Ignorance of the Electoral College could destroy it
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently fed a video to Instagram of her driving through an uninhabited rural area sarcastically saying “many votes … are out there,” mocking the Electoral College. Such ignorance could destroy it and our republic.
Those in this camp prefer the popular vote. But without the Electoral College, a close race would make the election far less settled and result in massive civil unrest, perhaps even civil war. The Electoral College legitimizes the outcome.
In the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump won 304 electoral votes to Hillary Clinton’s 227, but Clinton bested Trump with roughly 1.5 million more popular votes out of 125,505,086 cast — a little over one percent. Imagine, under a popular vote, the endless recounts, accusations of voter fraud to be investigated, and time to determine the outcome in order to legitimize the winner — if that were even possible. As volatile and emotional as the reaction to the Trump victory was, who can guarantee that the losing side would not revolt?
One might argue that in a democracy everyone should have an equal vote and a simple majority should be what counts. But the Founding Fathers did not create a democracy; they universally opposed it because it failed in Athens and Rome, and that hoped that their descendants would never turn what they created into such. The word “democracy” is not in any of our original governing documents — but the word “republic” is. Benjamin Franklin referred to democracy as two wolves and a lamb voting on what they would have for lunch, the well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Realizing that the majority is not always right and, as such, could trample the rights of the minority becoming very tyrannical, the Founding Fathers created a republic instead — thus, we pledge allegiance to “the republic for which [the American flag] stands.” A lynch mob is a democracy with everyone voting to hang the accused except the one proposed to be hung.
There is no language in the Constitution authorizing a popular vote for the president because the people tend to vote for leaders promising the most for their vote. But the Constitution is designed to give nothing to anyone except the opportunity to maximize their talent in an environment of freedom from excessive government. The moment government takes from one and gives to another, recipient voters henceforth expect something for their votes, and politicians have shown that they can be purchased. President Obama offered free cell phones to entice voters, and Bernie Sanders offers free college. It becomes a “blood sport” as to which candidate can give the most “goodies,” out of the public treasury, to get elected. Gift giving should not be in the equation.
The Founding Fathers left the election of the president to the states through their population. The vote system they created, referred to as the Electoral College, spread the vote geographically by states and favored the informed over the less informed. Everyone knew that a popular vote could be won only by the few most populous states (today as few as ten, some say four), and that rural states or sections would never see the candidate, nor would an appeal be made to their interests. To equalize the population advantage and encourage candidates to make a larger geographic appeal, the Electoral College gave population-deprived states disproportionately at least three votes. Although candidates could still ignore the rural states, the Electoral College made it decidedly less tempting to do so.
As described in the Constitution, states select a number of voters for president equal to the number of members of Congress (both House and Senate) they have. These individuals — selected by the state legislatures presumably for their integrity, experience, success, and wisdom — are presumably less emotionally driven and less susceptible to the emergence of a popular tyrant or someone constitutionally risky. Remember, Adolph Hitler was elected. Presumably, this would have been thwarted if Germany had had a functioning electoral college to mitigate the emotion or ignorance of the masses. Under a democracy, a dangerous individual who is knowingly hostile to the concepts of a republic could occupy this position to destroy it.
The citizens chosen to be Electoral College voters do so in their separate state capitols, usually in late November, and that vote is sent to and read by the vice president of the United States before a combined session of both Houses of Congress, usually during the first week in December. Normally, there is little coverage of the “real” election of the president, and it is usually negative.
This process is certainly not without its problems, but when the ill informed have the same vote strength or higher (because they are the majority) as the well informed, the Electoral College offsets this by placing the weight of government in favor of reason and experience over emotion. It remains the best system in the world. I realize that in a day when we have high-speed communication it is easy to assume that, as a result, we have high-speed knowledge and experience as well. As a college professor in the subject area, I emphatically argue otherwise. Nothing replaces the benefits of reason and experience, and these don’t come at a high speed.
So the states elected Trump by 34 Electoral College votes more than the 270 needed and Clinton received 43 under — a clear, clean, decisive vote for both winner and loser. Only the ill-informed would change to a system that guarantees confusion and chaos.
The viewpoints expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Independent.
How to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or letter to the editor to The Independent
Do you have something to say? Want your voice to be heard by thousands of readers? Send The Independent your letter to the editor or guest opinion piece. All submissions will be considered for publication by our editorial staff. If your letter or editorial is accepted, it will run on suindependent.com, and we’ll promote it through all of our social media channels. We may even decide to include it in our monthly print edition. Just follow our simple submission guidelines and make your voice heard:
—Submissions should be between 300 and 1,500 words.
—Submissions must be sent to editor@infowest.com as a .doc, .docx, .txt, or .rtf file.
—The subject line of the email containing your submission should read “Letter to the editor.”
—Attach your name to both the email and the document file (we don’t run anonymous letters).
—If you have a photo or image you’d like us to use and it’s in .jpg format, at least 1200 X 754 pixels large, and your intellectual property (you own the copyright), feel free to attach it as well, though we reserve the right to choose a different image.
—If you are on Twitter and would like a shout-out when your piece or letter is published, include that in your correspondence and we’ll give you a mention at the time of publication.
