Posted on 02/08/2017 5:10:24 PM PST by markomalley
Since President Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the November presidential election without winning the popular vote, there have been almost unending calls from the left to eliminate the Electoral College.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined that chorus on Monday.
When asked by a group of students what she would change about American society at a Stanford University lecture, Ginsburg responded, according to CNN, “There are some things I would like to change, one is the Electoral College.”
Ginsburg conceded that to change the Electoral College would require passing a constitutional amendment, which would be “powerfully hard to do.”
It is unfortunate that so many prominent Americans, including a Supreme Court justice and countless others, have questioned an electoral institution that has so effectively served the American people for over two centuries.
A Move Toward Majoritarianism
While Ginsburg wasn’t clear about how she would change the Electoral College, the most common suggestion to “fix” it has been to move toward a national popular vote selection process. The theory is that a more democratic system better reflects the people’s will.
This proposal would completely undermine the carefully constructed electoral process the Founding Fathers created at the Constitutional Convention and would further erode the essential concept of federalism that lies at the heart of the republic.
The Founders had a deep understanding of history. They knew that an unclear process of succession from one leader to another has often destroyed countries—it most certainly contributed to the downfall of the Roman Empire.
So, at the Constitutional Convention, the framers of our founding document constructed a system that produced over two centuries of peaceful transfers of power from one administration to the next—a near miraculous feat in human history littered with civil strife and broken political systems.
It would be foolish to abandon this remarkably stable process without first understanding why it was created.
It is often hard for modern Americans to accept the fact that our system of government was created to place limits on pure democracy.
For instance, an editor of the liberal media outlet ThinkProgress blasted the uneven nature of Senate representation to express frustration over the confirmation of Trump’s secretary of education, Betsy DeVos:
But to those who think that every vote should have equal weight and that only pure democracy is legitimate, the elections of George Washington and even Abraham Lincoln must be viewed as errors.
Washington’s elections were almost entirely undemocratic, and Lincoln won with less than 40 percent of the popular vote in 1860.
It’s clear through our nation’s history that we have been best served by the balanced system the Founders created.
The Founders’ System
Most of the Founders desired a presidential election process in which the states, acting in their separate capacities, would play a prominent role. Additionally, they feared giving too much power to bare majorities and “democracy,” which had frequently brought down great civilizations.
Few Founders seriously suggested choosing presidents through a national popular vote. Yet, there was still disagreement about what exactly this system would look like.
As Heritage Foundation legal expert Hans von Spakovsky noted in a paper on the Electoral College:
In creating the basic architecture of the American government, the Founders struggled to satisfy each state’s demand for greater representation while attempting to balance popular sovereignty against the risk posed to the minority from majoritarian rule.
The Founders came to a compromise in which the states would be allowed to pick electors who would vote on behalf of the people. The electors coming from those states would be tallied based on the total number of representatives and senators those states send to Congress.
Given that every state has two senators, regardless of population, the Electoral College was slightly skewed toward the smaller states.
This was intentional. The Founders sought to reduce the power of raw national majorities and, importantly, preserve a system that includes the diverse interests of Americans diffused throughout the states.
This became an essential factor in 2016 as many Rust Belt states that had previously voted Democratic for decades flipped to a Republican candidate.
Trump was better able to appeal to the specific interests of this region to secure a victory and create a sea change in the political map.
Without balancing out the power of large and small states, California, New York, and Texas would almost entirely determine all of our presidential elections. Our leaders would reflect the viewpoints and interests of the people who inhabit those narrow geographic regions with vast population centers.
Intentionally Undemocratic
Wild swings in policy based on temporary passions and majority tyranny were among the many potential catastrophes the Founders associated with pure democracy and that they desperately attempted to avoid.
While the Founders desired a system with a certain amount of democracy built in—a House of Representatives selected by popular votes within constrained to districts being the prime example—they aimed to restrain its potential pitfalls.
In fact, not a single election or issue in the United States is determined by a national plebiscite. The state-based, undemocratic structure of the Electoral College was meant to curb the maladies of an unconstrained mob much like most of our other institutions.
The Electoral College has become functionally more democratic over the years. The states universally conduct a popular vote to choose their electors rather than having the state legislature choose, as was done in earlier American history.
But most of the initial structure has remained unchanged.
Taken to its logical extreme, the idea that political legitimacy only comes through pure democracy would undermine our presidential elections, the Senate, and the almost entirely undemocratic Supreme Court that Ginsburg sits on.
Fortunately, the high bar of passing constitutional amendments—another undemocratic element of our government—will likely prevent a change to America’s time-tested presidential electoral system.
And to top that off, the Electoral College hit a record high in popularity after Trump’s election, according to a Gallup poll. If Ginsburg wants to change the Electoral College, she’ll have to contend with the Founders, and the American people.
The Left is a fierce enemy that has twisted and trampled the Constitution for a long long time. With impunity.
The Constitution didn't save us from the largest invasion in history (immigration).
Didn't prevent corrupt politicians from having a 40 year career as a member of the House or Senate.
Didn't save us from gay marriage or transvestite lifestyles being shoved down our throats.
And certainly didn't prevent the rise of the radical and violent Left that wants to destroy our entire civilization.
I believe in the Constitution, but I don't worship it. I'm a realist and I like to win.
Ginsburg is a senile imbecile.
‘the majority’ can be defined a number of different ways.
and since when is a majority infallible?
Even Senators were not chosen Democratically, but bt the representatives of the State voters. That worked for the longest time.
Satan will call her home soon enough
The Electoral College cannot be eliminated because we live in a Constitutional Republic where the INDIVIDUAL STATES are represented at the Federal level. This is not rocket science. Ginsburg is deluded - always has been.
So naturally if a case comes before the court challenging some aspect of the Electoral college she will recuse herself. Right? /s
The reason liberal judges have to tie themselves in knots to interpret the constitution in their view is because the constitution is a conservative document written by conservatives. It cannot realistically be interpreted from a liberal standpoint.
North Korea???
I always wonder about them. Various generations of Kims routinely get 99-100% of the vote. Makes you wonder about their elections..........
Go back to sleep Miss Birdie.
How Buzzy even got confirmed; damn rubber stamp Senate of the past...
Technically, even w/ a pure ‘popular vote’, the Constitution would still stymie the Socialist agenda.
Problem is, IMO, we no longer have Constitutional protections. They have been suspended, trampled and violated over the past 100 yrs+ that ‘president’ is king, regardless of how the same conflicts w/ the Constitution (IE: 2nd A. vs. ‘gun laws’, SS\MediXYZ\welfare vs. 5th\13th).
The 9th and 10th are but footnotes in history. The *only* saving grace is the little ‘privilege’ of carry they allow SOME. Else, I suspect, we’d be full Western Bloc mode already.
That damn Constitution thing again! Huh, RBG?
Impeach RBG!
The article does zip, zilch, nada to explain, in her own words, exactly why Ginsburg objects to the electoral college, other than stating the mere fact she does object to it.
Therefor, while NOT explaining WHAT Ginsberg objects to exactly, the article cannot and does not fulfill it’s own title of explaining “What Ruth Bader Ginsberg Gets Wrong About the Electoral College”.
Other people’s Liberal arguments opposing the electoral college are not honest examples of arguments a writer can simply put in Ms Ginsberg’s mouth, as stand-ins for arguments NOT represented in Ginsberg’s own words.
Full disclosure: I am not arguing with Ginsberg or anyone else against the electoral college. I simply find the article does not deliver what it’s title suggests it will deliver.
In one way Ginsberg is no different than Hillary, Schumer, Soros, the media and the leftist street animals rioting and beating people up.
This was not an election liberals went into thinking there was a chance they might lose. They were 100% confident that Hillary would win and win big.
Hillary’s rise to power would be the capstone on their conversion of the US to a permanent democrat majority and into their Globalist/Socialist Open Border, leftist Utopia.
They still can’t shake themselves loose from the total shock of seeing their dreams shattered and their world come crashing down on election day.
The failed in their dream of finalizing the fundamental transformation of America and it is driving them batty.
That tweet by “Judd” is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.
The author of this sentence is appallingly ignorant of United States history.
Fortunately, that "high bar" will also frustrate any other leftist constitutional amendment proposed and should end right now the mindless argument advanced by conservatives, some of whom are well-meaning, that a convention of the states pursuant to Article V would somehow become a runaway endeavor.
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.