Tag: electoral college

The Electoral College

I’ve written about the Electoral College before in a previous incarnation of this blog. So again I am revisiting this important topic on the eve of our national election.

The United States is a Constitutional Federal Republic. Notice that the word “democracy” is not in our form of government. Our Founding Fathers were brilliant men and knew the dangers of a democracy. This is why they gave us a republic.

The Electoral College is the greatest example of our republic. It ensures that every state in the union has a say on who becomes our president. Without it, the large cities on the coasts would decide by a popular vote. And those of us in the “fly over” country would never have a voice. We lack the numbers to overrule their voices.

Our Founding Fathers were aware of this, even in the 18th century. Thus they created the Electoral College to level the playing field and so every state would have a fair voice.

In the Electoral College system each state gets a 1 vote for each Senator and Representative. Thus Iowa, my home state, currently has 6 votes in the Electoral College.

How these Electors are chosen is up to each state. And what rules they must follow are also up to each state.

Do I think that the Electoral College should be replaced by the popular vote? Absolutely not. For all the reasons already stated and why the Founding Fathers created it in the first place. Do I think there should be changes. Yes there should be some changes.

I do have a couple of reforms that would make the system better than it is today. And be a vote generator for tomorrow. And I think they would help preserve the Republic as well.

At the state level, all the states must follow the lead of Maine and Nebraska and do away with the rule of “winner takes all” method. Thus the number of votes becomes proportional to the win.

This is far more equitable and fair to the candidates. If you get 49% of the popular votes, you should get 49% of the Electoral votes as well. It would also cause the candidates to take every state seriously and improve their campaigns.

The 2nd reform would have to take place at the Federal level. It has been many decades since the last time the House of Representatives was increased due to the increase in population. And now each Representative has far too many constituents to adequately represent them.

Thus, raise the number of Representatives. Lower the maximum number of constituents for each Representative. This also increases the number of Electoral votes available which would in turn increase the number needed to win the Presidency.

Right now, the total of Electoral Votes is 538 and 270 are needed to be President. A simple majority. Hypothetically, if we increase each state my just 1 House member the available Electoral Votes would be 588 and the number needed to win would be 295.

Perhaps, even a 3rd reform would be in order. And it could be taken on it’s own or added to either one of the other 2 reforms. Instead of using a simple majority vote for the Electors, change it to a 2/3rd majority vote.

If this change was made on it’s own. The number of needed Electoral votes would change from 270 to 359 or 360. This would definitely make the candidates and the electorate pay more attention to the campaigns and the issues. And again every state in the union would be important.

Keeping the Faithless

The US Supreme Court has a long history of getting court cases right, but an equally long history of getting cases wrong. For every Brown v Board of Education, there seems to be a Plessey v Ferguson.

And now, we have the most 2020 USSC decision ever. Today, the High Court ruled “faithless electors” who defied the popular vote count of the state in which they are electors could be punished for not voting for the winner of the state popular vote. Two states, Washington and Colorado, successfully defended this stance due to the notion the popular vote should determine who wins the Presidency. I’ll get back to that in a bit, but it’s important to note what has happened since the decision.

The Left is overjoyed because this decision is another step closer to eliminating the Electoral College. To them, the Electoral College is outdated and unfairly allows states with less population to affect the outcome of Presidential elections more than the more populous states. (Of course, these same folks see nothing wrong with California getting more Representatives than, say, Montana, and that representation affecting national laws more than less populous states, but that’s neither here nor there.) In response, the Right is arguing in favor of the Electoral College for the right reason: it prevents larger states (namely California and New York) from overruling smaller states in Presidential elections.

Although the Left may ultimately be right…errr correct on this point, the argument is about the wrong topic. The issue isn’t the viability of the Electoral College; it’s whether electors have the option to vote for who they want. And, surprise surprise, the Left wants to deprive electors their choice when it suits their needs. Remember who brought the matter before the USSC: Washington and Colorado. Both are currently bluer than a choking victim at Ice Station Zebra, so the chances are any faithless elector would be voting against the winner of the popular vote. In other words, the ruling makes it possible for Leftists to punish people for voting against the Left’s candidate. Granted, the punishment may be monetary and easily paid for by the people who get to become electors in the first place. Having said that, it is a step in the wrong direction that can (and knowing Leftists, will) go far worse down the road.

The thing to remember about Leftists is they are more concerned with short term victories than long term consequences. This USSC decision will give them power to coerce electors into voting “the right way.” However, this doesn’t take into consideration the nature of current politics. As we’ve seen in our lifetimes, the balance of power changes from time to time so the party/ideology in power today becomes the Tamaguchi of politics tomorrow. And with each swing of the pendulum, the victories of today becomes the cudgels of tomorrow because, well, politics. Just ask former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid about the “nuclear option” for judicial nominees.

This USSC decision has all the makings of a Harry Reid-esque blunder because it doesn’t account for the current drift within the Left towards being more radical. Even kooks like Nancy Pelosi are being portrayed as sell-outs by the Socialist Socialite Squad because, now get this, Pelosi isn’t Leftist enough. It’s the same argument Leftists have used against Dianne Feinstein for years, all while holding their noses and voting for her because “she’s not as bad as a Republican.”

What makes this decision even more screwed up than a Joe Biden monologue is it underscores a fundamental lack of understanding of how the Electoral College works. The Left keep banging on about every vote counting (well, except if those votes are for Republicans) which is their fundamental argument against the Electoral College. The problem? The slate of electors who gets to vote for the President is determined by…wait for it…the popular vote. Granted, there are some states who apportion the electors based on the percentages each candidate wins, but for most states it’s winner-take-all. Yet, in either case, people still cast one vote, which in the Left’s own logic, means the current system is… exactly what they say they want.

Since each state has the power under the Constitution to choose how electors are chosen, I say we do away with the winner-takes-all approach and switch to a proportional system as to allow each candidate running a chance to have a say in the final Electoral College vote. Heck, this would also open up the possibility of third parties getting to the table for a chance, which means my candidate Pat Paulsen might actually get a vote for President. Sure, he’s dead, but if you’ve seen some of the people who ran for President in 2020, we could have done worse.

In either case, we are going to see the aftermath of this USSC decision sooner rather than later and, unfortunately, our leaders and media folks aren’t going to see it until much later.