Abolish the Electoral College?

I noted an article that appeared in The Hill yesterday. Three Democrat senators have proposed a bill to abolish the Electoral College. They bring up an ongoing discussion that never seems to go away. It's the difference between a democracy and a representative republic.

Our inspired Founders as they established the Constitution of the United States sought to prevent a true democracy, fearing that a straight democracy would disenfranchise the minority if a direct election empowered a majority.

The Constitutional Convention, 1787

Instead, they opted for a form of government that instituted a representative republic with "checks and balances." It features three branches of government - the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. The elected representatives conduct the business of the people and are accountable ONLY to those whom they represent.

One fundamental principle of a constitutional republic is the protection of minority rights against the potential tyranny of the majority. This design counters direct democracy, where majority rules could potentially ride roughshod over minority interests. The U.S. Constitution outlines various checks and balances intended to prevent any single branch of government from gaining absolute power, thereby protecting individual rights from being infringed upon by majority vote.

The key element of this style of government is the separation of powers among branches of the government, a system meant to foster a balance of power. The legislative branch makes laws, the executive branch enforces these laws, and the judiciary interprets them. Each branch operates independently from the others to prevent any accumulation of power, adhering to the principles laid out by the framers of the Constitution.

Think of the background from which our Founders had escaped. They were subjects of the Crown of England, and they were seeking freedom from what they viewed as a despot in their King. When John Hancock, president of the Continental Congress, affixed his signature at the bottom of the Declaration of Independence he wrote it boldly and as large as he could. He quipped that he wrote it so large so that "the old fat King" would not have to use his spectacles to read his name, but that story may be fictional.

As it unfolded in the debates over the form of government Americans would adopt, the electoral process distinctly forms the basis of the U.S. as a republic. Citizens do not vote directly for laws and policies but instead elect representatives who make these decisions on their behalf. This filter theoretically places an informed decision-making body between the populace’s desire and the law, which aligns with the characteristics of a republic.

It is not surprising that in the aftermath of this most recent national election there would be some who would once again seek to blur the lines between the very issues our Founders debated. The conflation of "democracy" and "republic" in contemporary usage often obscures their distinct historical and Constitutional meanings. 

A democracy, in its purest form as practiced in ancient Athens, involves direct participation of the citizenry in legislative decisions. While democratic, this approach was deemed impractical and potentially volatile by the framers of the U.S. Constitution, leading them to form a constitutional republic. This system combines representative democracy with foundational laws that protect individual rights and minority opinions against the potential tyranny of the majority.

During recent political upheavals, some commentators and politicians have asserted that calling the United States a democracy is incorrect, preferring instead the term "republic." This assertion, seen in media portrayals and political rhetoric, often suggests that appreciating the United States as a republic exclusively helps safeguard against the flaws of a pure democracy. Senator Mike Lee’s (R-UT) comments from October 2020 exemplify this stance as he described the American system as not one of mere majorities but rather as a “constitutional republic” where majority rule is tempered by statutory and constitutional boundaries. (Congressional Record vol. 166, no. 171 [October 8, 2020], statement of Sen. Mike Lee).

Having read this far into this post, some may simply say, "So what?" Well, the answer is it DOES make a difference what form of government we choose. 

The Electoral College is the process by which Americans elect their President and Vice-President indirectly through their state's electors. Candidates must secure 270 electoral votes, a majority of the 538 at stake, to win the White House. 

Before the general election, states select slates of electors. After voters cast their ballots in November, the candidate who wins the popular vote determines which slate of electors — Republican, Democrat or a third party — will cast electoral votes in the Electoral College for the president. 

In most states, it's winner-take-all — whoever gets the most votes in the state wins all of its electoral votes. 

In Maine and Nebraska, the rules are slightly different. They have a proportional representation system in which the winner of each congressional district is awarded one electoral vote, and the winner of the statewide vote is awarded each state's remaining two electoral votes. Some Republicans were hoping to change Nebraska's rules to a winner-take-all model, since one of its electoral votes often goes to the Democrat, but the effort fell short. 

Electors meet in their respective states in mid-December to cast their votes for the president. The meeting takes place the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December, which fell on Dec. 17, 2024. 

There is no Constitutional provision or federal law that requires electors to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged, though they almost always do. "Faithless electors" are rare, since the electors are selected by the parties.

There are 538 electors in total across the 50 states and Washington, D.C. 

Each state is allocated electors based on the size of its congressional delegation. Several states with the smallest populations — Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming — have three electors each, since they have one representative in the House and two senators, while California, the largest, has 54 electoral votes.  Washington, D.C., is also allocated three electors.

By spreading power and influence throughout the nation, we see the wisdom of our Founders. However, be aware that there will always and forever, it seems, be people who lose elections and seek to reverse the history of the Electoral College. They usually fly under a banner labelled "Progressives." 

Put me down as a "Traditionalist."

2021 - The Road Ahead

 From the moment he took the office, President Donald J. Trump has been a lightning rod for controversy, confusion, vindictive lashing out, and abhorrent behavior of every kind imaginable. Now, thankfully, his era in American politics has mercifully come to an end. It ended the way it began in total chaos and a climatic storming of the Capitol chambers in a failed attempt to overturn the outcome of the election. Did Trump have a hand in rousing the crowd of protestors ahead of the Electoral College vote tally? Well, you can be the judge of that, but for the first time in our nation's history a POTUS has been impeached a second time by the House of Representatives, and even at this late date, only days before his term expires, Donald J. Trump's legacy has a stain on it that will be impossible to remove.

Refusing counsel from everyone, Trump has resoundingly refused to even attend the inauguration ceremonies for his successor, Joe Biden, the winner of the 2020 presidential election. He finally conceded the election, but only when the Electoral College vote was completed. But he has refused to acknowledge his role in inciting the crowd assembled outside the Capitol on the day of the Electoral College vote count. He apparently tongue-lashed his Vice-President Mike Pence that morning, instructing him to "either be a patriot or a pussy." Pence's role in the Electoral College by Constitutional mandate is simply to preside over the vote count and then declare a winner. He had no authority to do anything else despite Trump's little boy tantrum. Pence was the patriot here, not Trump.

The prognosticators of doom and gloom have already begun their predictable tirade of "end of times" analysis concerning Joseph Biden's election. Some will continue to assert the claims of an illegitimate presidency based upon no evidence from Trump's lawyers in numerous court challenges to the election results. Others will assert the nation will fall apart after the failed "coup attempt" supported by Trump supporters. Biden's policy shifts will no doubt be real in an attempt to reverse Trump's. I've read the Republican Party in America will now cease to exist. All of these bold predictions can find equal and opposite counterparts in the years when George W. Bush won, and Trump upended political punditry by winning. The more things change, the more they remain the same, it would appear to me. The one constant for me is that America has not successfully committed suicide - yet.

The road ahead for us in 2021 will continue to be a battle for the hearts and minds of America. However, most hearts and minds have already been made up, and few will change their deepest-held beliefs. It remains to be seen if there are politicians who can tap into the conventional wisdom of Americans. Joe Biden will at least make a show of attempting to interpret his victory in November as reflecting the will of America. He will have both houses of Congress in his camp, just as Barack Obama did when he began his two-term presidency. Few, however, have been able to master the diversity of America. Most new presidents when they take office, pledge to reach across the aisle, heal the divide and work for harmony and unanimity of feelings. Most transitions from one party to the other are carried off without insurrection, though agitators would have it otherwise.  

2021 will also be a year when scientific breakthroughs in vaccine production will in time eradicate the persistent COVID-19 virus if enough Americans agree to take the vaccine when it is offered. Right now there seems to be a much larger demand for the vaccine than there is adequate supply. That's the right trend if the supply and distribution can keep up. The distribution of the vaccines will be problematic, because the vaccines will be administered by the government. In Utah it is being handled through the county health departments. For people 70+ years of age like me, it means expressing interest in a pre-appointment email registration for the vaccine, and the roll-out will happen over the next two months. We are being told to watch our email inbox for a sign-up opportunity. Already we are hearing government leaders in Utah pleading for patience as they figure out how to match the supply with the demand. Anytime we turn the science over to the government it seems there will be a breakdown - bet on it. So far science gets an A, government gets a C-, but guess who will be at the front of the line taking credit for the eventual success. Betcha I know the answer to that one. The doctors will be elbowed out of line by the politicians clamoring for recognition and credit.

Speaking of diversity in America, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) offered an opinion piece recently in the Deseret News entitled "The Union and the Constitution Forever." He insists there is good news in our diversity:

"The good news is, we already have a proven way to achieve this goal. The United States has always been diverse. Our Constitutional framework was specifically written for a regionally, culturally, economically and religiously diverse nation. The Constitution’s checks and balances and separated powers simultaneously empower political majorities while protecting political minorities and, most of all, individual rights.

"America’s ability to make our diversity a strength is part of what makes us the greatest nation on earth. Our job is to make sure our diversity pulls us together instead of pulling us apart.

"Given America’s wide diversity, political issues decided at the federal level are by their nature going to be the most divisive. People in the East and the West, on the coasts and in the interior, in rural and urban areas — to say nothing of “red” and “blue” states — are always going to see the world differently."

Lee concludes that the way the Founders envisioned handling diversity was not to eradicate it but to embrace it, channel it and balance it so that tyranny never asserts itself within our borders. We hear accusations of tyranny from time to time, and it may be true some would attempt to impose it, but so far America has resisted being told what to do by dictators. Just take as an example the roll out of the COVID-19 vaccine. Some are still insisting that this virus is someone in China's idea of controlling the masses, and that the government conspiracy is what is keeping us all in check. They rise up in opposition to mask wearing mandates and business regulation to control the spread of the virus. Resistance for the sake of resistance regardless of reason and common sense seems to be their cry.

"This isn’t about the size of the federal government — the federal government is going to remain huge for a long time to come. Rather, it’s about the need for national consensus to validate federal policy. 51%-49% issues are controversial, by their nature. Some issues — like national security or immigration — by their nature must be decided at the federal level, no matter how controversial they are. But most issues — from education to welfare to health care to housing to infrastructure — really can be decided at lower, less divided, levels of government.

"Blue states can be as blue as they want; red and purple states can go their way too. And all Americans — across the country and across the political spectrum — would be happier not to be in a constant zero-sum battle against the other party on every single issue under the sun. The founders called this approach 'federalism.' Philosophers call it 'subsidiarity.'

"To me, it’s the only realistic way to restore trust in our public institutions, detoxify our national discourse and heal some of the wounds of our current divisions."

It's not too complicated, folks. You let the federal government do what it does best on the big issues like immigration and national security, and you let the states, cities and counties do what they do best on the local issues in the red and blue states. By design, those outcomes at the local level will be better dealt with closer to the people. We've strayed from the principles envisioned in federalism, and it's time to get back to those principles to tamp down the angst at the federal level.

Trump, it turns out, was little more than an agitator, pitting us against one another for four long years. Yes, he did some good things, balancing the SCOTUS for one, but let's see if Biden can do a better job of following the Lee model than Trump ever did.