Ideas and Society

As I write this column, President Bush has just been declared the winner, winning both the popular vote and the more important Electoral College vote.

As is always the case, many Americans are confused over just what the Electoral College is and whether or not we ought to stick to a system that occasionally produces an election victory for a candidate who lost the popular vote, as was the case in 2000.

You’ll remember, last time around, that Al Gore won the popular vote by capturing the vote of a few big states and a few big cities, but lost the election because George W. Bush by far had the majority of the states, the majority of the counties, the majority of the geographic land mass in his favor, and so won the Electoral College vote, and thus the election.

The reaction of the Democrats was predictable. They denounced the system, called the Republican victory illegitimate, blamed their loss, in part, on an outmoded Electoral College, and introduced legislation to abolish it.

Hopefully, there will be a great HUSH on this issue this time around – though I’ve already listened in as one ‘expert,’ just yesterday, called for its abolition.

But the Electoral College needs to stand.

To understand why, we must remember that the Founders gave us a republic, not a democracy, and with that, a system of mixed representation with mixed electoral methods, which rejected the one-person-one-vote, “the majority is the voice of God,” like-it-or-not mindset.

There were reasons. Madison noted that the idea was to multiply and complicate the numbers of parties and interests that compete for power, and to multiply and complicate HOW they compete for power, in order to place a substantial check on centralization, that enemy of all freedom.

Some of us forget that old motto “Absolute power corrupts absolutely” had a sister motto, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

That is, there were three extremes that tended to tyranny: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. That’s right: Democracy was on the list and was considered by most of the Founders the worst form of all.

Madison noted in Federalist 10, “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention, have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have ever been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

Hamilton noted at the Constitutional Convention that “the fate of Republican government” hinges upon “due stability.” Democracies were not stable: “If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy.”

He recommended a “moderate government.” That is, a mixed republic, something that incorporates the democratic/representative principle, yet is far more ingenious than mere mob rule.

Listen, you can’t have one group, or a few large states with a few large cities, calling all the shots. And when you think about it, I really don’t believe any of us think places like New York City and L.A. ought to be empowered to tell all the rest of us how we must live.

But maybe THEY, or some of their grasping politicians, do.

This is an old discussion. You’ll remember from history that during the time of the Constitutional Convention the large states thought it only fair and democratic that congressmen be chosen according to population.

Sure they did.

The small states thought that idea wasn’t fair at all. They weren’t fools. They knew it would just be a matter of time till the big states, the big cities, the big manufacturers, bossed the small states, the small towns, the small farmers around.

The answer was the Great Compromise. It brought us proportional representation in the House (the number of representatives chosen per population) and equal representation in the Senate (two votes per state, regardless of population). Further, senators were chosen by the state legislatures (another check in favor of states’ rights).

Part 2 of the answer was the Electoral College in presidential elections, which mirrored the same compromise, giving each state the same combined number of electoral votes as senators and House members, while providing, similarly, indirect representation via state-appointed electors casting the final vote.

In practical terms, this helps give smaller states and ‘smaller’ interests a slight advantage disproportionate to their populations, placing a check upon the larger states and ‘larger’ interests.

It’s about protecting the little guy. A concept as American as apple pie.

NewsMax pundit Steve Farrell is associate professor of political economy at George Wythe College, press agent for Defend Marriage (a project of United Families International), and the author of the highly praised inspirational novel “Dark Rose” (available at Amazon.com).