Is It Really Our Choice?
by Andrew Valentin
With the upcoming Presidential and Senatorial elections in November, a debate has resurrected once again from the ashes of Al Gore’s 2000 defeat, and that is whether or not the Electoral College truly belongs in the democratic system.
For those unfamiliar with the Electoral College, it is a system in which Presidential candidates are chosen, with states being granted larger representation in the process. It is based off the amount of representatives there are in the House of Representatives, or more basic, by the population. Although the Electoral College is not native to a direct democracy, it is native to our representative form of government, considering the Founding Fathers’ disdain for true democracy, often equating it to “mob rule.” John Adams even once said, “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” As a result, the Electoral College, the election of Congressmen, the appointed Supreme Court justices, and the three branch system of governing, just to name a few, are Constitutional tools that prevent our political system from dissenting into rhetorical populism, which historically can account for witch trials, Holocaust, and political unrest, to simply name a few.
Proponents of a “populist” role of government, in which Presidential candidates are chosen entirely by popular rule, would quickly forget about the sentiments behind the founding of the Constitution. For example, we have seen historically negative outcomes in which the public was given full liberty to sway policy. This public policy was over the controversial practice of slavery, resulting a “genius” of an idea, known as popular sovereignty. I say it is genius in the fact that this supposed compromise would ultimately result in the precursor to mobocracy, resulting in deaths on both proponents and opponents of slavery in Kansas, where popular vote dictates whether or not slavery can be implemented in the new territory. Historically, Bleeding Kansas was a prime example of the shortcomings of popular rule, because essentially, when two factions are equally competing over specific influence, they will be determined to fight over the end result. This situation is different than when there is a clear and present majority, in which the minority has no chance at some sort of rebellion and the Electoral College allows for the mediation of elitism and popular vote.
With the upcoming Presidential and Senatorial elections in November, a debate has resurrected once again from the ashes of Al Gore’s 2000 defeat, and that is whether or not the Electoral College truly belongs in the democratic system.
For those unfamiliar with the Electoral College, it is a system in which Presidential candidates are chosen, with states being granted larger representation in the process. It is based off the amount of representatives there are in the House of Representatives, or more basic, by the population. Although the Electoral College is not native to a direct democracy, it is native to our representative form of government, considering the Founding Fathers’ disdain for true democracy, often equating it to “mob rule.” John Adams even once said, “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” As a result, the Electoral College, the election of Congressmen, the appointed Supreme Court justices, and the three branch system of governing, just to name a few, are Constitutional tools that prevent our political system from dissenting into rhetorical populism, which historically can account for witch trials, Holocaust, and political unrest, to simply name a few.
Proponents of a “populist” role of government, in which Presidential candidates are chosen entirely by popular rule, would quickly forget about the sentiments behind the founding of the Constitution. For example, we have seen historically negative outcomes in which the public was given full liberty to sway policy. This public policy was over the controversial practice of slavery, resulting a “genius” of an idea, known as popular sovereignty. I say it is genius in the fact that this supposed compromise would ultimately result in the precursor to mobocracy, resulting in deaths on both proponents and opponents of slavery in Kansas, where popular vote dictates whether or not slavery can be implemented in the new territory. Historically, Bleeding Kansas was a prime example of the shortcomings of popular rule, because essentially, when two factions are equally competing over specific influence, they will be determined to fight over the end result. This situation is different than when there is a clear and present majority, in which the minority has no chance at some sort of rebellion and the Electoral College allows for the mediation of elitism and popular vote.
In terms of historical context, we’ve also seen leaders who have been chosen through “pure democracy.” These leaders have been praised for being the first elected democratic leaders in their regions for the first time in the nation’s history. As a result, most of these leaders, such as the Syrian President Asaad, has relentlessly killed thousands of his own people in the recent months. This “democratically” elected leader has taken advantage of the fact that citizens tend to lend themselves to ignorance when it is assumed that democracy is an inherently good system. Under this system of a “pure democracy,” voters place an almost divine reverence in democratically elected leaders. For example, even the most brutal of communist regimes have masked themselves under the auspice of democracy, seeing that the formal name for North Korea is the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of North Korea, and the formal name for the Congo is the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Congo. This parallel goes beyond subtle wordplay and is just a clear exploitation of an apparently “just” political system. When the citizens assume that their vote counts more than it actually does, the citizen falls victim to the fallacy that the majority must know best. Even in cases of the Vietnam War and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have seen that the public will is constantly changing and the majority of yesterday will soon become the minority of tomorrow. This is the Overton Window paradox, in which what can be considered a radical “proposal” one day will be considered “moderate tomorrow.”
Opponents of the Electoral College often cite Al Gore, President Bill Clinton’s former Vice President, and his loss in 2000 to the Texas Governor, George W. Bush. In the infamous election, Al Gore won the popular vote of 48.38% against George W. Bush, who garnered 47.87% of the vote; however it is not the popular vote that matters, as the Founders intended, but rather the Electoral Vote that determines the President. By winning the key state of Florida, which is a debate in itself, George W. Bush won the Electoral Vote by a narrow margin of 271 to 266, the fourth time in American history, in which the victor did not win the popular vote, but still won the Presidency on means of the Electoral Vote. However, this scenario is a perfect example of the electoral system working as intended. If the electoral system is essentially based off representation in the House of Representatives, then it is truly the “system of the people.” Although the system is not entirely perfect, seeing as candidates focus more time on some states than on others, it would weigh out better than a system in which candidates would simply focus on large urban centers, neglecting a majority of rural Americans, a result of the proposed, and politically appealing National Popular Vote proposal.
When the Constitution’s Framers sought to compromise the ambition of human nature with the authority of power, they established a system of checks and balances. The Electoral College, although a seemingly unfair system to some, is simply a further incorporation of these checks and balances, enforcing competent policies and ensuring that the public good is differentiated from the public will.
Opponents of the Electoral College often cite Al Gore, President Bill Clinton’s former Vice President, and his loss in 2000 to the Texas Governor, George W. Bush. In the infamous election, Al Gore won the popular vote of 48.38% against George W. Bush, who garnered 47.87% of the vote; however it is not the popular vote that matters, as the Founders intended, but rather the Electoral Vote that determines the President. By winning the key state of Florida, which is a debate in itself, George W. Bush won the Electoral Vote by a narrow margin of 271 to 266, the fourth time in American history, in which the victor did not win the popular vote, but still won the Presidency on means of the Electoral Vote. However, this scenario is a perfect example of the electoral system working as intended. If the electoral system is essentially based off representation in the House of Representatives, then it is truly the “system of the people.” Although the system is not entirely perfect, seeing as candidates focus more time on some states than on others, it would weigh out better than a system in which candidates would simply focus on large urban centers, neglecting a majority of rural Americans, a result of the proposed, and politically appealing National Popular Vote proposal.
When the Constitution’s Framers sought to compromise the ambition of human nature with the authority of power, they established a system of checks and balances. The Electoral College, although a seemingly unfair system to some, is simply a further incorporation of these checks and balances, enforcing competent policies and ensuring that the public good is differentiated from the public will.