Every four years during a
presidential election year, blowhard pundits—typically of the neo-progressive
persuasion—decry American’s electoral college which awards presidential
candidates all of a given state’s electoral votes in a winner take all fashion
instead of proportionally. This leads to the very real possibility that the
winner of the popular vote will not be elected president. This has happened four
times in American history—John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford B. Hayes in
1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, and George W. Bush in 2000 all became
president without winning the popular vote over their competitors. Some see
this as unfair and anti-democratic. The organization National Popular Vote is
attempted to rectify this alleged evil in the American federal electoral
system. Ten states have already pledged to award their votes not to the winner
of the popular vote within the state but to the winner of the national popular
vote in the presidential election. It does seem plausible that the winner of a
presidential election should be the winner of the popular vote. But is this preferable
to the Electoral
College system currently employed?
States are free to decide how its
presidential electoral votes are awarded. A state is free to award them winner
take all, winner and loser take proportionately, winner of national majority
take all, or taller candidate take all. However, a state that wishes to deviate
from the traditional winner take all based upon popular vote within the state
is doing itself qua state and its citizens qua state citizens a disservice. The
United States
was formed as a union of individual and sovereign states joining together. The
state guarantees that its sovereignty is more likely to be respected by the
federal government by employing the traditional electoral college method and by
ensuring that the Tenth Amendment is always respected by the federal
government. If presidents were to be elected merely by national popular vote,
then states lose their sovereignty and individual characters. This would lead
presidential candidates and political parties to ignore smaller states. It
would also be yet one more dangerous step toward eliminating the federalist
system. Tyrants have traditionally eliminated federalism within totalitarian
nations. The Nazis, Soviets, and Maoists all did this. Eliminating the
electoral college system will be yet one more step toward eliminating states as
a vital check and balance against federal power. The Seventeenth
Amendment, removing the right to elect Senators from state legislators and
giving it to the voters was one step towards the neutralization of states as a
check and balance against federal tyranny. The gradual weakening of the Tenth
Amendment has been another. With the three branches of the federal government
increasingly unwilling to act as checks and balances against one another,
eventually a loss of federalism will mean that a triumvirate of federal
dictatorial branches is cooperating to divide up the power to tyrannize
Americans.
Those states that are so willing to
trade their own sovereignty and that of their citizens—Rhode Island, Vermont,
Maryland, Washington, Illinois, New Jersey, District of Columbia,
Massachusetts, and Hawaii—are by and large “blue” states. It is apparent that
the powers that be in these Democratic strongholds care more about the future
of their political party than the future of their citizens. It is more
important to them that another election similar to Bush defeating Gore does not
happen than that the sovereignty of their state and citizenry be defended. This
is partisan cynicism and is dangerous to the health of the Republic.
