EarsToHear.net
He That Has Ears To Hear, Let Him Hear
 (Matthew 11:15-30)
Challenging both secular wisdom and religious doctrines. - Will our descendants know moral virtue?

Home | About | Search | Newsletter | Contact | Store | Donate | Advertise | Sponsor | Webstats

Back to Resource Index


Electoral College Representing a Republic, not a Democracy.

Primary author of the ConstitutionThe final three weeks of the Constitutional Convention, 1787. Congressional matters have largely been decided, and the delegates move their attention to the executive branch. After much debate pitting national and federal powers against each other, the Electoral College is proposed and adopted: as with the Connecticut Compromise, the president would be elected by a combination of the people and the states.

From James Madison's point of view the Electoral College is an important technology that gives both the people and the states an important voice of approval - and veto - to the election of the President who must represent both the people (House) and States (Senate) in faithfully executing the laws stemming from the representatives in either house. Originally US Senators were appointed by the states, it has only been this century they have been elected directly as representatives. From Madison's point of view the legislation that was vetoed in California would break the federal nature of the system. Making it a one-electorate nationalist system.

"Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms." - Aristotle (384-322 BC)

"[In a pure democracy], [a] common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results 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." James Madison

"The fundamental principle of our Constitution, which enjoins that the will of the majority shall prevail." (Within the framework of the Constitution and Biblical Law, not mob rule.) George Washington (1732-1799) Father of the Country, 1st President of the United States

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Thomas Jefferson

"The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy." -- Benjamin Franklin (Emblematical Representations, Circa 1774) Reference: The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Sparks, ed. (457) - The Patriot Post Founders' Quote Daily

o The National Popular Vote: a perfectly horrendous idea - By Bryan Fischer - The NPV has now been adopted by 11 states, with New York being the latest to sign on just this week. NPV provides that, if enough states sign compacts with other states, every state which belongs to the compact will automatically award all of its electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the nationwide popular vote. New York just added its 29 electoral votes to the plan, bringing the total number of electoral votes controlled by NPV to 165, or 61 percent of the total needed for the plan to take effect.
   Thus the citizens in states which cast a majority of votes for the candidate who loses the nationwide popular vote would be instantly disenfranchised. The Founders would roll over in their ballot boxes to see this monstrosity make any progress in the nation they built. The Founders established the Electoral College instead of a direct popular vote precisely because pure democracy quickly descends into mob rule. They understood fallen humanity, and knew how easily and quickly the masses can be deceived by charlatans and populists into voting for whoever will tickle enough ears and promise enough goodies.
   Said James Madison, the Father of the Constitution: "Democracy is the most vile form of government. ... 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."
   You naturally will ask, does this mean the Founders did not trust the collective electoral wisdom of the people? That's exactly what it means. They knew the susceptibility of frail human beings to demagoguery and how quickly a society could unravel under pure democracy. This is how John Adams put it: "Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable [abominable] cruelty of one or a very few."
   As a protection against mobocracy, in virtually every circumstance the Founders sought to insert a layer of insulation between the people themselves and the selection of public officials and the formation of public policy. The whole point of the Electoral College was that voters wouldn't even vote for a president. They would vote instead for electors, who in turn would select a president for them. The only, absolutely the only, public officials who were placed into office by a direct vote of the people were members of the House of Representatives.
   Presidents were to be chosen by electors, not by the people. Senators were to be chosen by state legislatures, not by the people. Judges were to be chosen by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, not by the people. The original design of the Electoral College was that we the people would not choose a president but rather would choose the people who would choose a president for us. November elections were intended to be elections in which we chose electors, not presidents.
   The intention of the Founders was that there would be, in today's terms, 538 separate campaigns for the office of elector, in which candidates for that office would seek to convince us that they could be trusted with that most important of decisions, the selection of the next president of the United States. Once they had chosen a president, their term of office would come to an end.
   This is a subject for another day, but it would be best for us to award electoral votes congressional district by congressional district rather than state by state. Nebraska and Maine already do this. Rural districts in states with huge population centers such as New York and California often feel disenfranchised, as if their votes don't count and don't matter. It would be far better to award one electoral vote to every single congressional district, with two additional electoral votes (for each of the their two senate seats) awarded to the winner of each state's popular vote. We should be moving toward this as a goal, not toward the republic-destroying National Popular Vote.
   The NPV is a drastic lurch away from a republican form of government and should be firmly, immediately and persistently resisted. Benjamin Franklin famously told us that the Founders had given us "a Republic, if you can keep it." The NPV is just about the fastest way to destroy what is left of that republic. As Founding Father Benjamin Rush put it, "A simple democracy is the devil's own government." I prefer the government of the Founders over the government of the Prince of Darkness. And so should you.

o Conservatives and tea party win White House with Electoral College reform By Kevin Fobbs (Feb. 11, 1013) - Presidents Day is nearing and conservatives will have something to celebrate that day four years from now when the Electoral College is returned to the voters. Currently, there is a movement in motion in several key presidential electoral battle ground states to return constitutional selection of the president to the voters by using congressional district selection of Electoral College electors. This move would even the playing field in presidential campaigns, to be more reflective of the true will of the people of a state, instead of voters being held hostage by the large urban population centers.
   Large urban centers typically out vote the majority of congressional district by stealing votes in cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Philadelphia and Chicago. This results in state winner-take all electoral votes swinging unfairly and even illegally to a candidate like Barack Obama. In 2008 and 2012, Obama's Chicago-style thuggish election machine worked to intimidate, manipulate and otherwise steal a presidential election in dozens of precincts in urban areas with impunity. This process has created a false narrative that America has chosen a left-leaning socialist agenda that gives permission for citizens to be stripped of their Second Amendment gun rights, or states being forced to stand down against illegal aliens taking their health care, jobs and now their rights.
   The solution has been clear for many years, and states like Nevada and Maine have already set the pathway toward a more balanced true representation of a state. They have initiated congressional district selection of presidential electors. In these states citizens can select their presidential candidate of choice, without being held hostage to the will of another congressional district or districts. Currently, there are several states that have launched efforts to create a more fair and balanced Electoral College initiative.
   Michigan, Virginia, Ohio and Florida are some that are entertaining the idea. Yet their governors are showing timidity in fully embracing this patriotic concept. Michigan's governor, Rick Snyder who is up for re-election in 2014, had previously suggested his consideration for the move for voting fairness. Now, according to TPM, he is backing away. If Snyder and a few other Republican governors are appearing weak in the knees about restoring electoral power to the state voters, this is probably the best time to know this.
    It gives the conservatives, the Tea Party and other like-minded voters the opportunity to put them on notice: No support for voter rights – No re-election! Why is this crucial? Think about how the presidential election would have been turned on its head. Obama would have been shown the White House door, if the will of the people had been truly expressed by each congressional district! In Virginia, Mitt Romney would have beaten Obama 2 to 1, with Romney picky up 9 electoral votes to Obama's 4 electoral votes. A similar result would have occurred in Ohio, and other key battle ground states. Obama would have had his lease terminated by the true representative vote of America.  

o There’s No Good Reason To Get Rid Of The Electoral College By DOUG MATACONIS - As for myself, as I’ve noted here in the past I tend to support the continued existence of the Electoral College, with the modification that I would like to see the individual states adopt the District Method for allocation of electors as Maine and Nebraska have done. More importantly, though, I’ve found the arguments against the Electoral College to be lacking. 

   ...Over at National Review Daniel Foster lays out his version of the positive case for the Electoral College: In short, the College reflects the formal and constitutional fact that the president is elected chief executive of a union of states — federated but sovereign — and not a conglomeration of people. The executive of the Constitution, of the Founders, is president of the United States, not president of America. Its detractors consider it an anachronism, but if federalism still means anything — and sadly, that’s something of an open question — then the College is as vital as ever. It affirms that we vote as citizens of the several states, not mere residents of arbitrarily drawn administrative districts.

   ...As Foster says, the Electoral College serves to make Presidential elections truly national, requiring candidates to register support not just in the high population areas on the East and West Coasts but also in the interior of the nation where interests vastly different from those of the Boston-New York-Washington corridor and the San Francisco-Los Angeles-San Diego corridor motivate voters. It also reinforces whatever remaining strands of Federalism still exist in this country, thus challenging the idea that all wisdom must come from Washington.  

   ...The advocates of eliminating the Electoral College are proposing what is, without a doubt, a radical change to our Constitutional structure. Potentially, it would have a significant impact on the relationship between the Federal Government and the states regarding the question of who exactly is the final authority when it comes to deciding the outcome of an election.   

 

o FOOL ME TWICE: OBAMA'S SHOCKING PLANS FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS EXPOSED Book By Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott - Progressive organizations are quietly pushing a "popular vote" that could see only 14 states - those with the largest populations - decide the presidency for voters in all 50 states, according to a book released this week that's now skyrocketing up bestseller charts. The book contains a bonus chapter on the subject and documents concerns over voter fraud in the upcoming presidential election. It also presents new information about a foreign-based company – Scytl – running hundreds of online U.S. voting systems.

 

...National Popular Vote: The vote for president is the only one in which all Americans vote for a national leader. In framing the U.S. Constitution, Klein and Elliott write, the Founding Fathers displayed their characteristic wisdom and subtlety in firmly rejecting a purely popular vote to elect the president, in order to balance the power of the larger states against the smaller. The Electoral College was fashioned as a compromise between an election of the president by direct popular vote and election by Congress. However, "Fool Me Twice" documents how a group backed by a who's who of the progressive left, calling itself the National Popular Vote, or NPV, has already been successful in quietly pushing for abolishing the Electoral College in favor of a "popular vote."

 

"Under the rubric of a 'National Popular Vote,' this plan would allow the 14 most populous American states, mostly majority-Democrat, to determine the outcome of future presidential elections. The voters of the 36 less populous states would then effectively be disenfranchised," warn Klein and Elliott. The plan is already gaining traction. In 2007, Maryland became the first state to approve a "national popular vote" compact. As a result, in a theoretical winner-take-all contest, Maryland would allocate all of its 10 electoral votes to the candidate who won the most votes nationally – even if the same candidate did not win the most votes in Maryland.

 

By March 2012, eight states – California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont, Washington, plus the District of Columbia – had enacted the "national popular vote" into law. Two other states, Colorado and Rhode Island, had passed it in both houses, but it had not been enacted. Ten more states had passed it in one house, and 10 others had passed it in a committee. Eleven states had held hearings on it, and nine more states had introduced bills.  While organizational support comes almost exclusively from left-leaning groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the League of Women Voters, the Soros-funded Common Cause and the Demos group, NPV's army of lobbyists has also been pushing its plan to the Republican National Committee, the American Legislative Exchange Council and conservative think tanks such as the Heartland Institute and the Heritage Foundation. There is, however, one hitch in the NPV plan: For a "national popular vote" to predominate, the full 270 electoral votes must be based on identical legislation (the "interstate compact") passed by each state. See the "Fool Me Twice" trailer. Dozens and dozens of second-term plans are uncovered in "Fool Me Twice."

o Bill Whittle Explains the Electoral College (PolitiChicks.tv)

o National Popular Vote: Goodbye, Sweet America By Publius Huldah - Our Constitution is under constant attack.1   One of the most pernicious attacks is being waged by those who seek to override the constitutional provisions under which The States, as political entities, elect the President; and to replace it with a national popular vote (NPV) under which inhabitants of major metropolitan areas will choose the President. What Form of Government Did We Create In Our Constitution? Before you can see why it is so important that The States elect the President, and why the NPV is so execrable, you must understand how our “federal” government was structured and intended to operate. “Federal” actually referred to the form of the national government created in our Constitution, and to the division of powers between the national government and The States. The “Federation” created by our Constitution is an alliance of independent and sovereign States associated together in a “confederation” with a national government to which is delegated authority over the States in specifically defined areas ONLY (national defense, international commerce & relations; and domestically, the creation of an uniform commercial system:  weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a monetary system based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, and mail delivery). Those enumerated powers are the only areas wherein the national government has lawful (constitutional) authority over The States.  In all other matters, the States retained supremacy, independence, and sovereignty.

o ELECTORAL COLLEGE BATTLE: SHOVELING THE USURPER BACK INTO OFFICE  By: Devvy - The chicanery being played against the American people by lunatics working so hard for their own destruction is cranking up: Eliminating the Electoral College Eliminates States Rights and Obama Remains As President "While we are paying attention to the OWS and to Republican debates where the candidates annihilate each other, the Progressives have a plan to keep themselves in power forever, starting in 2012. "They plan to do this by eliminating the role of states, a protection written into our Constitution, and they are doing it covertly while in plain sight. The Progressive initiative is called the “National Popular Vote Compact” aka NPVC and their information is being spread nationwide via the Internet since 2008. "They claim it is “true democracy” but “democracy” to them is interchangeable with “socialism” and worse, as it was in the sixties. They are moving state by state to bypass the Constitutional amendment process, relegating our SCOTUS to complete insignificance. As per the Communist Manifesto, “popularism” is the means of “democracy.” It achieves a monopoly of democratic parties for the worldwide Socialist order. "Their goal is to have all the required 270 Electoral Votes needed for a “winner” given to the candidate who wins the largest number of popular votes nationally – no matter how small the win margin and no difference how many states voted to oppose him.  

o Abolishing the Electoral College? By Darlene Casella - Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied in the Presidential Election of 1800. Jefferson was subsequently elected by a vote in the House of Representatives.  To ensure that this could not happen again, Congress proposed and ratified a new design of the Electoral College which was ratified in 1804, as the 12th Amendment. The popular vote idea was presented at that time, and rejected.  The Founders were acutely aware of the populist degeneration into dictatorship that resulted from the recent French Revolution. They saved our country from a similar fate.  

The United States of America is a Republic, not a Democracy. This leads to misconceptions about our election processes. The Founders conceived a concept to prevent a majority from infringing upon the rights of a minority. They accomplished this by establishing a representative, rather than democratic, election process.   The majority mob rule of France had taken away property rights and eventually civil rights from the minority with which they disagreed. The Wall Street protestors appear to have a similar goal. The founders disavowed the popular vote to insure fundamental freedoms of all citizens; and to protect minority interests from a majority mob influence.   

In 1804 the Electoral College established fair representative electors. Each state’s electors are determined by the combined number of senators and congressmen in that state. Each state has two senators. The number of Congress Members is determined by population poll statistics. California has two senators and 53 members of Congress, for a total of 55 electoral votes. Tiny Vermont has two Senators and one Congressman for 3 electoral votes.   Elections for President and Vice president of the United States are indirect elections. Voters cast ballots for a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or other slate.   The state electors in turn directly elect the President and Vice President.  

The Founders strongly desired that small population states, as well as large, have a voice in determining the Presidential outcome.   That is accomplished through the Electoral College system. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) has been a populist movement since 2007.  Their goal is to replace the Electoral College of the 12thAmendment. NPVIC uses a technical detail in the Constitution to bypass the two thirds majority vote in both houses required to overturn an Amendment.  The 18thAmendment, Prohibition, was overturned by the 22nd Amendment which repealed Prohibition. As of September 2011 the NPVIC bill has passed the state legislatures of California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont and Washington. This gives it 132 of the required 270 electoral votes needed to enact the popular vote legislation. Votes are pending in the states of Alaska, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Rhode Island, and South Carolina.    The bill passed twice in the uber liberal legislature of California; however it was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The third time through, Gov Jerry Brown signed it into law.  

If the NPVIC gets the required 270 electoral votes, 8 cities will elect the president. The latest statistics show that the largest population centers in the country are Chicago, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, Phoenix, San Francisco, and San Jose. Eight cities in six states would determine the election. This is not the geographic distribution desired by the Founders.   The populist path to hell, paved by George Soros and Michael Moore, seems the route that liberal Americans wish to take. Claims that the democratic process is incompetent and failing and needs an overhaul may be true. However holding the Electoral College responsible for problems of government is wrongheaded.  This rhetoric plays well to the masses who may have degrees, but are not educated. Their slogan could be “We are mad as hell, and we don’t know why”.  If your state is pending this legislation, please contact your elected representatives. Under the radar, the NPVIC virus is spreading across the country. 

o Don’t Get Rid of the Electoral College By Rachel Alexander - The election of the president is determined by the Electoral College, not a national popular vote. In every state but two, Maine and Nebraska, all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. Each state is allotted as many electoral votes as they have U.S. Senators and Representatives. This results in smaller states having more electoral votes proportionate to their populations, and larger states having less. Since smaller states tend to be more conservative, this makes it more likely that a Democrat could win the popular vote by winning large urban areas in big states, while still losing the election. Realizing they can rig the system, Democrats are advocating replacing our current system with the National Popular Vote Compact (NPV). They would get around the difficulty of amending the Constitution by instead having states voluntarily enter into a compact to participate. States would agree to assign all of their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the total popular vote across the country, not just within that state. As soon as enough states pass this legislation and surpass half the electoral votes, 270, it will go into effect. Currently eight states and the District of Columbia have joined, totaling 132 electoral votes so far.

o 'A Government of Laws, and Not of Men': The Electoral College By Nancy Salvato - One cannot help but notice, asJames R Whitson explains in President Elect, “only the House of Representatives was voted on by the people.” What becomes clear, when one studies the Founders deliberations, is that every method of selection was to protect the rule of law and to prevent rule by majority, democracy. So a movement to elect the president through popular vote, rather than through the Electoral College, is extremely disconcerting.

As Whitson points out, “The 17th Amendment took the states out of the federal legislature and indirectly out of the federal judiciary (they had a vote in the Senate on judicial appointments). By getting rid of the Electoral College, the states would lose their power over the third branch of the government, the executive branch.”

How does the Electoral College work on behalf of the states’ rights? Whitson explains: “The Electoral College helps prevent a candidate from pandering to one region, or running up their votes in certain states. In the Electoral College system, once you win a majority of the votes in a state there is no need to get more. In a direct election, the more votes in a state the better. Here's an example why this can be a bad thing. Massachusetts is very Democratic. The Democrats will almost always easily win 50% of the vote. In the Electoral College system, the Democratic candidate visits a few times to make sure he'll win and then moves on to other states. In a direct election, the Democratic candidate would spend a lot more time in Massachusetts trying to push his vote total to 70-80%. In a close election, why visit a state where the polls say it's 50-50%, spend a bunch of money and time, and maybe get 1-5% more votes when you can go to a safe state that says you're leading 60-40%, spend less money and effort, and maybe get 5-10% more votes. In direct election, candidates would spend more time in states they're easily going to win in order to run up their vote total. With the Electoral College, candidates have to actually fight the close states.”

The Electoral College prevents candidates from ignoring smaller states in favor of big metropolitan areas. In a direct election, Chicago IL has twice as much voting power as the entire state of New Hampshire. If there were direct election, Ken Burnside explains in Should the electoral college be abolished? “A political candidate need only appeal to the 91 percent of the population that lives in five metropolitan areas: Los Angeles/Orange County/San Diego County (78 million people), the Boston-Washington Corridor (106 million people), Chicago and surrounding areas (38 million people) and Houston, Texas (33 million people). In a direct election, only the residents of those cities matter in choosing the Presidency. The person who carries those precincts carries the country. While the current system is still heavily weighted towards certain states (New York, California, Florida and Texas chief among them), the disparity of electoral college votes is merely 27 percent of the total. A candidate, as a result, has to appeal to a broader range of constituents, and cannot simply be beholden to the larger urban areas. This results (in theory) in a President who represents all of America.”

The Framers had compelling reasons for dividing political power, reasons which are still applicable today. As Hoebeke explains, “While all political power ultimately derived from the people, each branch answered in an immediate way to an essentially different constituency from that of the others, and was thus considered less liable to fall victim to the same errors, the same impulses, or the same corrupting influences.” In other words, as Hoebeke correctly points out, the U.S. Constitution fragments… “...the power of the majority, deliberately supplying ‘opposite and rival interests’ as a more reliable guarantee of individual freedom and minority rights than could reasonably be expected from merely relying on the good will of the superior number of citizens.”

When citizens understand the reasons for the Electoral College, they can understand why direct election would undermine a Constitutional Republic. Enactment of such legislation might sound like a good idea, but, in the end it would lead to majority rule and our rule of law would no longer protect the rights of our citizenry. This is because majority rule inevitably leads to tyranny. To borrow the words of the rock band R.E.M., it would be, “the the end of our world as we know it.”

o Vermont Joins National Popular Vote Effort (April 2011) - We all recall the result of the 2000 election, in which George W. Bush won despite receiving fewer popular votes than opponent Al Gore. In its wake, a compact was formed where some states agreed to cast their Electoral College votes based upon the winner of the nationwide popular vote, regardless of state results. Vermont has now become the eighth state to join the compact, joining the District of Columbia, Hawaii, New Jersey, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington. Supporters claim it will become effective once the plateau of states representing 270 electoral votes (a majority) is reached. This could also be called the "sore losers law." Since these eight states are reliable Democrat strongholds, we can't help but wonder what would happen if a Republican candidate these states didn't support was the winner of the popular vote. In theory, such a candidate could be rendered a loser if the states allowed the Democrat electors who won their state to vote in the Electoral College. How quickly would the compact be broken should these blue states' own ox be, er, Gored? While backers claim that National Popular Vote (NPV) makes "every vote equal," we all know that candidates will still focus their efforts on large population centers -- states in "flyover country" would still be ignored. Why campaign throughout the entire state of Wyoming when nearby Denver has just as many voters in a concentrated area? If anything, NPV would enhance the power of urban areas -- which, not coincidentally, tend to be Democrat strongholds. The next target for NPV is California, where it's on the fast track to passage and would place the measure into effect in states representing nearly 150 electoral votes.

o The United Cities of America By Arnold Ahlert - I'm beginning to wonder how many Americans still understand why this country is called the United States of America. I suspect a combination of dumbed-down public schools, the unconscionable expansion of federalism and an activist judiciary contribute to a certain level of ignorance regarding the true nature of our democratic republic, but it still amazes me how many Americans don't get it. The true genius of that democratic republic is that it consists of fifty separate constituencies loosely united under a federal umbrella.

...The expansion of federalism at the expense of the states is little more than a grand attempt to centralize as much power as possible in Washington, D.C. It is the attempt to make individual Americans as impotent as possible by moving as many decisions as far possible away from the local, county and state level, where an individual's power is greatest, towards the federal level--where the overwhelming majority of Americans don't count for anything.

The great irony of those championing the demise of the Electoral College is that they are ostensibly ( I say ostensibly because I believe there is nothing pure about the motive here) doing so to promote more freedom, not less.

What a load of baloney. ...Let me be a bit indelicate here: any American who thinks investing more power in the federal government is a good idea is either a moron--or working for that government. The fact that state legislatures in six states have voted to make their states less influential in selecting the person who would occupy the highest office in the land is clear evidence that historical ignorance is a burgeoning phenomenon.

As for the people who think the elimination of the Electoral College means every vote 'will count equally,' try selling that garbage in North Dakota or any other low-population state which would be routinely ignored in every presidential election thereafter. What these 'do-gooders' are really advocating is the eventual dissolution of states' rights altogether, and the permanent entrenchment of all meaningful power in Congress and the Oval Office -- or more accurately, in the King and His Court. The United States of America? The United Cities of America would be more like it. No doubt that works for those who believe centralized government is the be-all and end-all. For those who still believe in freedom and representative government, it's a complete crock.

o Guess what part of the Constitution goes next! (July 24, 2010) Drastic change in works to revamp whole Electoral College - Democrats have found yet another way to circumvent the U.S. Constitution: Bypass the Electoral College and elect a president by popular vote without first passing an amendment to the founding document, Jerome Corsi's Red Alert reports. The Massachusetts Senate has joined five other states in passing a National Popular Vote bill to do just that. It approved the legislation July 15 by a margin of 28-10. The National Popular Vote, which already passed the Massachusetts House, is within one final "enactment vote" in the Massachusetts Senate before the measure can be ready for the governor's signature, the Boston Globe reported. "Under the proposed law, all 12 of the state's electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally," according to the report. "The idea is that Massachusetts will instruct its electors in the Electoral College to vote for the candidate receiving the majority of presidential election votes nationally, regardless of how the state's own voters cast their ballots," Corsi explained. The Massachusetts National Popular Vote bill, if signed into law by Gov. Deval Patrick, will not go into effect until states possessing a majority of Electoral College votes pass similar legislation. The movement is popularly characterized as "One Person, One Vote for President," a slogan designed to suggest the Electoral College method of counting presidential votes is "unfair" under a 14th Amendment "One Vote, One Person" definition of voter rights. ..."If the National Public Vote movement succeeds," he added, "the president might be chosen by the popular-vote winner in 10 or 11 of the most populous states."

o The Logic of the Electoral College - The Founders sought to allow the "sense of the people" to be reflected in government without imposing a "tyranny of the majority," writes Tara Ross. The Electoral College was part of their solution, and it serves that same end today. The Electoral College ensures that Presidents' ideas and values represent the country's wide diversity. And for that reason, candidates who practice moderation, compromise, and coalition building fare well within it.

o How to Make Your Vote Not Count by Todd F. Gaziano and Tara Ross - Electoral College critics argue that the system causes some votes to be "wasted." Coloradans who voted for Gore in 2000 should have their votes reflected in the national tally, they say. But this argument is disingenuous. Votes are not wasted simply because they are cast on the losing side of an election. Is any vote for governor wasted simply because it wasn't cast for the winner? America holds democratic presidential elections at the state level for an important reason: to protect smaller, less populous states. Under a national popular election system, presidential candidates would have precious little reason to focus time and energy on states like Colorado. They would have much more to gain by focusing on the big media and population centers.  This is why almost every state uses the winner-take-all system. It magnifies their electoral voice, forcing presidential candidates to pay attention even to small states. The initiative would have Colorado unilaterally weaken its position among the states. With only one or two net electoral votes at stake, presidential candidates would have little incentive to respond to Colorado's special concerns or visit the state in future elections. Obviously, the folks in San Francisco don't care about that.

o WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE??? by Dorothy Robbins - How is the Electoral Method of Voting Supposed to Work? The system of voting for a President of the United States of America by the creators of the Constitution has been perverted. Millions of people qualified to vote and who have voted have been disenfranchised. Disenfranchised means our votes have been nullified, made useless by the current method of voting. Is this because the method designed by our Founders is faulty? No. It is because the method has been perverted. So who says so and why? Here is how it works so see for yourself. ...

o The Electoral College: Enlightened Democracy by Tara Ross  - (Excerpts below)

 

America's election systems have operated smoothly for more than 200 years because the Electoral College accomplishes its intended purposes. Some academics have criticized the Electoral College for years. It has been called an "anachronism" that "thwarts" democratic principles, "constitutional stupidity," or even a "dangerous game" with "many built-in pitfalls" that are "bound to destroy us." In 1967, the American Bar Association blasted the system, calling it "archaic, undemocratic, complex, ambiguous, indirect, and dangerous." The negative views of today's academics are starkly at odds with the universal admiration for the system at the time it was created. Alexander Hamilton, for instance, publicly deemed the Electoral College "excellent. Other delegates at the Constitutional Convention agreed with him: They viewed the Electoral College as one of the new Constitution's great achievements. Today's unenthusiastic views would almost certainly surprise these early patriots.

The Electoral College Vote. The Constitution provides for a presidential election among the states, rather than among individuals. In this election, each state is granted a certain number of representatives, called electors, to cast votes on its behalf. This national vote among the states is often referred to as the vote of the Electoral College.

States are allocated one elector for each of their representatives in Congress. Each state therefore automatically receives a minimum of three votes, as it is entitled to at least two Senators and one Congressman, regardless of population. Adoption of the 23rd Amendment in 1961 provided the District of Columbia with at least three electoral votes, as if it were a state. There are currently 538 total electors. Following the 2000 census, California has the most electors (55), while seven states plus the District of Columbia have the minimum number of electors (3).

State legislatures decide how to appoint electors for this national election, and it is generally agreed that the legislatures may appoint electors in any manner that they choose. Each state except Maine and Nebraska currently uses a "winner-take-all" system, whereby the presidential candidate winning the state's popular vote is awarded the state's entire slate of electors. Maine and Nebraska each give two electoral votes to the winner of the state's popular vote and select the remaining electors by congressional district.

To be elected President, a candidate needs a majority of these states' electoral votes, which are cast in December. He does not need a majority of the direct popular vote cast on Election Day. At this time, 270 votes constitute a majority of the Electoral College and will win the presidency for a candidate.

Contrary to modern perceptions, the founding generation did not intend to create a direct democracy. To the contrary, the Founders deliberately created a republic--or, arguably, a republican democracy--that would incorporate a spirit of compromise and deliberation into decision-making. Such a form of government, the Founders believed, would allow them to achieve two potentially conflicting objectives: avoiding the "tyranny of the majority" inherent in pure democratic systems, while allowing the "sense of the people" to be reflected in the new American government. Moreover, a republican government, organized on federalist principles, would allow the delegates to achieve the most difficult of their tasks: enabling large and small sovereign states to live peacefully alongside each other.

The authors of the Constitution had studied the history of many failed democratic systems, and they strove to create a different form of government. Indeed, James Madison, delegate from Virginia, argued that unfettered majorities such as those found in pure democracies tend toward tyranny. Madison stated it this way:

"[In a pure democracy], [a] common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results 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." James Madison

The Electoral College was considered to fit perfectly within this republican, federalist government that had been created. The system would allow majorities to rule, but only while they were reasonable, broad-based, and not tyrannical. The election process was seen as a clever solution to the seemingly unsolvable problem facing the Convention--finding a fair method of selecting the Executive for a nation composed of both large and small states that have ceded some, but not all, of their sovereignty to a central government. "`[T]he genius of the present [Electoral College] system,'" a 1970 Senate report concluded, "`is the genius of a popular democracy organized on the federal principle.'"

The Founding Fathers created a stable, well-planned and carefully designed system--and it works. Past elections, even the elections of Presidents who lost the popular vote, are testaments to the ingenuity of the Founding Fathers. In each case, the victor was able to succeed only because his opponent did not build the national coalition that is required by the Electoral College. In each case, smaller states were protected from their larger neighbors. In each case, the presidential election system functioned effectively to give the country a President with broad-based support.

Alexander Hamilton was right when he described the Electoral College in The Federalist No. 68. Perhaps the Electoral College is imperfect--but a perfect solution is doubtless unachievable. Nevertheless, the presidential election process devised by the Framers is certainly excellent.

The wolves are at the door! By Henry Lamb - America is not a democracy. It was never intended to be a democracy. The founders worked hard to see that the new government they created was not a democracy, but a growing segment of the population seems hell-bent on transforming this great nation into a democracy in which the rights of the minority are systematically ignored.

Republic vs. Democracy - (Video 10:35) "A Republic, If You Can Keep It" - The American Form of Government. An explanation of the various forms of government, and why America is not a democracy. (More: Republic vs. Democracy)


Back to Resource Index

Home | About | Search | Newsletter | Contact | Store | Donate | Advertise | Sponsor | Webstats