Townhall.com
Walter Williams
January 17, 2018

Hillary Clinton blamed the Electoral College for her stunning defeat in the 2016 presidential election in her latest memoirs, "What Happened?" Some have claimed that the Electoral College is one of the most dangerous institutions in American politics. Why? They say the Electoral College system, as opposed to a simple majority vote, distorts the one-person, one-vote principle of democracy because electoral votes are not distributed according to population.

To back up their claim, they point out that the Electoral College gives, for example, Wyoming citizens disproportionate weight in a presidential election. Put another way, Wyoming, a state with a population of about 600,000, has one member in the U.S. House of Representatives and two members in the U.S. Senate, which gives the citizens of Wyoming three electoral votes, or one electoral vote per 200,000 people. California, our most populous state, has more than 39 million people and 55 electoral votes, or approximately one vote per 715,000 people. Comparatively, individuals in Wyoming have nearly four times the power in the Electoral College as Californians.

Many people whine that using the Electoral College instead of the popular vote and majority rule is undemocratic. I'd say that they are absolutely right. Not deciding who will be the president by majority rule is not democracy. But the Founding Fathers went to great lengths to ensure that we were a republic and not a democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution or any other of our founding documents.

How about a few quotations expressed by the Founders about democracy? In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison wanted to prevent rule by majority faction, saying, "Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." John Adams warned in a letter, "Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide." Edmund Randolph said, "That in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." Then-Chief Justice John Marshall observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."

The Founders expressed contempt for the tyranny of majority rule, and throughout our Constitution, they placed impediments to that tyranny. Two houses of Congress pose one obstacle to majority rule. That is, 51 senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators. The president can veto the wishes of 535 members of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto. To change the Constitution requires not a majority but a two-thirds vote of both houses, and if an amendment is approved, it requires ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures. Finally, the Electoral College is yet another measure that thwarts majority rule. It makes sure that the highly populated states -- today, mainly 12 on the East and West coasts, cannot run roughshod over the rest of the nation. That forces a presidential candidate to take into consideration the wishes of the other 38 states.

Those Americans obsessed with rule by popular majorities might want to get rid of the U.S. Senate, where states, regardless of population, have two senators. Should we change representation in the House of Representatives to a system of proportional representation and eliminate the guarantee that each state gets at least one representative? Currently, seven states with populations of 1 million or fewer have one representative, thus giving them disproportionate influence in Congress. While we're at it, should we make all congressional acts be majority rule? When we're finished with establishing majority rule in Congress, should we then move to change our court system, which requires unanimity in jury decisions, to a simple majority rule?

My question is: Is it ignorance of or contempt for our Constitution that fuels the movement to abolish the Electoral College?

Link

If the constitution were wholly rewritten now, it would be vastly different. However, if it were rewritten now, the country would likely fission into three or four smaller countries.

I love Walter Williams!

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
I love Walter Williams!

So do I. I think I’ve posted more of his articles than any other single columnist. I try to chose columns mostly for the potential to stimulate discussion, and don’t necessarily agree with the views presented. His I do, almost always.

“Those who lack the capacity to achieve much in an atmosphere of freedom will clamor for power.” —Eric Hoffer (1902-1983)

Ignorance, pure and simple, but if they did know they would not change.

They seen to have forgotten the EC put their guy in a time or two and they defended it furiously.

quote:

In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison wanted to prevent rule by majority faction, saying, "Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority."

The Washington legislature has a two (count 'em, two) vote majority in the house and a one vote majority in the senate subsequent to the election to replace a Republican who died while in office.

The dims have gone into full attack mode with their first majority in both houses in years along with a Gov and an AG who are attention whores of the first order.

The assault isn't just on guns but that looms large with an assault on the state preemption, registering magazines for ARs, storage requirements etc, but it flows across the Cascades into the red, rural half of the state who are out-voted by the 6 counties around Seattle. The commies want development restricted so they can see critters grazing beneath the windmills and enjoy the wide open spaces, never mind long existing property and water rights. The potential of a huge negative financial impact looms large on a huge part of the state, but not around the Amazon Campus in Seattle, they have Uber and the free bikes.

It goes on, but the majority is really one vote in the senate and the rights of hundreds of thousands are at risk, not of being eroded but of being trampled.

The losers always say that.
That's the way the game is played and Trump played to win under those rules. Also in states like california and New York, where Democrats always win, there are a significant number of Republicans that don't bother to vote because they figure it's a lost cause.
If the popular vote determined the winner campaigns would focus on different states and try to get the highest number regardless of where they came from. Who knows who would have won under those circumstances.
Bottom line, it's just sore losers complaining.

Meanwhile, they don't have issue that House seats are apportioned by population... and illegals get counted.

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
The losers always say that.
That's the way the game is played and Trump played to win under those rules. Also in states like california and New York, where Democrats always win, there are a significant number of Republicans that don't bother to vote because they figure it's a lost cause.
If the popular vote determined the winner campaigns would focus on different states and try to get the highest number regardless of where they came from. Who knows who would have won under those circumstances.
Bottom line, it's just sore losers complaining.

I hope that’s not true, that Republicans did not vote in Whackyland. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

When I lived there, at least for the last decade or so, there wasn’t a single elective office holder in office who I had voted for, but I went and voted anyway, or someone pretending to me did.

quote:

My question is: Is it ignorance of or contempt for our Constitution that fuels the movement to abolish the Electoral College?

"Or"?

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch.

Of course the commies want that.

Jallen, thanks for sharing. I chalk it up to political manipulation. One group wants to tilt things in their favor, so they manipulate folks into disassembling the mechanism that the founding fathers put in place to keep things balanced. It had gone the other way, Hilary would have been applauding the electoral college.

It's kind of like when folks talked about abolishing Grand Juries, not realizing that grand juries help prevent predatory prosecutions.

I believe it is both, but 1 reason each split to 2 basic groups.

The press could easily research, define why there is a difference, and report the reminder of a short civics lesson. However it doesn't fit the narrative they want so they thus show the contempt to ignore the difference. Of course we know this to exist repeatedly in many courts of public opinion. IMO this is the larger of the 2 evils, and extends extensively into social issues gone wrong.

The folks the press quote or show are often ignorant of the difference. Still, they get air time, they get followers, and it is slanted by a progressive or even socialist thought. They are enabled by the above. They do not need to think, they just need to feel superior and state it with superiority. Facts don't matter in these cases, just that the feelings are well stated.

quote:

Originally posted by CD228:
Jallen, thanks for sharing. I chalk it up to political manipulation. One group wants to tilt things in their favor, so they manipulate folks into disassembling the mechanism that the founding fathers put in place to keep things balanced. It had gone the other way, Hilary would have been applauding the electoral college.

It's kind of like when folks talked about abolishing Grand Juries, not realizing that grand juries help prevent predatory prosecutions.

That is a tactic frequently tried by those upset by some outcome, but not really understanding the structure of our system.

Maybe like someone doing a “fix and flip” show without understanding which walls are load bearing.

Upset by 9th Circuit decision? Get rid of the 9th Circuit. Too much spent on aid to some 3rd world shithole? Get rid of foreign aid. Tired of scofflaws thumbing their noses at laws and getting off scot free? Get rid of juries, defense lawyers, just get a rope.

Mostly just ignorant steam blowing, occasionally entertaining but now and then a bit worrying.

I would call it contemptible constitutional ignorance!

I was also very surprised to find that a lot of people on this forum supported abolishing the Electoral College. I don't think the constitution or the reasons behind the EC are taught any more. This is a good video:




Link to original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6s7jB6-GoU

The EC is functioning EXACTLY as intended by the Founders, and is even more relevant now than in prior times.
Without the EC there would be a "Tyranny of Two Cities": LA and NYC.

Consider for a moment that it is estimated that 90-ish percent of all illegal aliens live in just NYC and LA county....and no proof of citizenship is required to vote in these "sanctuary cities".

I don't believe its an either/or

its both

ignorance of what this country is all about, and contempt for the country in general, the people specifically

Great article. I say it's ignorance.