“Outdated and undemocratic” – Really?

On Dec. 16^th, 2024, senate democrats, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Brian of Hawaii and Peter Welch of Vermont proposed a constitutional amendment that would abolish the Electoral College and replace it with a direct popular vote to elect a president.  “It is time to retire this 18th-century invention that disenfranchises millions of Americans,” said, Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin.  “In an election, the person who gets the most votes should win.  It’s that simple,” said Schatz. “No one’s vote should count for more based on where they live.  The Electoral College is outdated and it’s undemocratic. It’s time to end it…and right now our elections aren’t as representative as they should be because of the outdated and flawed electoral college,” opined, Senator Peter Welch of Vermont.

Outdated and undemocratic – really?  Have these “leaders” not read the Federalist Papers?  Do these senators not understand the Founders’ hopes and vision for our country?  Seriously, shouldn’t the people who make the country’s laws understand the rationale and underpinnings of the Constitution they are sworn to protect?  Among the many thorny questions debated by the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, one of the hardest to resolve was how to elect the president and give the smaller and less populous states a proportional say in how the government would function. The Founders debated the issue for months; some arguing that congress should pick the president while others insisted on a popular vote.

But as James Bovard once wrote, “Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.”  While that statement may appear droll, it’s precisely the reason the United States is a Constitutional republic and not a pure democracy.  And the wisdom of Founding Fathers was never more apparent than when they created the Electoral College.  The Founders knew they had to avoid the perils of what James Madison referred to as, “the tyranny of the majority.”   They understood when the majority rules, as it does in a pure democracy, it may be all well and good for the majority, but what about minority interests?

At the time of the American Revolution the new nation was expansive and diverse geographically, economically and politically.  Slavery, perhaps the most pressing issue of the time, did not exist across all of the colonies, some colonies like Pennsylvania were huge versus others such as Rhode Island; meanwhile, Virginia was twenty times more populous than Georgia, and while fishing, textiles and shipbuilding drove the economies of the north, agriculture and lumber dominated in the south.

To fairly represent all constituencies and the numerous political and economic interests the Founders decided upon a bicameral structure for the legislative branch, i.e., a House of Representatives, where the number of members is proportional to each state’s population (a benefit to the more populous states), and a Senate, where every state has exactly two representatives (an arrangement to give a little extra power to the less-populated states to keep them from being steamrolled.)

The Founders also realized it was paramount for the winning presidential candidate to demonstrate sufficient popular support AND sufficient geographical distribution of that support to effectively govern—the latter point being absolutely critical.  They knew in order to be effective; a chief executive needed the backing from more than just the highly populated states or a given region of the country.

Their solution was to create a system (the Electoral College) wherein each state is allotted electoral votes equal to the number of its representatives and senators in Congress.  Is it a perfectly equitable arrangement?  Probably not…but regardless of what is it, or what it isn’t; it’s immeasurably more representative than “two wolves and a lamb…”  But even more importantly, can anyone point to a system of electing a head of state anywhere on earth that has proven to be better or more efficacious?

https://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/primary-source-documents/the-federalist-papers/federalist-papers-no-51/

Our recent Presidential Election featured two primary candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.  But considering the presence of the far left and right wings in today’s political landscape, without the Electoral College the presidential field could have included anyone able to form a political coalition.  And could you imagine the 2024 election that in addition to Trump and Harris there had been six other candidates including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Matt Gaetz?  A quick look around the world should tell us why multiple candidates with numerous coalitions are anathema to effective government.  Furthermore, by their very nature direct elections provide incentives for a multitude of extreme or peripheral interests to form, resulting in a frayed system with numerous political parties.   https://qz.com/africa/1345379/why-are-there-so-many-presidential-candidates-in-africas-elections/

With no need to reach 270 electoral votes, the only thing necessary to be elected president would be a plurality.  For a moment then, assume the winning candidate in a multi-candidate field won the presidential election with just 25% of the vote; can you imagine a new president trying to govern with such limited countenance from the electorate?  It would be virtually impossible.  And regardless of how the opponents of the Electoral College parse words or try to disguise their political intent, a direct vote for the president in whatever form or by whatever means, will always favor the wolves.

There is a difference between a pure democracy and a constitutional republic operating with democratic traditions. And our “leaders” in congress, most of whom have legal backgrounds are supposedly educated in operation of government should understand that. But then perhaps they do when we stop to consider that whenever there’s a call to eliminate the Electoral College, it has always come from those on the left.

Quote of the day:  “With respect to the Federalist…in my opinion, it is the best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written.” – Thomas Jefferson