The value of a vote should NOT be determined By where the voter lives !
By William Bailey (02/11/08)
One of the most frequently referenced historical anecdotes to come from the period of time surrounding the Constitutional Convention is as follows: On September 18, 1787, as a Mrs. Powell anxiously awaited the results, and as Dr. Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task then finished, Mrs. Powell asked him directly, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy ?” Dr. Franklin replied, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.” It is important to note that he didn’t say “a democracy, madam, if you can keep it”.
As we pledge allegiance to our flag, it is, similarly, important to note that we say,
“ . . . and to the Republic for which she stands”. We don’t say, “ . . . and to the democracy for which she stands”.
Ever since my first American Government/Civics class (more years ago than I care to remember), I have been in awe of that marvelous document that founded our beloved country, the Constitution of the United States. I have, likewise, been amazed at the genius of Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Adams, Jay and all of the others who put this model of freedom and liberty together. And, I have always believed in the oath that all of our elected (Federal) officials take wherein they swear to “ . . . protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”. Without question, it’s a serious promise and a major responsibility.
Until 2001, we haven’t had a major problem with assaults from foreign sources. Yes, we’ve participated in a number of wars and “police actions” to assist others around the world who believed that our Constitution was THE model for freedom and liberty. Unfortunately, the major assaults on the Constitution have come from within. There always seems to be some who want to change the Constitution without using the process prescribed for amendment. They want to increase their power or the power of one branch of government over the other without the consent of the governed. Anyone who keeps up with the actions of Congress can’t help but be aware of it. The Founders, in their genius to keep government based on the consent of the governed, provided a clear process to change the Constitution when changes were deemed to be necessary.
There are so many examples of this that it would take too long and too many words to try to document them all. So, let’s deal with one that is particularly troublesome to me.
Now that all of the hype and hyperbole concerning “Super Tuesday” votes and voting is behind us, It is, nevertheless, to talk about votes and voting.
After both the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections, efforts flared up to change the method by which we elect a President. There are those who want to eliminate the Electoral College and go to a straight popular vote. And, here we are coming up on the 2008 elections and those efforts, once again, are making their appearance.
Why did the Founders settle on the Electoral College as a method of electing a President rather than a straight popular vote ? Based on what I can find in researching their intent, they had two basic reasons which were as follows:
1) to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President; and,
2) as part of the structure of the government that insured extra power to the smaller states.
Said another way, “Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their state, people would naturally vote for a ‘favorite son’ from their own state or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best the choice of a president would always be decided by the largest, most populous states with little regard for the smaller ones.” ( The Electoral College-William C. Kimberling-http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf )
Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist 68 put it this way:
“It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.” ( http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed68.htm )
Since the ratification of the 12th Amendment to the Constitution in 1804, there have been over 700 attempts to amend the Electoral College system. ( http://www.1776americandream.com/html/electoral.htm ) So far, none have been successful.
As stated earlier, efforts have started again not just to change, but to eliminate the Electoral College and the manner that’s being used is an “end run” around the Constitution and seeks to establish a straight popular vote as the method of electing a President.
Two states have already passed legislation to accomplish this (Maryland and New Jersey). The Legislature of Illinois has passed a bill and sent it to that state’s governor.
The Lawmakers of ten other states have considered proposals in recent months (Hawaii, Colorado, Arizona, Washington, Montana, California, New Mexico, Louisiana, West Virginia and Connecticut). ( http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ARTICLE_ID=59683 )
Remember, one of the reasons for the Framers setting up the Electoral College was to protect the voters in the smaller states.
As you consider your position on this most vital and important issue, keep some “facts” in mind.
According to the Statistical Abstract of the U.S. (a publication of the U.S. Dept. of the Census), as of 2004, there were 142,072,000 registered voters in the United States. It’s interesting to note that as of 2006, that number had decreased to 135,847,000. Only six states had an increase in the number of registered voters. ( http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab )
When you look at the state-by-state breakdown, you find that 33% of the registered voters live in five states (California, Texas, New York, Florida and Pennsylvania). Now, add the next five most populous states (Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina and New Jersey) and you will find that 51.2% of the registered voters (as of 2006) reside in ten of the fifty states. And, if you add the next ten (bringing the total to twenty states) you will find that 74% of the registered voters live in twenty of the fifty states. Granted, no one can forecast what percentage of the registered voters in any state will actually go to the polls and vote. Past indicators reflect that it’s pretty sad. Nevertheless, election by a straight popular vote would be a formidable mountain for those voters who live in the smaller states.
Also, in my humble opinion, this would mean that candidates would direct their time, energy and funds to the top five and/or ten states with little regard to the remainder.
If the Founders had wished to create a pure democracy, they would have done so. Those who now wish to do away with the Electoral College are welcome to attempt to amend the Constitution. But, if that’s what they wish, let them do it under the process for amending as specified in the Constitution . . . not by some “back-door” or “end-run” methods. However, if this effort should succeed by whichever method, they will be taking America further away from its roots as a constitutional Republic.
The Founders knew what they were doing when they set this process up the way they did. It made sense then-----it makes sense now. For those of us who live in other than the five or ten most populous state, it would behoove us to be on the alert for the move to diminish our voice and, thus, our participation in the election of the President of the United States.
I say again . . . “the value of a vote should NOT be determined by where the voter lives”.
William D. Bailey
(Printer friendly version) Email: William Bailey
