Connect with us

Published

on

[ad_1]

The most popular argument against the Electoral College is that it violates the fundamental principle underlying democratic society: political equality, or, commonly phrased as “one person, one vote.”

Indeed, because all states are assigned at least three electors regardless of their population size, the Electoral College gives small states a disproportionate number of electors per capita. As a result, a person who receives the largest number of votes does not necessarily win the election, as was the case in the presidential contests of 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016.

In the wake of the 2020 election, there have been renewed calls to abolish the Electoral College and replace it with a national popular vote. The Washington Post editorial board, for example, writes, “The Electoral College, whatever virtues it may have had for the Founding Fathers, is no longer tenable for American democracy.”

The logic underlying this argument is the following: the actions of the president, and the federal government, directly affect millions of people, and thus citizens, not states, should choose the president.

Why does a voter in Wyoming have four times as much say over who is to lead the country in the next four years than the resident of California, if all men are created equal? Furthermore, critics usually argue the Electoral College leads candidates to focus their efforts on a few swing states — like Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin — while neglecting other regions of the country.

Yet, while it is true that in the current system presidential candidates don’t spend their energy and focus on all states equally, in a system with the popular vote, the “tyranny of the minority” would be even worse. Indeed, could well be enough to win the popular vote of highly dense, urbanized cities in states like California and New York while losing in elections in a vast majority of the country.

But as Dan McLaughlin writes in National Review, “The Electoral College, however, dilutes the influence of “hyperpartisan enclaves that are out of step with the nation,” be it California today or the American South in the 19th century. Thus, thanks to the Electoral College, candidates have to appeal to a geographically broader base that’s more politically, socially, and economically diverse.

Federalism and the Electoral College

The Electoral College is therefore a mainstay of America’s federalist system of governance, centered on the protection of certain rights reserved to the states as entities and resting on the principle of a division of power. America is a union of states, and the president is, in essence, the officer of the states rather than of the American people.

Likewise, an argument can be made that the states, and not the people per se, are sovereign. After all, the U.S. Constitution was ratified not by the American people, but by delegations from 13 states. In an electoral system with a national popular vote, the executive branch would represent the interests of a few highly populated states, disregarding the interests of all other states, shredding the federalism the Founders thought it so necessary to bestow upon the American republic.

The debate about whether the Electoral College should be abolished, however, misses a larger and more important. When the United States was founded, it was not assumed America would ever possess such a massive federal government combined with an imperial presidency, an anemic and gridlocked Congress, and eroded state rights, as we have today.

As George Will points out in a recent column in The Washington Post, “Congress is not even certain of the components of, and hence cannot meaningfully control, the agglomeration of bureaucracies it has created.” Indeed, only three executive agencies existed in 1789. By contrast, today, as the Modernization of Congress report puts it, “While there is no official inventory of federal agencies, one recent count puts the current total at 278 distinct agencies.”

If America were a truly centralized country where the federal government had vastly more power than it already does, elections by popular vote would make sense since the actions of the president would directly affect citizens. This is not the case, however, for a nation such as ours.

In a decentralized federal republic, the fact that states, and not people, elect the president does not necessarily violate the principle of equal representation because national elections do not have as much impact on the lives of the citizens as do those on local and state levels. Indeed, this is why elections on state and local levels are determined by popular vote, since, in decentralized society, they matter more for the majority of ordinary citizens than the federal ones.

Advertisement

Why We Must Decentralize

Unfortunately, a worrying trend is that in today’s America, as we move away from our federalist system and power becomes increasingly concentrated in Washington, D.C. and the executive branch, in particular, presidential elections matter far too much to many people. For the Electoral College to reflect the underlying social dynamics of the nation when it was established, we need more decentralization and localism, when states, and not citizens, elect the president of the union.

Through every constitutional means available, the American people must quickly begin a course to limit executive power, end the imperial presidency, reduce the size of the federal government, give more power to the states, and decentralize decision-making away from Washington. Of course, some tasks can only be performed by the president and the federal government, such as representing the states on the world stage. Otherwise, in spheres that can be managed by states and municipalities, the central government should not be involved.

The Electoral College was created for a decentralized country with a federal system. Modern America, unfortunately, has been steadily moving away from federalism as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Abolishing the Electoral College is next to impossible in the current political climate since that would require a constitutional amendment, and initiatives like National Popular Vote Interstate Compact are probably unconstitutional.

We Need More Federalism, Not Less

More federalism, therefore, is the only way to address this growing disconnect between the Electoral College and the type of a country it was crafted for. As James Madison notes in Federalist No. 10:

By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.

Decentralization and dispersal of power underlie the U.S. Constitution, striking a balance between the rights of states and the federal government, with the Electoral College serving as one of such compromises.

Abolishing the Electoral College would expand the power of the federal government — especially in administering elections — potentially turning states into mere administrative departments of the Washington bureaucracy. Since one of the prime rationales for the existence of the Electoral College is state representation, if the Electoral College is abolished in the name of direct democracy, consistency would require that the Senate, and thus states’ representation, are removed too, with disastrous consequences.

To make the Electoral College relevant again, we need to decentralize federal power and localize the process of decision-making, making politicians closer and thus more accountable to their constituents. Instead of changing the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College, it would be much easier — and much better for the health of our republic — to reduce the size of the federal government so that the Electoral College operates in the environment it was designed for.

Sukhayl Niyazov is an independent author whose work has appeared in The National Interest, Human Events, Global Policy, Law and Liberty, Areo, and Merion West.



[ad_2]

Advertisement
Comments

Politics

Convicted fundraiser who tried to work his way into Biden’s inner circle sentenced to prison

Published

on

Amajor Democratic bundler, who raised large sums for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and consorted with Joe Biden, was sentenced to 12 years in prison for what prosecutors said was a “mercenary” political influence scheme.

Imaad Zuberi, a Californian businessman was sentenced Thursday for schemes to funnel foreign money into U.S. political campaigns, then take millions of dollars for himself.

The Los Angeles Times reported that U.S. Assistant Attorney Daniel J. O’Brien said Zuberi was “purely a mercenary, funneling money to whomever he believed would do his bidding.”

Among the many unsealed court records, Zuberi was seen photographed with Joe Biden and Barack Obama when they were Vice President and President. He was also pictured with former President Bill Clinton and former presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton. He took pictures with former Republican Rep. Paul Ryan when he was speaker of the House as well as the late Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

Also included in the Times report was a hacked email chain released on WikiLeaks. Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager Robby Mook messaged colleagues saying, “I’m OK taking the money and dealing with any attacks.” Jennifer Palmieri responded saying, “Take the money!”

He also attended Hillary Clinton’s election night party in New York City in 2016 as well as serving as a co-chair of The Trump Presidential Inauguration Committee.

Advertisement

Zuberi made more than $950,000 in unlawful donations to the political committees of Obama, Clinton, McCain and others. Zuberi’s activities extended as far as a recent attempt to work his way into the Biden circle, according to Politico.  

In addition to the money he made, Zuberi also raised $270,000 for Hillary Clinton and $1.3 million for President Obama.

Zuberi, 50, pleaded guilty to a “three-count information charging with violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA)” for making false statements on a FARA filing as well as tax evasion and illegal contributions to political campaigns. He also pleaded guilty in a separate case earlier in June 2020 to a count of obstruction of justice.

“Zuberi turned acting as an unregistered foreign agent into a business enterprise,” Assistant Attorney General for National Secretary John C. Demers said in a Department of Justice news release.

Continue Reading

Politics

Cruz responds to pictures of him on Mexico flight, with Texas struggling from deadly winter storm

Published

on

Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz confirmed Thursday that he flew earlier this week to Mexico with family members, following the emergence of pictures appearing to show him in an airplane cabin and at a check-in counter, as fellow residents to recover from a deadly winter storm.

Cruz said in a statement that he accompanied his daughters on a flight Wednesday night to Mexico because they had the week off with school canceled.

“Wanting to be a good dad,” said Cruz, who also stated he is returning to Texas on Thursday afternoon.

The storms has been connected to at least seven deaths in Texas and knocked out power to as many as 2.5 million residents. The number of residents without electricity as of Thursday morning was down to less than 1 million, officials said.  

Advertisement

“My staff and I are in constant communication with state and local leaders to get to the bottom of what happened in Texas,” Cruz also said. “We want our power back, our water on, and our homes warm.”

Continue Reading

Politics

South Carolina House passes bill that would prohibit most abortions if a fetal heartbeat is detected

Published

on

The South Carolina House of Representatives on Wednesday voted 79-35 to pass legislation that would prohibit most abortions. 

The bill must pass through a procedural vote in the House on Thursday prior to heading to GOP Gov. Henry McMaster who has indicated that he will sign it, according to the Associated Press. Two Republicans voted against the legislation while two Democrats voted for it. The state Senate passed the measure last month. 

The bill requires doctors to carry out an ultrasound to check for a fetal heartbeat and if a heartbeat is identified an abortion can only be performed in certain circumstances.

The legislation would not penalize a woman for obtaining an unlawful abortion, though the individual responsible for performing the abortion could face consequences.

Advertisement

The outlet reported that other states have approved similar or even more stringent abortion prohibitions which could be implemented if the Supreme Court throws out the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. All of the other states’ abortion bans are currently entangled by court challenges and if the South Carolina bill is approved it will likely face litigation that prevents it from going into effect, according to the AP.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Uncategorized3 days ago

School Board members caught mocking parents over lockdown — They thought their Zoom call was private…

Politics3 days ago

Convicted fundraiser who tried to work his way into Biden’s inner circle sentenced to prison

Politics4 days ago

Cruz responds to pictures of him on Mexico flight, with Texas struggling from deadly winter storm

Fox news4 days ago

‘A lot of people don’t know the severity of what’s going on’

Politics4 days ago

South Carolina House passes bill that would prohibit most abortions if a fetal heartbeat is detected

Politics4 days ago

Son of prominent conservative leader Bozell arrested in connection with Capitol siege

News4 days ago

Seven shot in Philadelphia near SEPTA station, according to police

Politics4 days ago

Trump calls Limbaugh ‘legend,’ in first TV interview since Senate trial

News6 days ago

CNN’s Stelter,’ ‘Saturday Night Live’ this weekend didn’t mention Cuomo’s nursing home COVID story

Politics6 days ago

Rep. Bennie Thompson targets Trump, Giuliani, Proud Boys and Oath Keepers in Capitol riot lawsuit

Donald Trump6 days ago

Trump unleashes scathing statement blasting Sen. Mitch McConnell

Politics6 days ago

Judicial Watch sues U.S. Capitol Police in pursuit of emails and videos pertaining to Jan. 6 riots

Bannon6 days ago

Bannon — ‘Trump may run for Congress in 2022 and lead impeachment against Biden’…

Donald Trump1 week ago

Trump acquitted in impeachment trial; 7 GOP Senators vote with Democrats to convict

Candace Owens1 week ago

Candace Owens post photo of her son with a message to all young feminist.

Facebook

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2021 By TSD