'Cause you've got to blame someone
For your own confusion
We're on guard this time
Against your final solution
--Red Ryder
As progressivism was gaining traction a century ago, leaders of the movement such as Woodrow Wilson dismissed the Constitution as out of date. We needed a new, more modern governing design that kept up with the times, so went the argument.
Because this approach consequently didn't resonate with many Americans, progressives have since then been searching for more compelling rationales for overthrowing the governing framework developed by our founding ancestors.
The rationale du jour is that the founding design is steeped in the all too familiar ad hominem cry of the left: racism and slavery. Among the current targets of this weak form of argument is the electoral college. Progressives, of course, are upset with this approach for electing presidents because several of their candidates lost elections while winning the popular vote.
Tara Ross presents the progressive argument that the electoral college is an 'antiquated relic of slavery' and a 'pro-slavery compromise,' and then demolishes the it with evidence to the contrary.
Of course, anyone who has completed junior high civics should already know this. The United States was not founded as a democracy, but as a federal republic. Because the founders clearly understood the dangers of majority rule--particularly in a 'union of states' such as the United States--they designed the electoral college as a means for reducing dominance of big states over small.
Ross cites one of the many of the anti-slavery delegates to the constitutional convention, Gunning Bedford of Delaware, who said that the small states simply feared that they would be outvoted time and again by the large states. The electoral college can be seen as a device for coping with those fears.
The division between small and large states was the greatest difference that needed to be overcome at the convention in order to obtain agreement on a 'union of states.'
Theory and history work against progressives, who would much rather erase both in favor of nonsense.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vnOR6cqh3sk64mf-K0OtSA0cafe8TbqqyERaTUFfZcvT3081Ie6w_5lEdbWyLOugIdIDP7NwBkHrmgpjGgYAi-kyBMsl4fDmhNmRYdngYImd-f7FIFVfpoOF0IG7BhRoqBcw=s0-d)
2 comments:
Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”
“ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”
In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.
"The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."
In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin.
Presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969), Jimmy Carter (D-GA-1977), and Hillary Clinton (D-NY-2001).
Recent and past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN),
Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”
Eight former national chairs of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have endorsed the bill
With the National Popular Vote bill, when every popular vote counts and matters to the candidates equally, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. Elections wouldn't be about winning a handful of battleground states.
Fourteen of the 15 smallest states by population are ignored, like medium and big states where the statewide winner is predictable, because they’re not swing states. Small states are safe states. Only New Hampshire gets significant attention.
Support for a national popular vote has been strong in every smallest state surveyed in polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group
Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.
Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 70-80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.
State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.
In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).
In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.
The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided “battleground” states.
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections.
Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.
Voters in states, of all sizes, that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.
Post a Comment