|
A Primer on the Electoral College
By Tom DeWeese
It is no surprise that Hillary Clinton's first act
as a U.S. Senator is an attempt to abolish the Electoral College. Her
central philosophy of government
is the displacement of the roots of power from individual Americans to the
central government.
She is an advocate of "Common-ism," the
new global face of Communism, suggesting
that the popular vote promotes an agenda of "social equality" or
"social democracy." She would have us believe that the rule of
law must take a back seat to
"fairness" and the "needs of the people."
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.
Throughout history, Americans 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 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.
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 only connection with the
popular vote was local election of the electors. However, 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 five 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 establish the new "Commonism" prefer elections be
decided by the popular vote. Such a
move will eliminate the power of individual States in favor of elections
decided by the population of large, politically liberal
cities.
Many lament the loss of the Republic as envisioned
by the Founding Fathers. Many
believe the Constitution is dead. Such a belief comes from the
effects of a step-by-step erosion of Constitutional principles by Congress
and by the courts, but the Constitution has proven itself to be very much
alive in the presidential election of 2000. Can anyone deny that the
people of Florida know the value of their votes? Can anyone argue that
this one state has not been heard?
If the Electoral College were eliminated, the
election would be decided by the popular vote of 677 counties out of 3,111
nationwide! Election 2000 has not proven the need to eliminate the
Electoral College. Instead, it is proof that the system created by the
Founding Fathers is working perfectly.
Tom DeWeese is president of the American Policy
Center, an activist think tank in Herdon. VA. The Center maintains an
Internet site at americanpolicy.org.
|
