Below
is a link to a Hillsdale college video clip that begins the kind of discussion
I would enjoy having with each of you... The kind my Dad helped my 8 siblings and I begin having
around the dinner table of our youth. The question here is "How do
you personally define the 'good life' and is your definition the best or only one the country should have?
Watch
the clip: (It is only a few minutes).
For
me, I most highly prize a private life where I am free to
focus on my own family, community, Faith and work, with just enough
awareness/involvement of the public or politics of my community and country to
serve others in need and make choices that will most closely allow me to
continue to pursue my chosen "good life". In other words, I
define my good life as one in which I feel most free to "pursue life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness", with as few political distractions and
especially interferences as possible.
Why
am I writing about this? Good question. Here is the answer.
I
have twice since the election had thoughtful discussions with one of our
children and an elderly friend, who, while not necessarily
disappointed with the outcome of the election, think it is likely
"unfair" that the "majority" did not get their chosen
candidate, as it appears the popular vote did go to the losing
candidate. I invite us now to "counsel together" on the
following topic.
Should
the Electoral College be eliminated?
Take
your time to read it. I hope it will invite
consideration, research and especially discussion in your own homes.
BYU-Idaho, a private church university where all of our 5 children studied, has invested much in what they call Foundation Classes, where many
topics are discussed "Socratic" style. It is a tool for learning that I
believes has great value in both true learning and understanding and which I
believe is emulated when we "counsel
together".
Certainly
this would be a good research topic and paper for many of our children.
I
love reading history and have been studying the American Constitution on and
off much of my adult life. Somewhere
along the way I studied about this very topic.
Unlike my brilliant husband who retains details of countess books and
subjects, my brain holds on to only the "jist" of many...or the
viewpoint that the study led me to hold.
That is the case here. I was left
with a conviction that it was an inspired form of voting but could not pull out
the details with which to defend it. I encourage us all to research it better
for ourselves.
However,
for those who are less interested in this than that study might require, the "jist" of those past studies, as I have pondered on the current circumstance, has over the past days and nights, began again to distill with just enough clarity for me to begin to defend my position in a basic way that may be helpful for some of
you. I hope it will begin to plant more
firmly in each of you the belief and knowledge that nearly every aspect
of our original founded government was penned in ink after months of just such
discussion as we could have here, and guided by divine inspiration, and then
ratified by eventually EVERY one of the states/colonies then in
existence. Every state added since, has
joined of their own free will and choice, feeling that the best chance for the
most free "self governance" came in cooperation and alliance with the
larger protections of a limited federal government.
There
are numerous side questions we could get side-tracked on here... Why not just
have each state be its own "country"? Or why have states at all, and not
just be one huge 'state' encompassing our whole country?
Answers
in part at least are encompassed in the general discussion we will have, but
largely those will have to be for you to discuss on your own. I will stick as closely as I can to the
question of electoral votes.
That
begins by clarifying the great misnomer that has been perpetuated by our public
education system: The United States is
NOT a democracy.
I
hope that does not shock you. But it is
true. Every True democratic government
(where one man = one vote) throughout history failed miserably, and our
founders knew it. They wanted something
more fair (WHAT?!! How can you get more
fair than every vote being equal?) and more enduring.
They
provided for us a REPUBLIC. This is a
Representative form of democracy, where the public, selects from among their
local, known, trusted, peers, someone whom they trust to go and represent them
at decision making times and places, and make laws and policies that will be in
the best interest of the values of those they represent, leaving the citizens
more free to go about the business of providing for their families and being
involved in the things that are of most interest and value to them. It is in this way that our populace has been
free to go about creating the largest and most successful economy in the world
that then has been the most peaceful and generous with its resources to bless
the rest of the world. This does not
mean Americans are perfect... But freedom to pursue our own goals has largely
brought good things for the world.
If
we had a true democracy, we would have a president, and no senate or congress.
We would each need to be involved and informed on the details and discussions
regarding every law ourselves. While there may be laws we do not like, our
state representatives are at least in part accountable to us in our locations
to generally represent the values of the areas in which we live and if there is
enough we dislike, we have the opportunity every few years to make our voice
heard about who we’d prefer to represent us, or even run ourselves. But for each of us to understand all the
details of every possible law ourselves would take us away from the production
of this country, damaging significantly the amazing "production"
Americans are known for, that have built a vast economy unheard of in
civilizations of the past. When
Senators or representatives vote for laws that we do not like, we have the
opportunity as counties and states to UN elect them every two or four years and
select ones that more closely represent our values. It's a wonderful system that on the whole,
MOSTLY does a great job of representing the MAJORITY view points or values. (It may be interesting to note that living in Washington State, whose electoral votes have gone entirely against my personal votes all the years I have voted here, I still vote with passion, as my local votes here in the southeast corner of the state, do succeed in representatives that largely represent me well. The farther from me my representatives live, the less they represent me well... even within my own state, much less the continent sized country!)
The
miracle is that our system also protects the minority view points, even mine, in a small but economically huge contributing community to the coffers of our state. This is why America has been so attractive to
immigrants from its very beginning, and continues to be so today. Every one of us at some time and in some way
are in the minority. It may be our race,
origin, gender, religion even our occupation.
It may be any number of things.
Today
we have lost some of the founders loyalty to state. We are less aware today that people usually
do live and gather and work in ways that show shared values. Perhaps we think now that we simply live
where we can get work, and afford to live, but that is not really completely
true. We have freedom to choose the kind
of work we do and where and how we choose to do it... (in a city, or the
suburbs, or in a small rural town).
Additionally, we will choose where we live to do that work... (a long
commute so we can live in the country and have land, or in a high-rise apartment
so we don't have a yard to care for etc.).
So many choices and the answers to those choices gather us together with
people of largely shared values. It is
just the way humans are, and Americans are so free that it is especially true
here. We gather as neighborhoods, communities,
counties, and states, largely of shared values.
That is not to say we ALL share ALL values with our neighbors and
states, but largely it can be true.
Each
of our states was formed in some part by people who shared some common interest
in and value of the particular resources of that state and the use of those
resources. Thus, northern states, were
more industrial, southern states were more agrarian. The industrial states were more populated,
but the agrarian states, while small in people were vital to the feeding,
clothing and trade of the north, while the south, also wanted supplies from
northern states. Even today, each state
across the nation provides resources, and access that benefits the country at
large. We choose to work in, access, and
enjoy, protect, and benefit from the resources we live in. If we did not find them tolerable, we usually
work hard to relocate to somewhere more in alignment with our largest
values.
Aware
that they needed each other, and could be stronger, if somehow aligned, but not
wanting to give up the autonomy of their own state governance, the Founders
came up with a compromise that protected the values of small states... They
created the Senate, a governing body that allowed each state regardless of
population TWO senators... This represents values of people who gather in ways
that may be in the minority... Small rural states, that provide resources vital
to the country such as food, or oil, wood, or coal. Not everyone wants to live in small towns,
live without major arts, shopping or museums, but some highly value, even
prefer open spaces, quiet and community that those kinds of locations provide
and are willing to do the hard work
these locations and jobs require. It
does not mean their lives matter less or are less needful. In several cases, they are vital to the
wellbeing of the city dwellers and others.
They should be enabled, even protected and are, by this method.
But
should the values of the majority not matter more? Yes.
The Founders balanced this with a Congress, that allowed a
representative for every so many people in each state. Thus, as the population of a state increases,
its representation in Congress grows and grows through the ages. The majority
is largely represented.
In
a remarkable way, local view points are represented by locally elected
congressmen, and thus take a voice to the table of decision making in DC... It
may be only one voice, or only a few, but it is a voice, and sometimes those few
voices, even if a minority, if loud
enough, or eloquent enough, persuasive enough, patient or even crafty enough,
can change opinion. This can be a good
or bad, positive or negative, but it has so much of overarching fairness in it
that people from all places, religions, nationalities, and walks of life have
sought out the opportunities of such a voice, provided in America.
What does this have to do with the Electoral College?
Simply that the Electoral College is made up of those same Representative votes. Each state gets the number of electoral votes equal to the total number of Senators + Representatives that each state qualifies for. Each state may choose how to allot those electoral votes. So far, all but two states, say that the popular vote, the candidate who wins the majority vote in the state, takes all the votes. The remaining two have a system for dividing electoral votes based on the percentage of each candidate. Once again the view of the state is manifest
in their own rules, on the matter. The candidate with the majority of Electoral votes wins the election.
It
is in this way, that nearly always the popular vote will win the election. However, it is possible if not common, that a
candidate CAN win the electoral vote, but not the popular vote. IT has happened only five times in over 200
years. Interestingly, it has happened
twice in my voting lifetime.
Usually, almost always, the majority or
popular vote will also win
the election. But lets examine and
consider the make up of our country, its states, and allotment of electoral votes of the states they represent.
33
States, have less than 8 electoral
votes EACH, 7 of those having only 3 each, even with their 2 Senatorial votes included. That means that 7 states, if
population were all that counted, they would qualify for only 1 electoral vote
each, and the remaining 26 states having only between 2-4 votes. But these 33 states, represent the
values and resources of perhaps MORE than 2/3 of the country (NOT population). With this minimal representation in the vote, the values of a massive, even huge MAJORITY of land mass and its values would be nearly completely unrepresented. Would it be right for them to be so
poorly represented?
On
the other hand THREE states, together California, Texas and Florida, have
between them 122 of 538 total votes or 1/4.
Does the populations of THREE states, truly represent the values and
perspectives of the entire United States?
It
takes in fact 24 states (almost HALF of the rest of the states!) with the lowest numbers of electoral votes ..
(Each 7 or less) to even come close to matching the influence of those top 3
states... (116 electoral votes ALL together.). But again, these 24, equal a
very large majority of the land mass, and resources that fuel and support the
other smaller land mass and values of the country. The inclusion of their senatorial electors,
regardless of population gives a possibility that minority view points, may
have an influence. Also, keep in mind, having two senators and thus two
electoral votes, who are elected by the majority of their state, does NOT
guarantee that they will represent a minority view point in the country. They may well aid the majority view of the
country, as is usually the case.
If
majority mattered more than any thing else the popular vote of the top 11 most
populous states,*** could theoretically decided every value and decision that
affects the rest of the country... 11 states... Barely 1/5 or 20% of our
states,....Yes, it would be the majority of people, it may be the majority of
view point. But do I want east coast, crowded city values to determine how I
use my beautiful Columbia River, it's fish, and dams, power and
irrigation? Do you in Utah or Idaho want
those same values to solely determine your access to wilderness, forests, or to
develop mines, or grazing for cattle? Even those in California, Colorado, Minnesota or the Dakotas, I doubt would want all the influence to come entirely from some distant centralized place. I suspect, if you studied it, or if it
affected your business, your property or your invention, you'd want a bigger local voice than just your population may allow.
Is it fair?... It is when you see that the majority IS represented the
MOST, but the minority always gets a chance to sit at the table and be an
influence.
***
From largest population to least, the top 11 most populous states are
California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan,
Georgia, North Carolina, and New Jersey.
Is it right that these states, largely separated by a continent from the
climate, resources, and problems, concerns and thus values of the center,
resource rich, and people few, states, choose and determine all our American
laws, our policies and leaders because they contain the Majority? To me it seems a miraculous protection from
peasantry.
Lastly,
a note of interest, and reminders that
the Majority DO get their way, the Majority of the time… ONLY 5 times in more
than 200 years has an American president been elected without the popular
vote. As I mentioned earlier, two times
have been in my adult, voting lifetime. The first time was in the highly contested election of 2000
between George W. Bush and Al Gore, where the Supreme Court was involved. With discord again about us, I recommend some fun reading as an informative distraction; an
exciting history book for young adults called Lincoln’s Grave Robbers by Steve Sheinkin. It takes place during another highly
contested election that involved lots of rioting afterward etc. Our time is not so unusual really, and
somehow I find it comforting. We have
survived turmoil before and if we are informed, and wise and involved as good
free citizens should be, we can contribute to the protections of our freedoms
for generations yet to come.
I
hope this is simple enough, yet complete enough for you to understand my
perspective on the miracle of fairness the Electoral College system is.... or at
least to pique your interest in studying it out for yourself.
I
love this great country and am awed by all that was done to lay a foundation
for its success and greatness.
Hope
you enjoyed our "discussion" and that it begins some engaging and enlightening
ones around your dinner table.
Becky
