as they see fit. There’s no rule that says they have to put it to the people for a vote.
IIRC, the only election that changed was 2012. The rest came out roughly the same. For 2016, Pres. Trump won 30 states for 60 EV, then republicans won another 241 House districts, for a total of 301 EV. In reality, Trump received 304 EV.
I was a little surprised too. Figure that even Conservative states like Texas have a few liberal enclaves in them.
I continue to be amazed that in all of these discussions and articles about the Electoral College, it's primary purpose is lost sight of. Even in this article by a "Professor of Politics".
The Constitution established a Federal government with three branches and certain offices. The courts are staffed by the nomination and consent of the other two branches. Congress is populated by a direct vote of the people for their Representative in the House. Originally, Senators were chosen by the state governments, not voters. That leaves the President.
The method the Constitution specifies for selecting a President is to give the choice to the states. Not the people, not voters. Like with Senators, state governments. The states would specify a panel of electors who would meet and pick a President, each state getting some number of seats.
How many seats depends on the state. The same compromise that makes up the Congress decides how many electors are assigned. Proportional representation in the House, equal representation in the Senate. Electoral seats are the sum of both houses.
No state is required to hold an election of its people to assign electors. A state is perfectly free to skip that and the legislature can directly appoint electors.
The primary purpose of the Electoral College is NOT to moderate the passions of the electorate, or to engineer competing demographics. It is a fairly straightforward, 18th century method for state governments, not voters, to select a new President.
Supreme Court case precedent and the congressional record show that the Founding States had intended for the states, not the feds, to provide the social spending programs that the feds are now wrongly providing.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”... the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See about middle of 3rd column.)
But with all due respect to mom & pop, since parents are not making sure that their children are being taught the Founding States' division of federal and state government powers evidenced by the 10th Amendment (10A), the following constitutional crisis has happened imo.
The ill-conceived 17th Amendment (17A) allowed federal lawmakers to effectively repeal 10A, lawmakers using 17A to exploit widespread ignorance of the fed’s constitutionally limited powers.
More specifically, career lawmakers exploit citizens by promising them social spending programs and civil rights protections to get themselves elected and reelected, low-information voters evidently not understanding that the states have never given the feds the express constitutional power to establish most programs and protections.
And the reason that the electoral college is an issue is this. Corrupt Congress needs a likewise corrupt POTUS to sign unconstitutional bills into law, bills that steal state powers and state revenues uniquely associated with those powers, state revenues stolen by means of unconstitutional federal taxes, Obamacare a great example of unconstitutional legislation.
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]." —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
"The smart crooks long ago figured out that getting themselves elected to federal office to make unconstitutional tax laws to fill their pockets is a much easier way to make a living than robbing banks." —me
"Federal career lawmakers probably laugh all the way to the bank to deposit bribes for putting loopholes for the rich and corporations in tax appropriations laws, Congress actually not having the express constitutional authority to make most laws where domestic policy is concerned. Such laws are based on stolen state powers and uniquely associated stolen state revenues." —me
The first step to remedy this constitutional crisis …
Patriots need to finish the job that they started by electing Trump president in 2016.
More specifically, patriots now need to be making sure that there are plenty of state sovereignty-respecting, Trump-supporting patriot candidate lawmakers on the 2018 primary ballots, and pink-slip career lawmakers by sending patriots candidate lawmakers to D.C. on election day.
And in order to make Pres. Trump's vision for MAGA last for many generations imo, patriots must support Trump in working with the states to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments.
Note that by repealing 17A, the states will effectively secede from the corrupt federal government. (Are you listening Gov. Brown?)
At the risk of being labeled "Racist", I'd like to point out that the Education system was pretty good until LBJ and the dems forced integration in the name of "bringing them up to our level". Not only has that not happened, but the entire education system is pretty much in the sewer.
Kind of depends on who is grading the tests, doesn’t it?
Understood, but my desire is for all States to carry the same electoral weight. Makes Delaware just as important as California, and Utah, and Kansas, and Alaska...
That’s a terrible idea. Alaska should not be as important as California, not unless there’s a serious population change. It’s good for electoral weight to not be 100% population, but making them all identical is just silly.
Disagree. When it comes to the electoral college, all States should be equal. For legislation, the current Constitutional distribution works for the most part.
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.