Our prior call for eliminating the Electoral College mentions direct democracy, which we discuss here. We remain of the view that there is no sound reason to continue the Electoral College because it disenfranchises millions of city dwellers and creates inequality that further divides us.
The Founding Fathers were concerned about the idea of
"direct democracy" because they believed it could lead to mob rule,
where decisions are made based on the whims of the majority without considering
the rights and needs of the minority. In a direct democracy, every decision is
made by a direct vote of the people, which can result in impulsive and poorly
considered decisions driven by emotion rather than reason.
The Founding Fathers wanted to create a stable government to
protect individual rights and prevent any single group from gaining too much
power. They were worried that in a direct democracy, famous leaders could
manipulate public opinion to gain unchecked power, leading to tyranny. To avoid
this, they designed a system of checks and balances, including the Electoral
College, to ensure that the selection of the President would not be subject to
direct popular vote but instead mediated by representatives who could deliberate
and make more informed decisions.
This system was meant to balance the people's will with the need for a government that could operate effectively and protect against the potential dangers of majority rule. It was ill-conceived, short-sighted, and does not reflect today's values and geopolitical realities.
It is antiquated and discriminatory. It effectively eliminates millions of voters in populous states where recent history has shown a wide margin between the popular and Electoral College votes. This inequality further exacerbates the divisions in a country attempting to unify.
The Pernicious Electoral College: A Tool for Undermining Democracy
The Electoral College is one of the most contentious features of the American political system. Its origins trace back to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, where the Founding Fathers debated how to best elect the President of the United States. While some delegates favored direct popular vote, others feared that a pure democracy could lead to the tyranny of the majority. Thus, the Electoral College was conceived as a compromise—a system designed to balance the influence of populous and less populous states and to provide a buffer against the potential dangers of direct democracy.
The Founding Fathers were concerned about the idea of "direct democracy" because they believed it could lead to mob rule, where decisions are made based on the whims of the majority without considering the rights and needs of the minority. In a direct democracy, every decision is made by a direct vote of the people, which can result in impulsive and poorly considered decisions driven by emotion rather than reason.
The Founding Fathers wanted to create a stable government to protect individual rights and prevent any single group from gaining too much power. They were worried that in a direct democracy, famous leaders could manipulate public opinion to gain unchecked power, leading to tyranny. To avoid this, they designed a system of checks and balances, including the Electoral College, to ensure that the selection of the President would not be subject to direct popular vote but instead mediated by representatives who could deliberate and make more informed decisions.
This system was meant to balance the people's will with the need for a government that could operate effectively and protect against the potential dangers of majority rule.
- Compromise between Large and Small States: Smaller states were concerned that larger states would overshadow their interests if the President were elected by direct popular vote. The Electoral College system gives smaller states a slightly disproportionate influence by giving each state several electors equal to the total number of Senators and Representatives in Congress.
- Concerns about Direct Democracy: The Founding Fathers were wary of direct democracy, fearing that the general populace might not be well-informed enough to make sound decisions. They believed that an intermediary body of electors would be better equipped to choose a suitable candidate for the president.
- Protection against Regional Candidates: The Electoral College was intended to ensure that presidential candidates had to gain broad support across the country rather than focusing solely on the most populous regions.
- Slave States’ Influence: Another less noble reason was the protection of the interests of slave-holding states. The infamous Three-Fifths Compromise allowed states to count slaves as three-fifths of a person to apportion representation and electors, giving Southern states more political power than if only the free population were counted.
The Electoral College in Practice
While the Electoral College may have been conceived with some legitimate concerns, its application over the centuries has revealed significant flaws. The system has led to several instances where the candidate who won the popular vote did not become President, most notably in the elections of 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016. These outcomes have sparked debates about the fairness and democratic nature of the Electoral College.
The Threat to Democracy
Recently, the Electoral College has been criticized as a tool that can be exploited to undermine democratic principles. Here are some ways in which it poses a threat:
- Disproportionate Influence: States with smaller populations disproportionately influence presidential elections. For example, a voter in Wyoming significantly impacts the outcome more than a voter in California. This undermines the principle of "one person, one vote."
- Swing State Focus: Presidential campaigns tend to focus disproportionately on so-called "swing states"—states that could reasonably be won by either major party. This means that voters in non-swing states often feel ignored and disenfranchised.
- Potential for Manipulation: Most states' winner-takes-all approach can lead to significant disparities between the popular and electoral votes. Gerrymandering and other tactics can manipulate this system to skew results in favor of one party.
- Erosion of Democratic Norms: The Electoral College can be exploited to entrench minority rule. When the system enables a candidate who did not win the popular vote to assume the presidency, it raises questions about the legitimacy of the electoral process and can erode trust in democratic institutions.
Toward a More Democratic System
The Electoral College, designed in an era vastly different from our own, increasingly appears anachronistic. To safeguard democracy, it is imperative to consider reforms that reflect contemporary values and realities. Proposals include moving to a direct popular vote for the presidency, implementing ranked-choice voting, or distributing electoral votes proportionally based on the popular vote within each state.
Reforming or abolishing the Electoral College would be challenging, requiring a constitutional amendment or significant legislative changes at the state level. However, to preserve and strengthen democracy, it is essential to address how this system can be used to subvert the will of the people and pave the way for undemocratic regimes.
In conclusion, while initially intended to balance interests and prevent rash decisions, the Electoral College has become a contentious and problematic feature of American democracy. It is crucial to re-examine this institution and strive for an electoral system reflecting the democratic ideals upon which the nation was founded.
William James Spriggs
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.