DOUGLAS V. GIBBS             RADIO             BOOKS             CONSTITUTION             CONTACT/FOLLOW             DONATE

Sunday, December 25, 2016

Electoral College Protects Us From National Popular Vote

By Douglas V. Gibbs


The Democrats, a.k.a. Hillary Clinton supporters, are complaining that the Electoral College is outdated, and does not take into consideration the will of the people.  Truth be told, it was the will of the people in the sense of a National Popular Vote that the Founding Fathers was trying to avoid when they created the Electoral College.  As the above maps show, under an Electoral College system, all of America gets to vote for President.  Under a National Popular Vote system, only the islands of big cities would matter.  The remainder of America, the geographic bulk of our vast country, would have no voice.

Under a national popular vote system a vote in Wyoming would be meaningless. Only the four largest cities would be voting for President, and everybody else's votes would be worthless. Under the Electoral College a candidate needs to win over all parts of America. Because of the Electoral College, Wyoming, Iowa and New Hampshire holds some importance. Without it, candidates would see no need to campaign in those States, they would only campaign in the largest cities.

The program to eliminate the Electoral College is being waged by the leftists, and they aim to do it either through a State distribution of electors where a State, rather than casting its electoral votes based on the popular vote of the State, will cast its electoral votes based on the final national popular vote. While States could alter the Electoral College through State legislation in such a way, only a Constitutional Amendment would eliminate it altogether, as a number of Democrats are demanding.

Some are arguing that the only reason we have the Electoral College is because of slavery, and that is simply not true.  Sure, the fear of non-slave States or slave States dominating over the other was a concern, but so were many other concerns.  Did we want cities dominating elections over rural areas?  How about States who strongly believed in nationalism overpowering anti-federalist States?  Did we want industrial areas dominating because they had the national popular majority?  Through the Electoral College no segment of the population can dominate an election and get their way simply through the numbers game.  With the Electoral College, because of the way the Electors are distributed based on the number of electors being equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which a State may be entitled to in Congress, all segments of our country have a viable voice.

Let's not forget that we are not a democracy, we are a Republic.

We also have to remember that the Electoral College has indeed evolved over time.  The Electoral College originally did not take into consideration the preferences of the individual voters, because they were not consulted. The electors were appointed by the State legislatures, and then the elector voted for who would be president based upon his preference, which was assumed to be in line with the State legislature who appointed him.  In other words, the purpose of the Electoral College was originally to ensure it was the States who were voting for the President.  The people's vote, at that time, indirectly voted for President.  The people's voice was intended to be in the House of Representatives.

The Constitution, and the federal government, after all, were creations of the States, and it was the aim of the States to ensure that their part in the maintenance of the republic was an active one.

The people's vote really wasn't considered regarding the presidency until the 1820s. At that time the State legislatures were appointing the electors and then slowly the electors were convinced to begin voting in line with voter preference.  Politicians like Andrew Jackson, who, by the way, is the father of the Democrat Party, did not like the fact that America was a republic.  He believed in pure democracy, and though historically democracies have ever been short lived, and violent in their deaths, democracy is also a transitional system to big government - and I believe Jackson was fully aware of that.

Therefore, the idea behind using the popular vote in each State to guide the electoral vote was intended to be a step towards democracy, and a step towards eliminating State involvement.  While the popular vote of each State being based on the popular vote of each State was not what was originally intended, it has worked fine for the most part.  The system as it is, despite the changes it has undergone, still protects us from the excesses of democracy.

Since 1832 the electors have voted 99% with the voting public. The popular vote is taken into account in today's Electoral College on a state-by-state basis, rather than nationally. That way, your popular vote in your State is important.  However, if we were to move to a National Popular Vote system, it would serve to destroy one of the last vestiges of our republic, moving us ever closer to not only becoming a pure democracy, but also closer to becoming an oligarchy (a system in which a powerful few rule over the many).

To put it into allegorical terms, those who push for a National Popular Vote are arguing that at the end of a tennis match the total number of points should decide the winner, rather than the number of sets.

That said, the national popular vote winner not winning the presidency has been rare in history, but is becoming more common now because of the rapidly growing populations in the cities who either vote based on unconstitutional benefits they receive, to those who have been fooled by the leftist rhetoric and really do believe the false narrative that the Republicans are for the rich, and the Democrats are for the common man or poverty stricken.

In this environment where a record number of people are out of work, the goal is to create jobs.  Hillary Clinton argued that the way to do so is to tax the rich more heavily.  Donald Trump supports reducing taxes.

In society, we simply need to ask, have you ever been hired by a poor person?  It is common knowledge that most jobs come from affluent individuals who have become wealthy because they once were not, but through their hard work they built corporations or mom and pop businesses that thrive and serve as a part of an energetic economic system.  An increase in taxes leaves those people with less money to invest in their businesses, and ultimately, less money to invest in the hiring of new individuals.  So, when claiming you want to create jobs, why would you want to heavily tax the job creators?

A more truer narrative regarding the parties is that the Republicans support all Americans, and believe prosperity is achieved through a free market controlled by the people, not the government, so that it can be a dynamic system where individuals can rise or fall based on their hard work, and intelligent decisions.  The Democrats are for controlling the market so that everyone can become equally dependent upon the government for benefits, making them bought and paid for votes for the Democrat Party, and neutered competitors in the marketplace where it is designed for the government to dominate.  After all, the Democrats believe, individuals can't be trusted making money because they are selfish and greedy.

Your choice.

Keep the Electoral College and we keep our republic.  Or, throw it away for a National Popular Vote, and welcome pure democracy, mob rule, and ultimately the powerful few ruling over the impoverished many through a government controlled by selfish and greedy people seeking more and more power over your lives, and everything you do.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

No comments: