The Electoral College Debate – Dangerous Ignorance


Electoral College
The Electoral College Debate – Dangerous Ignorance

USA – -( Democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, seeking to represent New York's 14th Congressional District, has called for the abolition of the Electoral College.

Her argument came on the heels of the Senate's confirming Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. She was lamenting the fact that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, nominated by George W. Bush, and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, nominated by Donald Trump, were court appointments made by presidents who lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College vote.

Hillary Clinton has long been a critic of the Electoral College. Just recently, she wrote in The Atlantic, “You won't be surprised to hear that I passionately believe it's time to abolish the Electoral College.” [read: sore loser]

Subjecting presidential elections to the popular vote sounds eminently fair to Americans who have been miseducated by public schools and universities. Worse yet, the call to eliminate the Electoral College reflects an underlying contempt for our Constitution and its protections for personal liberty.

Regarding miseducation, the founder of the Russian Communist Party, Vladimir Lenin, said, “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.” His immediate successor, Josef Stalin, added, “Education is a weapon whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.”

We are NOT a Democracy

A large part of Americans' miseducation is the often heard claim that we are a democracy. The word “democracy” appears nowhere in the two most fundamental documents of our nation — the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. In fact, our Constitution — in Article 4, Section 4 — guarantees “to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” The Founding Fathers had utter contempt for democracy.

James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, said that in a pure democracy, “there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual.” At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Virginia Gov. Edmund Randolph said that “in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.” John Adams wrote: “Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide.”

At the Constitutional Convention, Alexander Hamilton said: “We are now forming a republican government. Real liberty” is found not in “the extremes of democracy but in moderate governments. … If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy.”

For those too dense to understand these arguments, ask yourselves: Does the Pledge of Allegiance say “to the democracy for which it stands” or “to the republic for which it stands”? Did Julia Ward Howe make a mistake in titling her Civil War song “Battle Hymn of the Republic”? Should she have titled it “Battle Hymn of the Democracy”?

The Founders saw our nation as being composed of sovereign states that voluntarily sought to join a union under the condition that each state admitted would be coequal with every other state. The Electoral College method of choosing the president and vice president guarantees that each state, whether large or small in area or population, has some voice in selecting the nation's leaders. Were we to choose the president and vice president under a popular vote, the outcome of presidential races would always be decided by a few highly populated states. They would be states such as California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois and Pennsylvania, which contain 134.3 million people, or 41 percent of our population. Presidential candidates could safely ignore the interests of the citizens of Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and Delaware. Why? They have only 5.58 million Americans, or 1.7 percent of the U.S. population. We would no longer be a government; “of the people”; instead, our government would be put in power by and accountable to the leaders and citizens of a few highly populated states.

Political satirist H.L. Mencken said, “The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic.”

Walter E.Williams
Walter E. Williams

About Walter E.Williams

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. Williams is also the author of several books. Among these are The State Against Blacks, later made into a television documentary, America: A Minority Viewpoint, All It Takes Is Guts, South Africa's War Against Capitalism, More Liberty Means Less Government, Liberty Versus The Tyranny of Socialism, and recently his autobiography, Up From The Projects.

  • 13 thoughts on “The Electoral College Debate – Dangerous Ignorance

    1. States should start using the EC for state elections. If you see some states are mostly red and a couple blue counties rule the whole state

    2. The reason the founding father decided to use the Electoral College to elect the President rather than popular vote just makes too much sense. (Read / listen to this … ) I believe it is needed even more in today’s political climate.

      HOWEVER, do have one problem with it. This also goes for the way we decide the number of Federal House of Representatives each state is allotted. Both are determined by the Census that is done every 10 years. The Census is a body count. It includes all warm, breathing bodies. It is not limited in any other way. That means that a states like Florida, California, and New York, which arguably have a larger illegal immigrant population will get a disproportional number of EC electors and House of Representatives compared to those state who don’t have as many illegals.

    3. In order to make the states truly equal in their representation, I wonder if the Electoral College should not be revamped to give the states two votes apiece, just as we do in the Senate. Then California and New York couldn’t bully and push the rest of the country around. First presidential candidate to 52 wins.

      1. Charles, I believe that you are on to a solution. Now – a Big Now – is if you can get the powers to listen and explore the possibility!

    4. If people would read our Nation’s history from it’s beginning through the Civil War, they would understand that we are a republic and why it was important to our founding fathers and why it is important to us today.

    5. The Democrats/Socialists constantly praise democracy, and want us to believe that we live, and thrive, in a democracy. But the Founders of the United States knew better, they knew what Plato knew millennia ago, “Democracy leads to anarchy, which is mob rule”. Alexander Fraser Tytler also more recently warned, “a democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”
      It was in that knowledge that the Founders established a representative republic. And an integral part of that republic is the Electoral College. The reason modern Democrats push so hard for democracy is not for any altruistic reason, but because they believe is the course that will lead them to power. We already see this coming about in several blue states where all electoral votes are to be given to the leading vote recipient instead of being proportioned by vote tallies. This action will circumvent the Founders creation and lead to what Thomas Jefferson feared, “Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%”. We would then live in a country dominated by the North-Eastern and West coastal states.

    6. Excellent article!
      THANK YOU Walter Williams and THANK YOU Ammoland for sharing it with us! I re-posted to my FB account.

    7. Actually, one of the big states could rule the U.S. if one candidate won that state by 2M votes and that candidate lost every other state by 49,000 votes apiece. (I’m deliberately omitting P.R. and territories.)

    8. Lincoln did not receive a majority of the popular vote. It was a four-way race in 1860. But more to the point, Bill Clinton only received 43% of the popular vote in 1992. If the Electoral College had not existed then Bubba would have had to face a run-off against Bush. Since Ross Perot took votes away from Bush, then it is conceivable that Bush would have won the run-off election and Bubba would not have been President. Would someone please point that out to that hypocrite liar Hilary Clinton.

    9. Hillary Clinton DID NOT win the popular vote. Though she got more votes neither candidate got over 50% of the total votes. This would have forced a runoff election without the Electoral College, another reason for its existence.

    10. If Leftists don’t like the outcome just change the rules until they get the outcome they desire,by any and all means necessary.

    Comments are closed.