Replies

In its own way, this will be as bad, or worse, than the 17th Amendment, which stripped the States of their influence over the federal government.

To explain, the balance of power between the president, congress, and the supreme court, most people are familiar with.

However, there are other balances in the constitution. The States with a lot of people have more representation in the House, and the smaller States are protected by the Senate, which has two senators per State.

And importantly, there is a balance that most people are unfamiliar with, which is between the federal government, the State governments, and the people. But this was an important part of our constitution.

The House of Representatives is supposed to be “The People’s House”, the most democratic part of the government. It is the people’s direct voice in the government, refreshed every two years. So theoretically, the people could choose that in a single election, every congressman could be from just one party. Their choice.

The Senate, however, was supposed to represent the States in congress, so that the federal government wouldn’t trespass on their power. This system was thrown out of balance with the 17th Amendment, the Direct Election of Senators. Now, all a senator has to do is an election tap-dance every six years, then he can totally ignore the State he is supposed to represent. And many do.

While on the surface the 17th Amendment *seemed* to be more democratic, the truth is that it took away the power of the States to *protect* their citizens from an intrusive and overbearing federal government. Like the one we face today. In combination with the 16th Amendment, the Income Tax, it gave the federal government direct access to our personal lives.

And the federal government now runs roughshod over the people as often as it can. It is no longer our servant, but our self-styled master.

But what about the Electoral College electing the president? How could we be harmed if the president is popularly elected, instead of proportionally elected?

Just to start with, the more populous States, which tend towards Democrat, would dominate the process. For instance, California, with 55 electoral votes, has more control over the process than a dozen of the less represented States.

However, when you add up the electoral votes of the 9 largest States, it only equals 241 votes. 270 are needed to win the presidency. That is, 29 votes from the smaller States are needed as well.

Yet if you look at the populations of the 9 largest States, they are over *half* the population of the United States. So if the election is decided by popular vote, the small States do not matter as much to the process.

This means that the most populous States, with many big cities, will elect Democrat presidents, not Republican presidents.

If you live in a smaller State, your vote would be worth even less, than those cranked out by the big city machines.

Under the Constitution, the people are empowered to choose, through direct popular election, the men and women who represent them in their state legislatures and in the United Sates Congress. Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants the power to elect the president and vice president to the states through the Electoral College system. Under the Constitution, the highest-ranking U.S. officials elected by direct popular vote of the people are the governors of the states. Should you ever forget the fact that it is possible for a presidential candidate to lose the nationwide popular vote, yet be elected president by winning only in eleven key states, critics of the Electoral College will be sure to remind you of it every four years.

To be brutally honest, the Founding Fathers did not give the American public of their day much credit for political awareness:

A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment." -- Delegate Gerry, July 25, 1787
The extent of the country renders it impossible, that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates." -- Delegate Mason, July 17, 1787
The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men." -- Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787.

There is no doubt that things have not improved in any substantive sense; the most recent presidential election being an exquisite example. I talked to anybody who might listen about the enigma of Barak Obama and his radical associates.

But it was nothing more than water off of a ducks back; my words falling on deaf ears. Despite having cast a vote twice for Dr. Alan Keyes my admonishments proved nothing more than my racism; nothing more than a 'mouthpiece' for that "hate-mongering radical Republican web-site I'm always spouting off about". Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow have proven beyond any reasonable doubt the irrationality of me, my ilk and the likes of Bush, McCain and Sarah Palin (good for nothing but spreading her legs and making babies). Harumpf. "She can see Russia from her house - what a hoot!" Obama will make a great president. They all have hope for change and "Yes they can!". But I digress.

The perennial contemporary argument is that the Electoral College system flies in the face of democracy. America is, after all, a democracy. This argument having its origins in misty prehistoric times is predicated on proof by assertion which is typically employed as a rhetorical device. This argument is usually predicated on the fallacy of shifting the burdon of proof. That error, above nearly all others, is indicative of a woefull lack familiarity concerning the tenets of logic. Those who commit it require serious remedial learning.

Of the several recognized forms of democracy, two are germane to the issue at hand:

Pure or Direct Democracy -- All decisions are made directly by a majority vote of all eligible citizens. By their vote alone, citizens can enact laws and select or remove their leaders. The power of the people to control their government is unlimited.
Representative Democracy -- The citizens rule through representatives who they elect periodically in order to keep them accountable. The power of the people to control their government is thus limited by the actions of their elected representatives.

As elucidated in Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican form of Government..." Based on the Founder's direct knowledge of history showing that unlimited power tends to become tyrannical power, created the United States as a republic -- not a pure democracy; the sentiment was unanimous in the Founder's desire that no single entity, be it the people or an agent of the government be given unlimited power. Achieving a "separation of powers" ultimately became their highest priority.

Under a system of a strictly popular vote, a candidate would only have to campaign and demagogue to heavily-populated areas such as southern California, Texas, New York, and Florida. Candidates would never need to campaign in states like Delaware, Wyoming, and South Dakota. Thus, in effect, the country would be run by mob rule, by the citizens of the few, densely-populated areas with similar demographics; it would likely be a system of minority rule despite the intents of those who favor this system. Almost as though they could see into the future, or perhaps the Founders sensing amongst themselves an innate human nature, considered it dangerous that like minded people tended to coalesce in associations and form "factions". Madison, in his opening to Federalist #10 argued that the Union would be a fundamental safeguard against domestic faction and insurrection. By "faction" he intimated "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."

...The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations...
...The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government... - Madison #10

There were two notworthy factions of Founders themselves: one wanting direct elections of the president and another that desired the House of Representatives select him. The principle architects were the Federalists, lead by Alexander Hamilton, George Washington and John Adams who, as large landowners, bankers and businessmen, favored a strong central government. Nevertheless, both factions shared three main concerns for the Republic: tyranny, small states and geography.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities…proper to govern their choice. - Hamiliton #68, 12 Mar 1788

That the Founders were elitists is beyond reproach. Their society consisted of one where intelligence, wealth and status were closely associated. “Of course, they knew they were superior to other individuals. They were unabashed elitists, and they weren't embarrassed about it;” reported Alex Kingsbury of US News and World Report on 6/4/06. In his book Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Gordon Wood says, “This elite fraternity destroyed any chance of others duplicating their achievements.”

The consensus arrived at by both factions was that despite all men, although created equal, must have “…respect for the natural aristae [aristocrats*;]” as Jefferson said in his letters to Madison on Rights, March 15th 1789. Hamiltonians believed only natural aristocrats contained sufficient intelligence so as not to be persuaded by manipulation, coercion and favorite son status as stated in the Federalist Paper.

Talents for low intrigue…may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other…merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. -

Jefferson said in his 1823 letter to George Hay; “I have ever considered the constitutional mode of election [electoral college] the most dangerous blot in our Constitution and one which [will]…give us a pope….” That notwithstanding, 35 years ealier the Jeffersonians were suspicious of the power of larger states or centralized power.

...a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions... - Hamilton #10

Moreover, since the nation was spread over a large geographical area and national campaigning was impractical if not impossible during the times of the Founders, conventional wisdom embraced the notion that “the office should seek the man; the man should not seek the office".

Ultimately, however distasteful, Jefferson’s wing accepted the compromise primarly on the basis of the contemporary geographical difficulties. Furthermore, since the Electoral College would enfranchise smaller states with effectively more power, the Jeffersonians issue concerning a central government was circumvented; each state would have the same number of electoral votes as they have representative in Congress.

There are good, solid reasons why 700+ attempts to abolish or "modernize" the Electoral College over the years have all failed; that notwithstanding that over the entire period in which the Electoral College has operated, exactly twice a presidential candidate lost the nationwide popular vote, but was elected in the Electoral College:

In 1876, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, with 4,036,298 popular votes won 185 electoral votes. His main opponent, Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, won the popular vote with 4,300,590 votes, but won only 184 electoral votes. Hayes was elected president.
In 1888, Republican Benjamin Harrison, with 5,439,853 popular votes won 233 electoral votes. His main opponent, Democrat Grover Cleveland, won the popular vote with 5,540,309 votes, but won only 168 electoral votes. Harrison was elected president.

In order for the States to abrograte their rights in the presidential election process a Constitutional ammendment must be enacted. For this to occur, at least three things must occur:

the loser/winner must turn out to be a particularly unsuccessful and unpopular president, lest the impetus to blame the nation's woes on the Electoral College system will never materialize.
the constitutional amendment must get a two-thirds vote from both houses of Congress and be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
To be ratified and become effective, a Constitutional amendment must be approved by the legislatures of 39 out of the 50 states.

By design, the Electoral College system grants the states the power to elect the president of the United States. It does not, however, prevent the States from individually abrogating said right (as long as there is neither conspiracy nor collusion among the several States). Its quite implausible that that 39 states are going to vote to relinquish that power to the specious sophistries of some demogogue.

Furthermore, 12 states control 53 percent of the votes in the Electoral College, that leaves only 38 states that might even consider ratification. And even more doubtfull would be those 'swing States' of the 38 relegating themselves to irrelevence.

Only twice in its history have the electors stumbled and been unable to choose a president, thus throwing the decision into the House of Representatives. Who did the House decide on in those two cases? Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams.

The zeal for attempts to amend, prior to the establishment of the Constitution, must abate in every man who is ready to accede to the truth of the following observations of a writer equally solid and ingenious: "To balance a large state or society Usays hee, whether monarchical or republican, on general laws, is a work of so great difficulty, that no human genius, however comprehensive, is able, by the mere dint of reason and reflection, to effect it. The judgments of many must unite in the work; experience must guide their labor; time must bring it to perfection, and the feeling of inconveniences must correct the mistakes which they INEVITABLY fall into in their first trials and experiments."^*** These judicious reflections contain a lesson of moderation to all the sincere lovers of the Union, and ought to put them upon their guard against hazarding anarchy, civil war, a perpetual alienation of the States from each other, and perhaps the military despotism of a victorious demagogue, in the pursuit of what they are not likely to obtain, but from time and experience [emphasis mine]. - Hamilton #85

Massachusetts state House Speaker Robert DeLeo issued a statement on the bill prior to its passage, “The National Popular Vote measure will ensure that our presidential elections reflect the true will of the people.” What would exquisite would be the schadenfreude for the citizens of Massachusetts, Colorado, Vermont, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and California - all considering NPV leislation - and Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Washington, and Hawaii - already having passed NPV legislation - when their popular votes don't count for the candidate they voted for because their legislators disenfranchised them.

^*** op. cit. Hume's "Essays," vol. i., page 128: The Rise of Arts and Sciences.