And here we go again. Once more a cry for the elimination of the Electoral College. I opened my morning newspaper to the Opinion page and was greeted with the headline:
Abandoning the Electoral College to uphold true democracy.
The writer, Aron Solomon (not a historian, but entitled to his opinion), began with “In the revered corridors of American democracy, a relic of the past continues to undermine the essence of fair representation and majority rule. The Electoral College, a uniquely American yet absurdly antiquated system, has far outlived its purpose and must be discarded. It is time for the United States to shed the shackles of an outdated electoral mechanism and embrace a system that truly reflects the will of the people – an approach that upholds the fundamental principles of democracy.”
One thing becomes very clear…Mr. Solomon has not read the Federalist Papers, especially Federalist 68 which explains the Electoral College. Any Constitutional scholar of any rank must become aware of the Federalist Papers. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay laid out an explanation of a republican form of government as embodied in the Constitution. They wrote a series of 85 essays detailing failings of the Articles of Confederation and highlighting crucial elements of Constitution.
Something not mentioned in the Constitution nor the Federalist Papers is unfettered “democracy”.
“Recent years have witnessed the erosion of democratic norms worldwide, and America’s adherence to an Electoral College system only exacerbates this decline.”
Mr. Solomon fails to make any connection with democratic failures ion other parts of the world, and our adherence to the Electoral College.
“The most glaring flaw lies in the potential for a candidate to secure the presidency without winning the popular vote, a scenario that has transpired five times in our history, most recently in the 2016 election. How can we proclaim ourselves as the epitome of democracy when the voice of the majority can be silenced by an archaic mechanism?”
Mr. Solomon waxes dramatic in this section, while completely ignoring two major points. First, there was never an intention that the President be elected by popular vote. The choosing of the President was a part of the overall elective process, which was crafted to give citizens a voice in different ways in selecting the Federal government. Mr. Solomon looks at the electoral process and selects one part of the mechanism. Would Mr. Solomon look at his complete car and decide a front left tire was not necessary? Clearly Mr. Solomon is unable to grasp the whole. Second, the “voice of the people” is not silenced or even muted, rather the voices are heard in varying degrees in the Presidency and Congress.
And once again. Mr, Solomon is stuck on “democracy”. How easily we use that word, even when it does not describe our “constitutional republic”.
Mr. Solomon again exhibits his failure to understand the concept of the Electoral College. The process gives the states balance, insuring the large states do not dominate the small states.
“Moreover, the Electoral College perpetuates the disproportionate influence of certain states, leaving many Americans feeling marginalized and disenchanted. Candidates focus their efforts on a handful of “battleground states,” disregarding the concerns of the majority. This disenfranchisement breeds apathy, erodes trust in the electoral process, and undermines the very foundation of a government of, by and for the people.”
That candidates focus their efforts on “battleground states” is a failure of the candidate, not the Electoral College.
“A system based on the popular vote would grant equal weight to every citizen’s voice and compel candidates to engage with voters across the nation. This revitalization of fundamental democratic participation can and will ensure that all voices are heard and respected.”
I must assume Mr. Solomon truly believes this; fact demonstrates otherwise. Candidates go where the votes are; they delude us by saying they reach out with social media, news media, and robocalls. These are not substitutes for the presence of the candidate.
The Founders knew this full well, though Mr. Solomon does not. In the 18th Century, without the Electoral College, a candidate could gather enough votes in Boston, Philadelphia, Charleston, and maybe New York City.
This would hold true today. Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, New York City, and a few other large cities could elect a President well into the future. As large cities tend to be liberal bastions, we could see a liberal, yes Democrat, President into the unforeseeable future. If we want an example, merely look at New York State. New York is almost overwhelmingly Republican, yet few Republicans are elected Governor. Why? New York State has 20.2 million people, and of those, 8.5 million reside in New York City. Democrats easily dominate NYC, and with Buffalo, or Albany, or Rochester, not even all three, Democrats historically control the State. There are national parallels. With unfettered popular vote, why would voters in Montana, Wyoming, Hawaii, Vermont, and other small states even bother to vote?
“The divisive nature of the Electoral College fuels polarization and deepens the divisions tearing at the fabric of our society. Its winner-takes-all approach encourages candidates to pander to their base and exploit demographic differences rather than seeking common ground that benefits the entire nation. By transitioning to a genuine popular vote system, we would foster a political environment that values collaboration over confrontation and unity over division. It is imperative to break free from a system that pits Americans against one another and embrace one that unites us in pursuing common goals.”
The Electoral College is not divisive and polarizing, rather it is our support of poor candidates in the primary selection process. A system “which woyld foster a political environment that values collaboration” resides in those individuals we send to higher office, be it local councilmen or Presidents. The fault Horatio is not in our stars but in ourselves.
“While some may find such a reform challenging or disruptive, history attests to the United States’ ability to enact transformative changes when the principles of democracy are at stake. The abolition of slavery, the extension of voting rights to women and minorities, and the direct election of senators all faced resistance, yet they reshaped our democracy and strengthened it.”
There is truth in this, but those changes did not come as a result of tearing apart the framework of the Constitution, rather they cam from the everyday struggles of advocates for change for the Republic as a whole.
“We must ignite a national dialogue about the shortcomings of the Electoral College and explore alternative systems, such as a national popular vote or ranked-choice voting. These options hold the promise of a presidency that genuinely reflects the will of the majority, safeguarding the principle of majority rule and ensuring that every vote counts.”
If there is a shortcoming in the Electoral College process, it is not in the design, but in the aberration never intended by the Founders…the “winner take all”. Getting rid of the will reestablish the primacy of the Electoral College.
“There are 500 days until the next presidential election. Silly season, in which completely unviable candidates declare their intention to become the next president, is already in full swing. This is the perfect opportunity to take what could be a final and profound dive into the Electoral College and the most sensible ways to dismantle it.”
Mr. Solomon says the “silly season”…that would be the primaries I believe…when we see completely unviable candidates attempting to reach the Presidency. I fail to see how abolishing the Electoral College in any way eliminates the “dance of the prairie chickens”. Mr. Solomon’s stance is either national popular vote or ranked-choice voting. Ranked-choice voting will merely assure that the “prairie chickens” make it to the big dance. They would have no reason to drop out.
There is clever structure to our elections:
Members of the House of Representatives are chosen on the concept of “one man/one vote” with seats assigned to states based upon total population, adjusted every ten years as a result of the Census.
Members of the Senate are chosen by popular vote, two for each state.
The President is chosen by the individual states based upon popular vote in that state. Traditionally, states would send slates of electors equal to both Senators and the number of Representatives. These “electors” would cast their votes reflecting the number of votes each candidate received. That has been changed by “winner take all”. That’s what should be changed.
Mr. Solomon beats the drum for “democracy” over and over. I can only assume that his perception of “democracy” is that absolute freedom of choice…absolute… As far back as 380BC, Plato, in The Republic, theorized that letting people govern themselves would lead the masses to support the rule of tyrants. Nearly all attempts at pure democracy have ended in dictatorships.
Does not tyranny spring from democracy?