More Electoral College Part Two

More Electoral College (This is a continuation of the original post below. Electoral College)

Another criticism of the Electoral College is that some votes count more than others. A second, and possibly corollary is that it violates the “one man one vote” provision.

Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming each have three electoral votes. Based on their population they are entitled to one representative, but their electoral college impact is three times their population numbers. California, on the other hand has 55 votes, 53 based on population and two for the senators. So their electoral impact is less than 2% enhanced compared to the smaller states.

Again, we appeal to the actual intent of the framers of the Constitution. The states collectively elect the President. As it is, most of them use a “winner take all” formula for awarding their votes. An analysis of the present election shows that apportioning eledtoral votes based on popular vote would NOT have affected the outcome. https://ricochet.com/389543/the-unfairness-of-the-electoral-college-didnt-swing-the-2016-election/

The “unfair” or differential influence argument is handicapped by the facts. Anyway you count, Trump won. The second argument is likewise flawed.

First, just using the demographic analysis of the above article, it is possible to see the lack of impact rendered by the electoral college. But a simple analysis of the one man one vote principle also eliminates this objection. If it were to be applied as some wish to do for the electoral college, the entire concept of voting would be destroyed.

A single voter in Wyoming exerts a greater influence on statewide elections than a single voter in California. They elect a single governor, or senator and the disparity of population means that every California vote is worth “less” than one from Wyoming. But they are different states. A California vote does not count in Wyoming, nor vice versa. And the Representatives and Senators from these states have exactly the same vote value in Congress.

As defined by the Constitution, each state elects it own officials according to its own standards. A strict one man one vote standard would require that every elected office be conducted on a national basis. This is obviously unworkable and ludicrous. Each state is “independent” or separate from every other. They cooperate, via the Electoral College to select a president.

Those wishing to change the rules are not reacting in a manner designed to strengthen the Constitution and country. They are acting out of partisan political motives.

And along with the dash to enact direct election of the President, we find “experts” proposing the elimination of states all together. Huh? How would that work? Who would run the “sub-areas?” Eliminating states would also obviate the role of governors, attorneys general, treasurers, police departments, all commerce divisions, tax collection agencies, and House of Representative and Senate positions. Obviously that critic had not thought much past his hat, which was probably held over his face.

To effect such a sweeping alteration of the country would require that we scrap the entire Constitution, all state constitutions, and begin again. Has anyone checked the progress of “nation building” in Iraq lately? That is pretty much what they had to do. And with Republican majorities in both the House and Senate, along with a Republican President, we would...well, maybe his bright idea is not so far fetched after all. Bet he would hate the result even more than the Electoral College. But I digress.

What alternatives are there? Electoral college critics cite Parliament as alternative or direct election. They claim that no other country uses the EC concept. But they are wrong. Several other countries use it. India, for example is a large, diverse country and it employs the concept.

In fact Parliament is a form of EC, only less democratic. Here is how Parliament works. Voters  elect a local Member of Parliament and the MPs elect the leader of their party as leader of Parliament, Prime Minister–if they have a majority of the seats. This is 1) far less stable than current system.  2) It is less representative of the whole of the country as local voters only effect one choice, the local MP. 3) If no majority exists, several parties cooperate to form a coalition which is even less representative--see #2. 4) A vote of no confidence restarts whole project. This can happen at any time, any where, for any reason. Sounds loverly doesn’t it?

We discussed direct election before. The current election illustrates why a direct election is not a good idea. Hillary lost because the Electoral College worked as planned. It is not to elect a white, southern, good ol’ boy, but to have a President of the people. Take a look at the county by county map again. Hillary focused on metropolitan, liberal enclaves–and won them. But she lost the country.

Trump, on the other hand appealed to the country. He won 30 states while Clinton carried 20. The trap of California’s 55 votes caught her. With that “gigantic lead, she only focused on more of the same. But there was a bit more of the “other” in this election. California narcotizes liberal candidates. They “sleep walk” through the election, believing that since it (California) is so BIG, carrying it ensures that he/she cannot lose. And that is why they do.

Now the pundits are predicting that Trump will be a one term President. Seems like prognosticators said the same for Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama. The predicters’ track record then and in the recent contest makes me believe that they are probably exactly right. (Not)

(Continued on “Page 3.” Below)