THE LIBERALS’ SCHEME TO ELIMINATE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

Proposals to “reform” or eliminate the Electoral College come up periodically, especially when the liberals find their power with the electorate has declined. The election of 2004, when the Red States handed the White House and both houses of Congress to the Republicans, is a case in point. Since that time, frustrated liberals have been lining up sponsors in California, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana and Missouri to introduce legislation to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. In Colorado, they have already persuaded the Senate to approve their proposal.
Responding to that development in Colorado, popular Denver talk show host, Mike Rosen, gave a hypothetical example of how this could work out to heavily favor a big-government liberal such as Hillary Clinton:

“[L]et’s say 70 percent of Coloradoans in 2008 vote for John McCain, 5 percent for Ralph Nader, and 25 percent for Hillary Clinton. Hillary carries only 15 states, losing 35. But she racks up enough votes in New York, California and Illinois to give her a plurality of the total national popular vote. Consequently, the will of Coloradoans is defied and our Electoral College votes are given to Hillary. The same thing happens to other states that joined this compact, and Hillary becomes president.” (Editor’s Note: Readers would probably not be surprised to learn that Hillary Clinton has been openly advocating the elimination of the Electoral College since the year 2000.)

Another End Run Around the Constitution
Ever since the New Deal, the Democrats have favored centralizing power in Washington. They believe in a large federal government run by “experts” who believe they can engineer prosperity and social reform. Over the past 70 years, the Democrats have welcomed the slow evisceration of states’ powers and the centralization of power in Washington. The move to abolish the Electoral College fits perfectly with the Democrats’ obsession with centralizing (and institutionalizing) liberalism in order to build and maintain political power.

Currently, John Anderson, Birch Bayh and John Buchanan (all three of whom were defeated in the 1980 Reagan landslide) are scheming to change the U.S. Constitution without complying with the amendment process. The plan is go get states with at least 270 votes in the Electoral College to enact identical bills that require their own electors to ignore the winner of their state’s election and cast all their state’s ballots for the candidate that the state believes received more popular votes nationwide. The idea of forcing electors to vote against their constituents is absurd and un-American. Nevertheless, the “campaign” would force a state like Louisiana to vote for the candidate who won in other states, such as New York or California. (From “The subversive plan to ditch the Electoral College,” by Phyllis Schlafly, May 8, 2006)

The Campaign for the National Popular Vote is nothing short of a scheme to steal votes away from some candidates and transfer them to another candidate. And, the slogan for the “campaign,” “Every Vote Equal” is dishonest because the campaign’s proposal is based on changing the rules of presidential elections by a compact of as few as 11 states, rather than the 38 needed to amend the Constitution. But it’s typical of the way liberal Democrats like to “play ball.”

One constitutional scholar put it this way:
“Basing the election on a plurality of the popular vote while ignoring the states would be like the New York Yankees claiming they won the 1960 World Series because they outscored the Pirates in runs 55-27 and in hits 91-60. No one challenges the fact that the Pirates fairly won that Series, 4 games to 3.” (Phyllis Schlafly, “. . .ditch the Electoral College”)

The United States Constitution established the method of electing presidents. It was part of the great compromise that melded 13 rival colonies into a constitutional republic. That compromise gave us a bicameral lawmaking body consisting of the Senate—based on equal representation of the states—and a House of Representatives based on population. The Electoral College mirrors this compromise and allows all the states to be a part of the process for electing the president.

The system has served us well for well over two hundred years, but each time a move to tinker with the Electoral College surfaces, we hear complaints about the “unfairness” of the system. A look at the facts shows that is a bogus complaint.

Our Founders knew that legitimate government depends on the public’s will; but they also knew that the will of the people is far more complex than simple “majority rule.” Thus, they set about devising a system that allows for a truer representation of the public will than simple majority rule. As stated above, our House of Representatives allows the public will to be measured by direct popular vote; with the Senate, on the other hand, the public will is expressed as “the will of the States in their distinct and independent capacities” (James Madison). In our presidential elections, the will of the nation is expressed both in the popular vote and in the will of the states, with every state—large or small—getting two electors. This gives states with small and medium-sized populations more leverage in presidential elections than they would have in a popular vote.

Irrelevance at the Ballot Box
If we elected our presidents by popular vote (the “Every Vote Equal” scheme), the votes of Americans in about 25 states would become irrelevant because candidates would zero in on accumulating votes in large population states. Democratic candidates would seek large majorities in major metropolitan areas on both coasts (where their political strength is concentrated), ignoring the smaller states in between. Big city machines would take the process over, and candidates from New York or California would enjoy a distinct advantage. “Middle America” would become politically irrelevant.

By contrast, the Electoral College forces all candidates to seek support throughout the nation. Additionally, it assures that no single faction or issue can decide a presidential election because the candidate must win many diverse states in order to be elected.

Election Chaos
Because so many of our presidential elections are close, the Electoral College is a safeguard against complete election chaos. If the popular vote were the deciding factor, any close election would predictably result in claims of voter fraud and in challenges and recounts while campaign workers tried to scrape up additional votes. One has only to recall the Florida fiasco of 2000 in order to imagine what it would be like if we abandoned the Electoral College: the scenario in Florida would be repeated nationwide. Conceivably, it could be weeks or months before a winner could be declared and the process of peaceful changeover could go forward.

We need to stick with Madison’s idea of a federal republic, and preserve the Electoral College. The Campaign for the National Popular Vote should be repudiated before it goes any farther.

#####