The Arena of Ideas - Education Issues | home
The Electoral College
Why The Electoral College Should Be Preserved
D. Michael North
Post 3, Walker County Board of Education
In the midst of the ongoing battle over our presidential election, several leaders and many in the media have begun to call for the abolition of the Electoral College as a system for selecting a president. Senator-Elect Hillary Clinton (D-NY) , Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), and Florida Congressman Alcee Hastings (D-FL) have all expressed support for doing away with this "arcane and ancient" system.
When I read such comments, my heart breaks as I consider the glorious past and the questionable future of our republic. "Republic? Did you say republic?" Yes I did. We live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy. "Questionable future?" Yes, if we so quickly abandon that which has made us the most stable free nation in the world, simply because of one trying election.
When the Walker County Messenger asked about my goals for the school system during the upcoming decade, I answered that I would like to see a movement toward focusing our History and Government curriculum on the writings of the founders. I also stated that a study of the words of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights would be insufficient. We need to study the ideas behind them. A recent study by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni indicated that 81% of college seniors made a "D" or an "F" on a high school level history exam. If our children are not learning the basics of our history, how can we expect them to lead in the future? One cannot understand or appreciate the sheer genius behind our system of government until he or she reads the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, the various personal writings of the founders, and the recorded debates on the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the individual state legislatures.
Our view of the present is based on our knowledge of history. We hear vague references on CNN to the Electoral College as a system borne out of a mistrust of the people. If we know no better, we accept what we hear from these "experts". Upon further study, however, one discovers that not only is the Electoral College a statement of faith in the people, but an effort to insure that as many as possible are fairly represented, and that their voices are not drowned out by the mob rule of pure democracy.
I suppose I must first address the notion that we are not a democracy, before I can discuss the fine points of Nationalism vs. Federalism, which led to our current system of government. James Madison, often called "The Father of Our Constitution", wrote:
"...democracies 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."
In order to understand why Madison would refer to democracies as such, it helps to consider this example: a democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner. In a republic, the rule of law is king. The wolves cannot eat the sheep because the sheep is considered a co-equal under the law. Understanding that no singular form of government was perfect, they decided upon a system which would combine the best of both. Like chocolate and peanut butter came together to make the first Reese's cup, the founders created a representative republic, where the law rules, but those who make the laws are democratically elected within each state. Note that I say "within each state." The founders made no provision whatsoever for a democratic election on a national scale, and for good reason. I will address this concept next.
Once the founders decided on the moral and ethical superiority of the republican form of government as opposed to the pure democracy, they had to settle on whether to have a national form of government as opposed to a federal form of government. It was exactly this debate that led to the formation of the Electoral College. James Madison, in "The Federalist Papers, No. 39" discusses the differences between a national government and a federal government.
A national government, writes Madison, "regards the Union as a consolidation of the States." In other words, each state gives up it's sovereignty, and willingly blends together into one nation. A federal government, on the other hand, he calls "a Confederacy of sovereign states." In this case, each state is it's own political body, willingly joined together with other states to form a central government. That central government is to act as an agent for the states in matters that the states cannot effectively manage for themselves, such as defense against common enemies, the negotiation of international treaties, etc.. The role of the federal government then is as a servant to the states, not a master of them.
Once this general philosophy was agreed upon, it then fell to the founders to select a method whereby a President could be chosen. They used the same concept proposed for ratification of the Constitution. Not a ratification based on popular vote of the people of the nation as a whole, but rather by ratification by the states. Madison so opposed the idea of the national "popular vote" that he wrote:
"Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority…"
This is the flaw in the thinking of those who would abolish the Electoral College. Yes the national popular vote may point to one candidate or the other, but this conglomerate of ballots in no way gives equal voice to less populous states. It concentrates all power in the hands of urban centers. It is a simple fact that without the Electoral College, The next President could be chosen by New York, California, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, with only a smattering of other states thrown in for good measure. The Electoral College, however, ensures that Madison's vision of each state as a "distinct and co-equal" party becomes a reality. In other words, Madison recognized that the people of Massachusetts and the people of Georgia certainly have different opinions as to the role of government. The proof of that fact is found by looking very quickly at their Senators and Congressmen, as opposed to our Senators and Congressmen.
Because of the Electoral College, a person in Montana, North and South Dakota, Rhode Island, or Nevada actually has a reason to get up, get dressed, and go vote. I can assure you that if the Electoral College is abolished, these will lose their political voice. They will find their opinion drowned out by the mob rule that is the "popular vote", and the future Presidents of this nation will be chosen by the residents of a handful of states.
Rest assured, the founders of this nation did not devise the electoral college to keep you and me awake at night, wondering how our electors are "apportioned", and how a tie might be broken. They did so to guarantee that each one of us, from Laughlin, Nevada, Cut Bank, Montana, Flintstone, Georgia, Scratch Ankle, Alabama (seriously folks, it exists), and Bangor, Maine, might have an equal voice with those from Philadelphia, New York City, Chicago, Atlanta, and Los Angeles.
For a clear illustration of this principle, look at the map published by USA Today.
Do not allow those in the liberal elite to rob you of your voice. Fight to preserve the Electoral College, and teach your children that it, and your right to bear arms may be all that stands between their freedom and a socialist democracy.
For another opinion see:
For a refresher course on the history of the E.C. see:
All original material on this site is protected by Copyright Ó 2000, D. Michael North