Rethinking the Electoral College

Sure enough, as the fall elections grow closer, Facebook friends have resurrected the idea of abolishing the electoral college.  For some, it is associated with racism.  Others are thinking of the 2016 election when Hillary Clinton garnered more votes but lost the election.  The rest just thinks it’s outmoded and no longer necessary in the 21^st century.

All of that shows little knowledge of why it exists in the first place.

The country’s founders faced a dilemma:  smaller states were afraid of being crushed by the larger states.  They worked out two solutions that satisfied the smaller states.

First, they created a bicameral Congress.  Membership in the House of Representatives is based on population.  So bigger states have more delegates.   In contrast, the other house, the Senate, contains two members for each state.  That way, a state as tiny as Rhode Island is just as important as giants like New York or California.

Electoral votes

The other decision involved the Electoral College, which is peopled based on membership in Congress but, because any candidate needs more than half of the electoral votes, gives weight to the smaller states.  At the same time, the College served as a safety net in case a candidate wins and then dies before assuming office or is determined to be unfit to assume the presidency.

The men creating our country conceived of independent electors confirming the results of a national election, an approach requiring candidates to appeal to all voters and strengthening the country’s political system..

There was no racism in their decision.  It was elitism since only males who owned property then could vote.  Black residents who fell into that category could vote, too.

Greeley

Few electors have ever deviated from the choice of the voters, even as the number of voters expanded to include all adult citizens.

As of 2020,  165 electors have chosen not to vote for their party’s choice.  The largest number occurred in 1872 when Democrat Horace Greeley, who lost to incumbent Ulysses S. Grant, died shortly after the election.  The electors sworn to Greeley mostly opted to vote for Grant.  

In 1836, Virginia electors declined to vote for Kentucky’s Richard Johnson, winning Democrat Martin Van Buren’s choice for vice president.  Johnson openly lived with a mixed-race slave named Julia Chinn, which alienated the racist Virginians.  He was then elected by a party-line vote in the Senate in accordance to the 12^th Constitutional amendment.

In 2016, two electors refused to vote for Trump; five for Clinton. 

Other maverick electors have cast meaningless votes for losing third-party candidates, but only when the election results were not in doubt. 

To reduce chances of that happening, 32 states at this writing have laws banning electors from changing their votes.  All are party loyalists, chosen on the state level, so the likelihood they will ignore their pledges to support their party’s candidate is small.  “Faithless” electors don’t face any legal penalties anyway, just loss of status within a political party.

Adams

The process does ignore total votes.  To date, five of the 45 men to hold the presidency got into the White House with a minority of the total votes: John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, George W. Bush and Trump

However, other presidents were elected despite not garnering the majority of votes in races involving multiple candidates.  Abraham Lincoln received 1.85 million votes in the 1860 election.  He wasn’t even on the ballot in 11 Southern states.  The other three candidates won more than 2.3 million votes.

In 1912, Woodrow Wilson won even though his two opponents, incumbent Republican President William Howard Taft and Bull Moose Theodore Roosevelt garnered 2 million more votes than the Democrat.

The difference came in the electoral college.

Eliminating the electoral college would mean that a candidate could win the four biggest states – California, New York, Texas and Florida – by enough votes and virtually sew up the election regardless of how the rest of the country votes.  As of this year, California contains 15.6 million registered voters;  Texas, 11.5 million; New York, 8.5 million; and Florida 9.4 million. Throw in Pennsylvania with 6.4 million voters and Ohio with 6 million, and there are almost as many votes as Trump received.

Why would candidates care about other states?

The repercussions would be widespread, affecting choice of candidates.  Why would a party choose a candidate from Iowa or Nevada, which have relatively few residents instead from a state that must be carried?  What about the issues affecting residents of a fishing state like Maine or Rhode Island, with meager populations, compared to Indiana or Michigan, which have totally different concerns and a lot more voters?

There would also be unforeseen consequences, which are not likely to be beneficial. Unforeseen consequences rarely are.

Eliminating the electoral college would let the popular vote decide the winner, but it would also bring about the exact situation and the tremendous problems that the Founding Fathers were trying to avoid.  Nothing has changed in more than 220 years.

Long-time religious historian Bill Lazarus regularly writes about religion and religious history with an occasional foray into American culture.  He holds an ABD in American Studies from Case Western Reserve University.   He also speaks at various religious organizations throughout Florida.  You can reach him at wplazarus@aol.com. He is the author of the recently published novels Revelation! (Southern Owl Press) and The Great Seer Nostradamus Tells All (Bold Venture Press) as well as a variety of nonfiction books, including The Gospel Truth: Where Did the Gospel Writers Get Their Information and Comparative Religion for Dummies.  His books are available on Amazon.com, Kindle, bookstores and via various publishers.  He can also be followed on Twitter.

Protesting in the Good American Way

Recent march in New York City

A Facebook friend, upset by the extent of the anti-racism protests going on in this country, predicted that the current riots reflect how life will be under a Democratic president.

That is, of course, partisan nonsense.  Just for starters, they are occurring right now under a Republican president as were the anti-war protests under Richard Nixon, who was also Republican. 

In reality, there have been riots under presidents of every party.  In fact, our country has endured an endless series of both local and widespread riots stretching back to the beginning of the country – and when there were just separate colonies.  President George Washington, for example, had to call out Federal troops to put down a violent protest in Pennsylvania against the whiskey tax.

Since then, this country has been filled with protests, bot peaceful and violent.  Many have been racial nature, including the

Washington

latest initiated by the death of George Floyd.  However, in 2016, the nation endured multiple protests against the election of Donald Trump as president. 

Americans believe in freedoms promised in the Constitution, which includes the right to congregate and free speech.  The protests have again raised the question of the extent of free speech  That question is being fought on Facebook and Twitter as well.  Twitter has decided to note when lies are included on tweets while Facebook has declined.

Partisan newspaper from the late 1700s

Personally, I am opposed to censorship.  I believe it’s the obligation of individual readers to make an effort to separate fact from lies, not the medium.  Most outlets do, vetting information they produce for accuracy.  Some do not, a growing trend in this very political age and harking back to the 1700 and 1800s when, often, newspapers were extremely partisan.  Most of my postings focus on providing historical background in an effort to add context to discussions.

I would prefer that outlets like Facebook and Twitter eliminate fake sites – ones created for the sole purpose of lying to the public.  These so-called “trolls” abound and often are housed in foreign countries determined to undermine this country and its institutions.  However, I do not want to see legitimate sites shut down.  These would be sites where people express their views, even when the opinions are based on erroneous information.

All of us are responsible to stay abreast of political and social issues, and learn to identify credible sources.  Our Founding Fathers recognized that a democracy can only survive if voters are informed.  That’s one reason for free public schools.  Today, there are many unbiased debunking sites that quickly correct statements published by anyone earnestly attempting to mislead the public.  That is why this president has been credited with more than 18,000 documented lies.  Democrats didn’t do the counting; debunking sites did and presented supporting evidence to prove that claim.

Armed in Raleigh

Reality is that protests will continue on this and other issues.  Some of them are likely to be violent.  For one thing, Americans have more guns than any other nation.  Some people go to protests armed, especially opponents. 

In addition, protests often have been infiltrated by individuals in an effort to smear the participants.

In the recent protests,  for example, the FBI has reported that most of the violence has stemmed, not surprisingly, from white supremacists.  All that has done is given bystanders an opportunity to oppose the protests while feigning support for racial equality.

1960s  anti-war protests

Protests will continue.  They have a value because they serve as an outlet for dissension that’s far superior to a civil war and assassinations.  They also have brought about change.  The anti-Vietnam War protests, for example, finally forced Nixon to withdraw from that ill-advised war.

They also reflect a vibrant society.  Some countries deliberately ban protests to keep their citizens cowed and controlled.  We do not, and, I hope, never will.

Perhaps, the current protests will finally bring about racial equality in this country.  If so, they will have again verify the value of taking to the streets to initiate positive change in a traditionally American way.

Long-time religious historian Bill Lazarus regularly writes about religion and religious history with an occasional foray into American culture.  He holds an ABD in American Studies from Case Western Reserve University.   He also speaks at various religious organizations throughout Florida.  You can reach him at wplazarus@aol.com. He is the author of the recently published novels Revelation! (Southern Owl Press) and The Great Seer Nostradamus Tells All (Bold Venture Press) as well as a variety of nonfiction books, including The Gospel Truth: Where Did the Gospel Writers Get Their Information and Comparative Religion for Dummies.  His books are available on Amazon.com, Kindle, bookstores and via various publishers.  He can also be followed on Twitter.