Posted on 09/05/2024 8:57:33 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Since the 2000 presidential election, the left has worked to undermine the legitimacy of the Electoral College, labeling it a relic of slavery. No doubt, if Donald Trump returns to the White House while again losing the popular vote, these attacks will be renewed with fervor. In fact, it has already begun as commentators denounce the undemocratic nature of the system. Just last month, the New York Times published a piece trashing the Constitution and asserting that the Electoral College’s only purpose was to protect slavery. These critiques are based on misconceptions and hostility toward the very structure of our Constitution.
The History
Our method of electing the president came about through compromise. The framers agreed upon a system that ensured the states had a say in choosing the president. The Constitution gives each state a share of electors, and the states decide for themselves how to select those electors.
At the time of the constitutional convention, popular elections would have favored the North because the North’s population of free persons would have outstripped the South’s. This dynamic is why the South pushed for a system that proportioned the electoral vote based on population, including slaves.
But nothing in the Electoral College system inherently favored slavery. You could have had an Electoral College system that did not count slaves as part of the population for the purpose of distributing electors. Thus, it was the counting of slaves in proportioning electors via the infamous two-thirds clause that protected slavery.
In fact, even if slavery had never existed, the states would never have agreed to a method of electing the president that stripped them of having a say in the matter. Protecting state sovereignty and ensuring less populous states had influence were key features of the compromise. Therefore, slavery may have been one of several reasons for the compromise, but it certainly was not the reason.
The Merits
The way state delegations elect the chief executive may have been the product of compromise, but that does not detract from the merits of the system, which include geographic representation and respect for state sovereignty. This is true even if you believe the Electoral College is a part of slavery’s legacy.
In a national election, in a country as large and diverse as ours, representation based on geographic segments of the population is far superior to the mob rule of a purely popular vote. We are not a monolithic society. Life and perspectives vary based on location. This is especially true when you consider the differences between state governments, which attract different types of people.
America is an enormous nation, and a system based solely on the popular vote would allow densely populated cities to dominate. This dynamic is particularly problematic when one considers that urban populations often want to impose their culture and policy preferences on others, whereas rural populations generally want to be left alone. Just think about how Democrats want virtually everything to be regulated nationally by the feds.
But regardless of this left-versus-right paradigm, it is simply better to give the different geographic elements of the nation and the states a voice on national matters to somewhat lessen the ability of the majority to steamroll political minorities.
Furthermore, as much as the left would love to abolish the states, there is no United States without the states themselves. Our federalist system allows for better representation of different segments of our population and, therefore, allows for better governance. The states, as separate sovereigns, must have a say in who becomes president.
The Electoral College also affects the politics of presidential campaigns. Candidates are forced to consider the respective views held in different states, particularly of those voters in the less partisan swing states. This political circumstance has a way of diffusing power and lessening the focus on densely populated cities, allowing for perspectives outside of the urban thought bubble to participate.
Another popular attack on the Electoral College is that it is undemocratic. But American government was never meant to be based on democracy. Rather, democracy was meant to be a component, albeit an important one, of our constitutional republic. The protection of liberty and the rights of individuals are far more important than the ability of the majority to impose their will.
Moreover, the president is not even supposed to be a representative of the people in our constitutional system. That is what the House of Representatives is for. Thus, the argument against the Electoral College is an argument not just against our Constitution’s federalist principles but against the Constitution’s separation of powers as well.
Our Electoral College system might not be perfect, but it is far better than an election by direct popular vote, which disregards our federalist principles.
Alex Xenos is an attorney and a Young Voices contributor. His writing has appeared in the Boston Herald, The American Spectator, DC Journal, and NH Journal, among other publications.
Bookmark
I think it’s a comprehensive and compelling article explaining the arguments for an electoral college.
THX for posting.
I guess lawyers don't do fractions. What a dumbass.
The democrats should try their popular vote theory in a democrat Presidential primary, before they dream of a Constitutional change that isn’t happening.
They can hold 50+ primaries in states & territories and add up the votes at the end.
The electoral college is one of the constitution’s safeguards against tyranny, so it’s no surprise the Democrats are against it.
The real reason for the EC is well-understood and it’s fairness is clear if we use an analogy. (BTW I’m dating myself with this; I’m sure there are more recent examples):
We all agree; the object of baseball is to score more runs than your opponent. In 1960, the New York Yankees outscored the Pittsburgh Pirates in the World Series and hence became World Champions that year. Wait a minute; the Pirates actually win the World Series that year, but how can that be? The Yankees scored more runs! Our method for determining a champion is obviously unfair (and probably a relic of slavery).
Of course almost everyone understands the reason the Pirates won despite being outscored, and nobody doubts the fairness. The Yankees won a couple games by large margins while the Pirates won games by close margins, but the Pirates won more games. The EC is similar; it prevents a candidate from appealing to a large fraction of the electorate in a small number of states. A winning candidate must appeal to a less localized electorate.
Thank you for this post.
p
It was placed in effect to protect the interests of all the original 13 colonies, BIG and small. Founders feared densely populated states like NY, MASS, etc. MD would not run rough shod over the rest with their wants. A UNION of states, not 3-4 ruling domains over other serf states. Black has nothing to do with it.
infamous two-thirds clause that protected slavery.
Er, um, no...but thanks for playing.
Mathematical proof of the merits of the Electoral College:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/from-the-archive-math-against-tyranny
Democrats only rip the electoral college when they lose the white house. I don’t recall them complaining much when Biden won in 2020, but since Biden supposedly got 80 million votes, perhaps they did.
The electoral college is meant to keep big states from trampling on small states, but even more important is that we don’t have democratic mob rule.
Mob rule is exactly what democrats think they want.
They are not the party of “choice”. They hate choice.
They’d like to force EVERYONE to drive EVs. They’d like to force everyone to pay higher taxes. They’d like to force everyone’s kids to go to public schools. They’d like an open border to most of the world (except parts of europe) and they’d like to force everyone to pay for their healthcare, education, and income.
What do you suppose democrats would do if the majority of americans voted in a pure democracy to make marijuana illegal in all 50 states?
What if a simple majority of americans voted to make abortion illegal?
What if a simple majority of americans passed a law abolishing the paying for of public schools with property taxes?
I bet they would change their minds very fast.
You know what’s a relic of slavery?
The dem party.
CC
“In a national election, in a country as large and diverse as ours, representation based on geographic segments of the population is far superior to the mob rule of a purely popular vote.”
Agreed. And, that is why we need a reinterpretation of the electoral college, not its removal.
Granting that geographic segments is important, I have been a proponent of the following model:
There are 538 Electoral Votes; one for each Congressional Representative and Senator (435 + 100), and three for the District of Columbia.
Clearly, we know the geographic boundaries of the Congressional districts across the Nation.
SO:
Each Congressional District gets ONE EV, cast for the winner of the popular vote IN THAT DISTRICT.
Each State has TWO EV, cast for the winner of the popular vote IN THAT STATE.
DC can cast their THREE EV for the winner of the popular vote in DC.
Part of the issue, today, is the differences between the States in the manner in which they cast EV; some are winner take all, some are not.
The plan outined, above, rids us of those differences and lets EVERY VOTE count.
Amen.
The rise of the American City States acting as coalition has skewed the system. When corrupt cities control the count of votes cast, there is no actual election.
The cities have adequate votes, both real and fraudulent, to control the states and the electoral votes.
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.