Ron Paul: The Electoral College Serves to Protect Liberty and Statehood

[Danny White]

The Clinton thread started this conversation on the Electoral College, but since it's off the original topic of that thread, I thought I'd give this subject it's own thread.

Here's the opinion of our friend Ron Paul. As someone who has run for the Presidency as a third-party candidate, you might think he'd be in favor of abolishing the Electoral College... but his respect for the Constitution and understanding of our Republican form of government, leads him to a different conclusion.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=174

The Electoral College Serves to Protect Liberty and Statehood

As this column is written, America still does not know the final results of the 2000 presidential election. After a long and bitter campaign fight, neither party is ready to accept defeat gracefully. The margin of victory for either candidate will be exceedingly narrow, and challenges to the validity of the results surely will follow. Both campaigns may bring legal actions which could take months to resolve. Should Governor Bush prevail despite having lost the popular vote, we may see proposals in Congress to eliminate the electoral college. Angry calls to obey "the will of the people" will be heard in Washington and the popular media. The pundits will argue that it is not fair to deny the presidency to the man who received the most total votes. After all, to do so would be "undemocratic."

This argument ignores the fundamental nature of our constitutional system. The Founding Fathers sought to create a loose confederacy of states, joined together by a federal government with very little power. They created a constitutionally limited republic, not a direct democracy. They did so to protect fundamental liberties against the whims of the masses. The electoral college likewise was created in the Constitution to guard against majority tyranny in federal elections. The President was to be elected by the states rather than the citizenry as a whole, with votes apportioned to states according to their representation in Congress. The will of the people was to be tempered by the wisdom of the electoral college.

By contrast, election of the President by pure popular vote totals would damage statehood. Populated areas on both coasts would have increasing influence on national elections, to the detriment of less populated southern and western states. A candidate receiving a large percentage of the popular vote in California and New York could win a national election with very little support in dozens of other states! A popular vote system simply would intensify the populist pandering which already dominates national campaigns.

Not surprisingly, calls to abolish the electoral college system are heard most loudly among the liberal/collectivist elites concentrated largely on the two coasts. Liberals favor a very strong centralized federal government, and have contempt for the concept of states' rights. They believe the federal government is omnipotent, and that individual states should not have the power to challenge directives sent down from Washington. Their real goal is the abolition of statehood, because strong states represent a threat to their centralized collectivist agenda. The electoral college system threatens liberals because it allows states to elect the President, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Citizens in southern and western states in particular tend to value individual liberty, property rights, gun rights, and religious freedom, values which are abhorrent to the collectivist elites. The collectivists care about centralized power, not democracy. Their efforts to discredit the electoral college system are an attempt to limit the voting power of pro-liberty states.

With the presidential election still undecided, America is at an historic crossroads. Neither candidate will enjoy a public mandate or the usual honeymoon period in the White House. The partisan rancor is likely to increase in Congress. The already narrow Republican majority in the House has diminished, while the Senate may well be evenly divided between the parties. A lame duck congressional session is scheduled to complete the unfinished appropriations bills for 2001, which could not be finalized in the poisoned atmosphere before the elections. Relations between Congressional Republicans and the administration have deteriorated in the aftermath of presidential vetoes of hard fought legislation. This divisiveness underscores the larger issue facing the nation in the electoral college debate, which is the conflict between collectivism and freedom. Perhaps the uncertainty of the recent elections will cause Americans to rethink the role of the federal government in their lives.

[Danny White]

Another defense of the Electoral College:


Who's Afraid of the Electoral College?



“He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man…” Samuel Adams
Volume 4, Issue 10 www.IOTConline.com October 2004

If the November 2004 election for President of these united States is in any way similar to the presidential race of 2000, we can expect renewed noises to abolish the electoral college. In fact, even before the votes are cast many are calling for the abolition of the electoral college. They argue that in a democracy, the electoral college obstructs the whole purpose of an election, which is of course majority rule.

That argument presupposes that we are a democracy. Most people believe this to be the case because they have heard the lie repeated so often and for so many years they have come to believe it must be true. Our founding fathers took an un equivocal stance against democracy. They warned that our country would be in grave danger if it ever became a democracy.

Our fourth President James Madison, who is called the father of the constitution noted, “ [D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” Madison also stated, “ [D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anar chy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable [abominable] cruelty of one or a very few.” Noah Webster observed, “ In democracy . . . there are commonly tumults and disorders. . . . Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.” Next time someone tells you we are a democracy remind them of these quotes from our founders. Our second President, John Adams warned, “ Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” Our founders put into play a variety of impediments to prevent democracy from encroaching upon this Constitutional Republic. One of those impediments was the Electoral College.

Article Two, section one of the Constitution spells out the details of the Electoral College. It was subsequently altered by the twelfth amendment. In essence the election of a President involves a two stage procedure. Each state chooses its own electors equal to the total number of Senators and Congressmen from that state. In the current rendition this means whoever wins the popular vote in that state will have all the electoral votes for that state. But that is not how the Electoral College was originally designed to function. There are two states which have retained the original practice, Maine and Nebraska. In those states the winner of each Congressional district wins that electoral vote from that district. This was a far better design because it allowed the more thinly populated parts of a state to be adequately represented. As it is in most states today, the cities control who wins all the electoral votes for that state.

The Electoral College was designed to be a state check on Federal power. By protecting the smaller states, they have a greater say in the election of a President. Their protection is abolished by the purely popular vote system advocated by those who desire to do away with the Electoral College. These noise makers would like nothing more than “the mob” in the most populous States to control the outcome of the election. Our founders wisely protected the rural or more thinly populated portions of our country by this mechanism.

Furthermore, in our day we find that most voters take their cues from the major media. These media outlets are hardly unbiased. They don’t present anything but the two party monopoly which is currently moving our country efficiently down the road to complete socialism. The major media is no friend of liberty, and cannot be trusted to preserve our Constitutional Republic. To abolish the Electoral College would give greater powers to an already overly powerful socialist media.

Electors are normally pledged to support the candidate who carried their state. However the design of our founders was intended to prevent mobocracy. The electors could, if they deemed the decision of the majority destructive to the Constitutional Republic, vote contrary to the wishes of the majority. The actual selection was left to the elected representatives.

What we must remember is that we are a representative system of government, not a democracy. Those who are afraid of the Electoral College, are afraid of the Constitutional Republic that our founders carefully constructed. Fisher Ames, Author of the House Language for the First Amendment said, “ A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way... The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness [excessive license] which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.”
...
Our founders clearly labeled democracy—mobocracy. What the demagogues of today are promoting is socialism. It is an evil system tried and found wanting. It cannot succeed as a system of government which secures our God given rights because it is committed to the doctrine that government is God. Our founders clearly believed that civil government was ordained by God and therefore could only rightly function within its God boundaries. Socialism believes government should have no boundaries, it should be unlimited in its functions because after all it is God.

What we really need to understand is that those who are clamoring for democracy are aiming at one common goal; the destruction of our Constitutional Republic. Rather than fight a direct, all out war, they engage in subterfuge, deceit and misinformation.

But providentially, we have the tools available to dispel the lies. The words of our founding fathers have not been erased, but simply ignored. At Institute on the Constitution we are dedicated to teaching millions of Americans the truth about our Constitutional Republic.

Our host kit is designed so that anyone, anywhere with any group of people can teach what our founders believed about law and government. It is heartening to see eyes opened to the truth about America.

Many people are intimidated by the thought of conducting a class on the Constitution to teach the history and heritage of our Constitutional Republic. I often hear, “Who me host the Institute? I can’t do that! I am not a legal scholar, historian or a teacher.

The good news is you don’t have to teach or even have any special knowledge of the Constitution or America’s history. Dr. John Eidsmoe does that work for you in the half hour lectures. You simply need to supply a place, T.V./VCR, and walk your group through the questions following each lecture. We provide the answers and supplemental materials.

We’ve designed this host kit so that anyone can effectively lead a group to understand our Constitutional Republic. We invite you to join in the cause of preserving our God given Liberty, and restoring our Constitutional Republic. If you don't defend Liberty, who will? Order a host kit today 8667309796 or order online at IOTConline.com.

by Pastor David Whitney

[Crown Royal]

I don't have time to read the second article, but Paul used a phrase I liked in the first - 'the whim of the masses.' I will be using that in the future.

And while I agree with the overall structure of his argument, there is a premise I find to be incorrect. Paul states that "The will of the people was to be tempered by the wisdom of the electoral college."

As I understand it, the electoral college is made up of politicians from state(?) congresses. I might be incorrect in where the college comes from, but I still think I remember it being from politicians.

The problem is that this promotes particanship and political agenda which, most of us I think agree, is exactly what we are sick of.

[Crown Royal]

:rofl:

I just read some on the college - it seems that the electors are nominated by the political parties themselves.

That's a riot.

[Danny White]

:rofl:

I just read some on the college - it seems that the electors are nominated by the political parties themselves.

That's a riot.

Well yeah.

When you vote, you don't vote for George Bush or John Kerry, you vote for "electors pledged to G.B. or J.K."

So the electors that win that state's vote get to cast the votes for President. Those electors aren't compelled to vote for the candidate they're pledged to, so it's in the party's interest to appoint electors who they're confident will vote the way they promised to originally.

It's a little complicated, but it makes sense, doesn't it?

[Danny White]

I don't have time to read the second article, but Paul used a phrase I liked in the first - 'the whim of the masses.' I will be using that in the future.

And while I agree with the overall structure of his argument, there is a premise I find to be incorrect. Paul states that "The will of the people was to be tempered by the wisdom of the electoral college."

As I understand it, the electoral college is made up of politicians from state(?) congresses. I might be incorrect in where the college comes from, but I still think I remember it being from politicians.

The problem is that this promotes particanship and political agenda which, most of us I think agree, is exactly what we are sick of.

I understand the skepticism towards politicians. It's unfortunate that we are let down so often by those we elect to represent us.

But regardless of what we think about politicians, what this really comes down to is: what does it mean to be a Republic? And what are the consequences of losing our Republic?

I don't think enough people understand what that means anymore. :(

[Crown Royal]

Well yeah.

When you vote, you don't vote for George Bush or John Kerry, you vote for "electors pledged to G.B. or J.K."

So the electors that win that state's vote get to cast the votes for President. Those electors aren't compelled to vote for the candidate they're pledged to, so it's in the party's interest to appoint electors who they're confident will vote the way they promised to originally.

It's a little complicated, but it makes sense, doesn't it?

It does - but for some reason I thought that the legislative branches in the states appointed the electors.

I have continued to read more about the electoral college since posting - it seems that the theory is to make sure that all the states are equally important/represented based on population. I am still trying to see the logic there, considering that populous states get more electoral votes and what not.

[Crown Royal]

I understand the skepticism towards politicians. It's unfortunate that we are let down so often by those we elect to represent us.

But regardless of what we think about politicians, what this really comes down to is: what does it mean to be a Republic? And what are the consequences of losing our Republic?

I don't think enough people understand what that means anymore. :(

I'm all for federalism (I will point out that I do feel that zealots for federalism sometimes takes their rhetoric a bit far, stating that the government was made to be fundamentally weak. It does happen to have a pretty strong Senate that is a fundamental theory of central government). However, I am not for dipartisanship - and I doubt I am in a minority there.

I don't pretend to know everything about the college - I understand that dipartisanship isn't a result of the college, so I will refrain from further comment until I learn more on the subject.

[burmafrd]

The arguement that the Electoral College helps out the smaller state fails miserably. Kerry did not campaign in a lot of small southern states and western states since he knew there was no chance there. GW did the same for some states like Mass where he knew he also had no chance. So it already happens. What worries me about the electoral college is that in some close election an elector will get bought off or decide to go his own way and therefore the election will be decided by one or two people. That is wrong any way you want to look at it. Even as close as 2000 was it still was decided by over 500 people. Presidents should be elected by popular vote.

[Danny White]

Interesting update here on the Electoral College front...

North Carolina stops short of Electoral College Reform
By Erick Posted in 2008

Opinion Journal's political diary has an interesting bit from John Fund today.

North Carolina came very close to reforming its Electoral College system. The way it would work would be for the state winner to take the two votes allocated based on the Senate and then the rest of the votes would be divided up based on the winners of the congressional districts. With several of those districts guaranteed to be Democrat, the Democrat candidate would become competitive in a state where he might otherwise not have a change.

The measure raced through the North Carolina State Senate, the State House was preparing to pass it and the Governor was prepared to sign it, until Howard Dean intervened.

There is a similar measure out in California, which would guarantee the GOP candidate about 20 votes. The Dems cannot honestly oppose that effort if they support the one in North Carolina. So they aborted the North Carolina measure.

So, all stop on the Electoral College reforms. The Dems don't want a Republican candidate to get any votes out of California.


http://redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/north_carolina_stops_short_of_electoral_college_re form

[joseephuss]

Interesting update here on the Electoral College front...



http://redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/north_carolina_stops_short_of_electoral_college_re form

I heard that the other day. All decisions seemed to be based solely on partisanship. That is why Dean stepped in. I rarely see ideas made without a partisan influence and he provides the proof. I thought the ideas in both NC and Cali were good ones. Maybe not the best, but pretty good. He did not provide any alternative ideas.

[Danny White]

Losing 20 Californian electoral votes would be MURDER for the Democrats... no way Dean could sit still for that.

[joseephuss]

Losing 20 Californian electoral votes would be MURDER for the Democrats... no way Dean could sit still for that.

Push for the same thing in Texas and maybe the Dems get those 20 back. Maybe not since the re-districting really screwed over the dems. :D I get why Dean did what he did. It is just sad that every move now is purely based on party needs. It is party over people for both the dems and repubs.

[Danny White]

Push for the same thing in Texas and maybe the Dems get those 20 back. Maybe not since the re-districting really screwed over the dems. :D I get why Dean did what he did. It is just sad that every move now is purely based on party needs. It is party over people for both the dems and repubs.

As I've said before, I think this should be done on a state-by-state basis. I think it would be a serious violation of states rights to force a policy change like this on unwilling states.

[joseephuss]

As I've said before, I think this should be done on a state-by-state basis. I think it would be a serious violation of states rights to force a policy change like this on unwilling states.

I agree. That is why the supreme court should have never stepped into Florida during the 2000 election. :lmao2:

If Dean or the dems want something similar in Texas or any other state they can put pressure on those state governments to illicit change. If California wants to change and it is approved by the voters of California, then it can be changed.