Dr. Carl Cornelius writes in today's Sun-Telegraph that the Electoral College was put into place to protect small states from being dominated by a, "...consortium of large states." Essentially, he is making an argument for not choosing the President by popular vote such as was demanded after Al Gore's close loss in 2000.
This posting reflects the framer's intent as contained in Federalist 68.
Editor,
Doctor Cornelius's letter explains the necessity of holding on to the electoral college as a means of, "retaining what little influence we still have..." in Nebraska. I find his remarks interesting in a modern sense, but the electoral college was not instituted to perform the task of electing the President as he describes.
Alexander Hamilton, writing as Publius (an anonymous writer) in Federalist 68: "...the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to wide station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation." In less eloquent speech, the people were to elect people smart enough to deliberate and the choice of President on behalf of the people of their respective states.
The electoral college system was put into place at the founding because the founders recognized that there were not enough people, properly and highly educated enough to debate so sensitive a position so as to avoid the potential for extreme passion in the choice. It had nothing to do with the balance of power among the several states. In the modern era of elections, discussions have been held by Republicans and Democrats alike depending on who loses an election, that it is now time to abolish the Electoral College and let a relatively more educated population decide their President. Such a notion is ludicrous in its very essence.
In our representative republic, the founders intended the election of the President to be a solemn, deliberative AND indirect act where the people choose the electors (oddly enough no Senator, House member or any elected official were to stand as an Electoral College member), who would in turn, debate the merits of the choices on behalf of their several state's populations. The number of electors in the Electoral College is population based with each state having a number of electors roughly consistent with its population relative to others. That is why high population states like New York and California dwarf states like Nebraska and Alaska. Any such change to this system would require the consent of 38 state legislatures via an amendment to the Constitution. It is highly unlikely to be modified since those states that have the lion's share of the power are unlikely to be willing to give it up. The only real likely option would be to control, though the state legislatures, the manner in which those electors are required to choose, particularly winner-take-all vs. proportional choice.
I would submit that in the modern sense, the country is run by a consortium of large population states, as those states easily exceed the electors of all of the smaller states. A quick glance at the electoral map from 2008's democratic victory clearly shows how much blue compared to red geographically.
Michael Rowland
No comments:
Post a Comment