Why We Need to Get More States to Commit to Electing a President by Majority Vote, Not By a System That Was Set Up for Slave Holding States to Preserve White Power
October 30, 2020
The Electoral College set up by the “rounding fathers” was structured to appease slave holding states (DonkeyHotey)
By Joe Barrera
The American system of electing presidents is a bit strange. When the federal Constitution was created in 1787 the Founders were wary of allowing a full democracy to blossom in the newly independent nation. These men were fully conscious of their position at the apex of the social pyramid and how easily they could fall from their lofty perch. Their greatest fear was of "ochlocracy," a word from the Greek root, "okloskratos," or mob power, which through the Latin phrase, "mobile vulgus" meaning the fickle crowd, has given us the English word, "mob."
The Framers did not want a "mobocracy" to take hold. Accordingly, they decided to limit the power of the people over elections, which they saw as the main avenue for the "demos," the people, to exert power. For example, the original Constitution stipulated that the state legislatures would elect senators to the federal Congress. This was the elitist case until the 17th Amendment changed it in 1914 to allow for the popular vote of senators. Clearly, the Framers felt that the Senate, designed to be a counterweight against the democratic House of Representatives, needed sober members chosen not by direct popular vote but by deliberative bodies, the state legislatures, who presumably would be immune to popular whims.
Similarly, the Electoral College is a mechanism to limit the power of the people. When we vote in a presidential election we do not vote for the candidates, even if their names appear on the ballot. We vote for electors, chosen by the state legislatures, the number of electors determined by the number of representatives they send to Congress, along with the two senators allotted to each state. The electors are ostensibly obliged to vote for the candidates who win the majority of the votes in each state. At least, that is the assumption. Some states have required it under force of law. But there have been cases of electors choosing to ignore the will of the majority in their respective states.
We are the only developed nation in the world who uses this antiquated system. Why? If you read history you get an idea. The Framers wanted a buffer between the voters and the highest office in the land. They did not trust the people. The legislatures, made up of elite propertied white men at the time, would select other men like them as electors. These supposedly elite men would overrule the will of the people if need be and keep out dangerous rabble rousers. It seemed to make sense back in 1787.
Does it make sense now? You would think that with computers vote tallies would be quickly and accurately known. We could do away with the Electoral College and the whole out-dated election panoply. We can foresee the day when we don't need the extra layer of the Electoral College. Direct elections will be conducted online, password protected, eye-scanned for ID, one person, one vote, results known in a heartbeat. Just think, none of the expensive hoopla we have now. But that's down the road.
For now the Electoral College remains. Proponents see it as a way for small states to balance the weight of large states, as a means to force candidates to campaign in small states and compete for the votes of electors. But the opposite is true. If we succeed in creating the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), and give our Electoral College votes to candidates who win a majority of the national vote, then in order to win the national vote candidates will want to campaign in every state, not just a few swing states.
But there are unrealistic fears. There is the fear that New York and California will determine who's elected. Yes, New York and California have huge populations and large numbers of Electoral College votes, and typically elect Democrats. However, it will be the popular vote of all eligible voters in the United States who would elect the Commander-in-Chief.
For those of us in Colorado, more or less evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, even if we vote for the loser in a presidential election, our votes under a National Popular Vote Compact would still count because they will be added to the tally nationally. And that can tip the balance. That is not what happens under the present system, which gives all our electoral votes to whoever wins the state even if that person loses nationally. That means our votes can end up counting for nothing. But we can change that. The logic is already familiar for us in Colorado. It's what we tell state-wide Democratic candidates about El Paso County. A Democrat has little chance of carrying this Republican stronghold but our large Dem base here, even if smaller than the Republican, can win the state for a Democrat.
Technically, we don't need to get rid of the Electoral College, but we can require state electors to vote for the winner of the national popular vote. We can do it without amending the Constitution, by implementing the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, known as Proposition 113 on the ballot in Colorado.. This does not take away our voice. It would give us the voice we don't have now.
I encourage people in other states to support the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Learn more about it here, and if your state has not already joined it, please become an advocate for the popular vote choosing a president.
Joe Barrera is the former director of the Ethnic Studies Program at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, and a combat veteran of the Vietnam War. He teaches American Literature, U.S. Southwest Culture, and U.S. Military History.
Follow BuzzFlash on @twitter
Continue the conversation at the BuzzFlash Nation group on Facebook