The goal is for states with a total of 270 electoral votes to conspire to give their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote nationwide, rather than to the winner of votes in their state. 270 votes is the exact number a presidential candidate needs to win the election.
As usual, it’s easy to get people to join this cause – yet another sound bite based on emotion rather than knowledge or logic. “Let the people decide.” “It’s the American way.” “It’s democracy at work.” Yep, that’s why America was never set up as a democracy. Here’s another sound bite for you – “Democracy is a lynch mob.” Here’s another one – “democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.” Majority rule violates the rights of minorities. It’s not a good thing. Get the picture?
Our Founding Fathers went to a lot of trouble to give us a government that was fair, representing all the people in every state – to protect a minority of one against the will of a mob which isn’t too concerned about the rights of someone standing in their way. Hence the Electoral College.
The abolishment of the Electoral College would, in fact, establish an election tyranny giving control of the government to the massive population centers of the nation's northeastern sector and the area around Los Angeles. If these sections of the nation were to control the election of our nation's leaders the voice of the ranchers and farmers of the Mid and Far West would be lost, along with the values and virtues of the South. It would also mean the end of the Tenth Amendment and state sovereignty.
Throughout history, certain factions have challenged the legality of the Electoral College. Opponents point out that our President is actually elected by 538 virtually unknown people who are members of 51 small delegations in fifty States and the District of Columbia. Moreover, in most states the electors are not even bound to vote for the candidate that won the popular vote. In fact, many Constitutional scholars believe that's just what the founders intended, 538 independent thinkers, bound to no one. There is reason and logic behind the idea.
The Founding Fathers, particularly those from small States, were very concerned they would be smothered by the larger states. Under the representative republic (not a democracy) established by the founders, the United States is made up of fifty sovereign States. Under the Constitution, except for limited powers specifically defined for the central government, the power for the rule of law is intended to reside in the States.
To deal with the problem, the founders decided on a compromise that would establish two chambers for the Congress; the House of Representatives, whose size would be dictated by the population in each State and the Senate in which every state would get two representatives, regardless of size or population. You see, in the beginning, the States appointed Senators to be their representatives in Congress. But, like these geniuses of today who want to wreck the Electoral College, previous geniuses came up with the idea that Senators should be elected by the people – “It’s only fair.” The result is an imperial Senate that answers to no one but their own elite club members. That’s what happens when you mess with the genius of the Constitution.
The same problem appeared in deciding how to select a President, the only elected official to stand for election to represent all the people in the nation. Here again there was the fear that election by popular vote would overwhelm the will of smaller States. Again compromise was reached to address the issue in a fair and equitable manner. Each state was assigned a number of presidential electoral votes equal to its representation in the House and the Senate. In each state, the electors would vote for a President and Vice President. The candidate receiving the largest number of electoral votes would be elected.
Under the plan the connection to the popular vote was local election of the electors. These are people from the community that represent the community standards. Under the plan, even the smallest state was assured at least three votes in the process. To provide a further check in the process to protect the smaller States, in the event no candidate won a majority of the Electoral vote, the names of the top five would go to the House of Representatives, where each State delegation would cast one vote for one of the candidates. In this process each State is equal.
There are fundamental and often regional differences in how Americans view the role of government and the leaders they elect to run it. Little wonder those who seek to strengthen the power of the central government prefer elections be decided by the popular vote. It’s a great sound bite- but the results will not give “the people” the “fair” result they desire.
Such a move will eliminate the power of individual States in favor of elections decided by the population of large, politically liberal cities. I’ve actually heard it said by residents of California (San Francisco, in particular) “why do we even let people in Ohio and Iowa vote?” Such elitism is behind the “National Popular Vote” movement which apparently believes that only the East and West Coasts count. The rest is just flyover country.
To prove the Founder’s wisdom, here are some interesting facts reported by Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota:
In the last presidential election -
The number of states won by Democrats – 19. By Republicans – 29.
Square miles of land won by Democrats – 580,000. By Republicans – 2,427,000
Population of counties won by Democrats – 127 million – by Republicans – 143 million
Professor Olsen adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory Republicans won was mostly the land owned by taxpaying citizens of the country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare.” Now, honestly, which system truly represents the majority of the United States -- the Electoral College or mob rule of the “National Popular Vote?”
If these numbers could be translated to electoral votes the Democrats and their candidates and their ideas would be thrown on the trash heap. And that is exactly what they are trying to do to Republican ideas and candidates. The only result possible, if states go forward with destroying the Electoral College, is tyranny.
