[ad_1]
Colleges are under attack today, with the recent admissions scandal leading to accusations of unfairness in the college admissions process. But Democrats are on the road to war over a particular college, the Electoral College, arguing that it is advancing its own brand of injustice.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Is the latest critic to have said this week: "I think every vote counts … and that means getting rid of the constituency and everyone counts." Another candidate, South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, agrees. Beto O 'Rourke said he sees "a lot of wisdom". Democrats are apparently not content to eliminate economic inequality through their expensive Green New Deal, but also want to convince the Supreme Court and close the Electoral College in order to remove constitutional obstacles to their blue progressive goals.
Warren's argument that the constituency means that votes do not count is wrong in itself. Votes must be aggregated and counted somewhere, and the Constitution provides that this must be done state by state, while allowing states to hold elections for federal government positions. Every vote counts, it's just that they are counted in state capitals, not in Washington.
I guess for the Democrats the government does not care if it does not happen in Washington.
There are historical and current reasons for the voter process. Historically, the founders have created a number of mechanisms in the Constitution, allowing states and citizens to play roles in ways that create checks and balances and separate powers. The Senate has two senators for each state, for example, and the House of Representatives is "the house of the people." The people vote for the voters of a presidential candidate and the states control the electoral vote.
In addition to constitutional issues, the voting system still makes sense for two practical reasons. The first is that it limits stories to a state-wide process rather than a national process. Imagine how the 2000 election would have been if, instead of just counting ballots in Florida, we had to do it nationwide, as a national popular vote would require. Another advantage of the voter system is that it forces candidates to campaign in different states and regions of the country to win, instead of concentrating their efforts on large population centers.
Even more troubling than the calls for the closure of the electoral college, which can only be done through a constitutional amendment, is the last step called the National People's Voting Bill. This clever bill that will make its way into the state legislatures would force state voters to vote, not for the winner of the popular vote in their state, but for the winner of the national popular vote.
Talk about your vote without counting.
A candidate can win a state during a landslide, but your vote will not count, because voters in your state must vote for the winner of the national popular vote of all others. Colorado just passed the bill last week, bringing to 12 the number of states that have passed it (plus the District of Columbia). When enough states pass the bill to get the 270 electoral votes needed to elect a president (the number is currently 181), the law will come into force.
A better reform, which appropriately takes into account what people do not like about the electoral process, would be for states to move away from the voter aspect that touches the winner. With the exception of Maine and Nebraska, all states voted for the winner of their state's popular vote. However, Maine and Nebraska divided their country according to the way in which the candidates presented themselves in certain districts. Under the Constitution, states can assign electoral votes as they see fit. It would therefore be a reform that does not require a constitutional amendment or an astute end.
Progressives prefer major national reforms rather than this type of change in each state.
The founders rightly feared direct democracy. The many checks and balances and separations of power that they have enshrined in the Constitution are not, as the progressives argue, anachronistic. On the contrary, they are part of the genius of the American republic that ensures the security of our democracy.
David Davenport is a contributor to Washington ExaminerThe confidential blog of Beltway. He is a researcher at the Hoover Institution.
[ad_2]
Source link