Take Back What is Ours

“We the people, in order to form a more perfect union…” is the most important introduction is the history of our fragile country. It sets a precedent for how this country is supposed to operate. We are a democracy, a rule of majority. The Electorate College threatens this ideal and destroys the basic fabric of it means to be a democracy. Make no mistake here; Democracy means that power rests with the citizens and some critics argue that we are a republic. A commonwealth or that power lies within groups (or in our case states). The original intention was a representative democracy to combat the large size of the country but through time we have moved to a republic. State’s rights versus individual rights. Sound familiar? It should, because it is the fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats (hence the names). A republic has no royal family that governs but it has power in groups, which to me sounds a bit like a dictatorship or an elitist rule. With the terrors of tyranny fresh in the most brilliant minds of colonial America we adopted a new way of life. So much of our “experimental” governmental philosophy is based on the writings of the great John Locke and ancient Greek democracy, like “the consent of the governed” and “a government of the people, by the people, for the people”. A representative democracy means the governed consent to a rule of representatives that govern as the people see fit. But if we aren’t the ones who choose the people to represent us, then whose government is it? Certainly not mine or yours, and since the majority of the people didn’t elect Governor George W. Bush in 2000 causing some to feel that we have been living a lie for the past 8 years. It’s a grave injustice to have a leader of the minority, and certainly a rule of the minority is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. The Electoral College is one of the last loopholes that still keep the elite in power over the majority of the people. Locke also said that the governed have the right to rise against the injustices that plagued them if they are the fault of their government. Government is ultimately their creation, so they alone have the power to create and destroy their creation. So we need to act, justified by John Locke and the following logic lets abolish the Electoral College and take control of what is ours once again.
First of all, we must acknowledge the argument against our cause. The Constitution set up the Electoral College. Electors are elected by the state institutions and then they select a president. They are suppose to vote the way the people want but are not bound to their constituency. Some would argue that it would be foolish to desert the method of election created at our country’s foundation. However, this mindset is irrelevant. It was made 230 years ago with that timeframe in mind. We are given the Article V, so that the most important document in our history is not lost to time. The Constitution is given the ability to grow and evolve to fit the current time. Article V states the amendment process so that together the nation is able to enact new laws that fit the present. Certain parts of the Constitution would have to change throughout the course of time. Thomas E. Cornin, author of the foreword for Judith Best’s book Choice of the People?, points out that the Electoral College a temporary compromise, keyword being “temporary”, and later would be amended. The Continental Congress rejected a direct election twice because they feared who the masses might elect. Cronin notes that the delegates “thought it unlikely or impractical for the average citizen to know enough about the candidates from other states, and doubtless, too, most delegates questioned the ability of the people to cast responsible votes” (Cronin ix. The Framers were just hesitated of trusting their judgment, fearing that the public would be tricked by a future corrupt leader. But we based on government on so many of Locke’s ideals and he argues that the government is an institution of the people, and then the only sensible election method is a direct election. The Electoral College has a very meager representative percentage; in some states there are an elector representing 475,000 or more citizens. Even worse, is that the electors can choose to ignore those citizens and vote “the other way”. However, according to the CQ article; “Twenty nine states and the District of Columbia require presidential electors to vote for the candidate who carried the state. Michigan, North Carolina and Utah provide that a ‘faithless elector’-an elector who votes for some other candidate- is not counted and the remaining electors fill the vacancy. New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Washington provide criminal penalties or fines for violations. But no ‘faithless elector has ever been punished…” (Jost). Anyone who says that that ratio and those electors are a good representation of the people’s will and that ratio and the electoral college is a representation of the fact that the government is an instrument of the people is lying to you, and perhaps more importantly, to themselves. “The president should be a president of the people, not president of the states…” (Cronin Xiii). The people have the right to pick their leaders through a “fair” system that lets them voice their opinion. Even the people who vote (still have some faith in the system to still partake) agree that the system needs to be abolished. According to a Gallup poll in CQ Researcher article titled “Electoral College” two thirds of Americans agree that the Electoral College should be abolished.
Another reason besides the afore mentioned right to elect their leaders and burden the responsibility of choosing their leaders, is that the Electoral College deters democratic processes and shifts power lopsidedly. Stephen Wayne, professor of American Government at Georgetown, argues how the Electoral College affects the election. “The Electoral College stands in the way of a democratic presidential election. In a democracy, all votes are equal, but in the Electoral College all voters are not equally represented. In a democracy, the plurality rules; in the Electoral College it may not. In a democracy, the larger the turnout the greater the mandate, and the more likely elected officials will be responsive to a broader cross-section of their constituency. Not only does the Electoral College lack turnout incentives for the less competitive states, but it clouds the president's electoral constituency and makes its conversion into a governing coalition that much more difficult” (Wayne). Our system favors certain states and parties with unequally represented votes. How Democratic is that? This nation is suppose to have any qualified individual to run but “the Electoral College is likely responsible for the American two-party system, since it encourages broad-based, inclusive parties, and discourages ideological or regional third parties” (Oxford University Press). This is because of the winner-take-all system. In election districts, voters cast their votes for candidates. Who ever wins the state wins all the electoral votes. But the votes are not divided up proportionally according to the percentage, except in two states; Nebraska and Maine divide the electoral votes proportionally (which is a step in the right direction, but not enough). Third parties have to win the state to receive any of the electoral votes. “The process for selecting electors varies State by State. Generally, State political party leaders nominate electors at their State party conventions or by a vote of the State party's central committee. Electors are often selected to recognize their service and dedication to their political party. They may be State-elected officials, party leaders, or persons who have an affiliation with the presidential candidate” (Congressional Digest). These people are loyal party executives who have gotten to their present situation by the help of the party. They wouldn’t allow for a third party to dethrone their party and their power. So how many electors are there? Straight from the constitution itself: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector” (Congressional Digest). In modern day language that means 538 electors; 100 senators plus 435 representatives and 3 more for D.C. So where are these electors? They are based on population; once again the states have more power over the little states. We are back again to the problem of the Virginia Plan vs. the New Jersey Plan. Statistically, this means that California is 16 times more important than Washington D.C. (54 electors to 3 electors). The capital has less influence on the next president then the state of California. The Electoral College creates winners, highly populated states and the “big 2” parties; and losers, the smaller states (and D.C.) and third parties.
The Electoral College suppresses the very meaning of what it means to be a democracy. The Electoral College was formed only as a temporary compromise ultimately in fear of an ignorant public. It’s irrelevant to think with that mindset because of a public school system. The Electoral College elected 7 Presidents in total that were not chosen by the majority of their constituents and now with the majority of the nation behind our cause, let’s abolish the Electoral College. This way if another ‘dud’ comes through the system, we have no one to blame but ourselves. We should have the responsibility of electing our leaders. The real victims of the Electoral College are not only us but third parties and low populated states. They are discriminated against by the winner-take-all aspect. “The only valid principle of representation is one man, one equally weighted vote. Anything that infers with this is somehow immoral as well as ‘unconstitutional,’ for we are a democracy after all” (Best Pg. 31).
Works Cited
Best, Judith. “The Federal Principle and the Presidency.” The Choice of the People? 1996. Google Scholar Book Search. Oct. 22, 2008. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=XlJmZl4RTBkC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Abolishing+the+Electoral+College&ots=Uv8XF1YfHj&sig=168K0MZv1uPCGH3YewfSN78MxAY#PPR9,M1

Cronin, Thomas E. The Electoral College Controversy. The Choice of the People. Best, Judith. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 1996. Vii-XXV. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=XlJmZl4RTBkC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Abolishing+the+Electoral+College&ots=Uv8XF1YfHj&sig=168K0MZv1uPCGH3YewfSN78MxAY#PPR9,M1

“If Not Perfect, At Least Excellent: The Electoral College”. OUP Blog. September 24, 2008. Oct. 22,2008. http://blog.oup.com/2008/09/electoral_college/

Jost, Kenneth and Greg Giroux. "Electoral College." CQ Researcher 10.42(2000): 977-1008. CQ Researcher Online. CQ Press. Gardner- Harvey Library, Middletown, OH. 19 Oct. 2008 http://library.cqpress.com.proxy.lib.muohio.edu/cqresearcher/cqresrre2000120800

"The Electoral College System." Congressional Digest 87.8 (Oct. 2008): 227-256. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. [Gardner-Harvey], [Middletown], [OH]. 22 Oct. 2008 https://proxy.lib.muohio.edu/login?source=ebsco&url=http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.muohio.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=34707231&site=ehost-live

Republicans are destroying Democracy

As i sat in a local coffee shop i began to research democracy and republic. I had heard of things words many times over but the real meaning of them was always just out of reach. I was curious and i so i discovered their true meaning. A republic is a rule of citizen groups. A democracy is a rule of individuals. Clearly the latter was the intention of the Founding Fathers. A representative Democracy though because the size of the country presents obvious problems. This definition of a "republic" is intriguing. Lets examine the progression of "democracy" in America over the years. In the very first election, electors were called into a room. They voiced aloud their vote and all were for George Washington. A straight simple Representative Democracy in action. On the polar opposite, today policy is influenced and shaped by interest groups. The larger the interest group the more influence on Congress it will have. There are competing groups all in competition for attention. Even in congressional districts we are put in groups and we are suppose to think, act, believe, and vote the same way as your neighbor. However, there are a lot of dissenting opinions. Its a rule of the majority, but how "fair" is a 51:49 vote. What if the majority honestly and truly does not know best. Republicans advocate for control in group while Democrats argue that power still rests in the hands of the individuals. Lockean liberalism vs. the commonwealth. Initially, this government was set up as a democracy and all interest groups, PACs, and anything that supports group politics is destroying Democracy. Although there is still a side of me that thinks how can a rule of majority work when i can't even trust the judgement of the driver next to me; let alone their judgement of how instruments of government are suppose to work. If they are so blind to religious institutions, how can they open their eyes to global problems? Global problems require global solutions free of bias. If they are convinced that letting corporations run deregulated is in their best interests, then how can i be sure that they know who's interests are being protected by war? Faith still rests with the people, but difference between a person and another one of the masses is intuition.