This was in response to a critique of the electoral college at
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/10/10_202.html
Comments?
I feel the same after reading it as I did before. I have no idea if the
site is "liberal" (or whatever other label you want to put on it), but the
logic is certainly flawed.
Look at it this way. *If* the arguments put forth on that site are
persuasive, then consistency would demand that you get rid of the Senate as well. After all, the main thrust of the argument is that "it's the people
who should decide". Well, "the people" *don't* decide in the Senate,
because the smaller population states are disproportionately represented.
There are sound *reasons* why America is a republic. Our founding father *rejected* democracy and explained *precisely* why they rejected it in the Federalist Papers. If you fully understand their arguments yet disagree, then more power to you. Most people have no clue.
It was to avoid the passions of democracy that our system was designed the way that it was. Were we to go to a popular vote for President, then the smaller states would have ample reason to secede because their input would be meaningless. It is precisely *because* we have the electoral college *and* the Senate **both of which are "unfair" (to use the popular argument today) that our nation has lasted as long as it has.
In the election of 1860, Stephen Douglas won *one* state - Missouri. Yet,
due to its population, he came in second in the popular vote. It's
entirely possible for a popular vote to reflect the desires of a small
handful of states, simply because their populations are so dense, and to
completely ignore the desires of the rest of the country.
That is a recipe for revolt. Our forefathers realized that possibility and
rejected it. Now people who purport to be "smarter" than the men who
founded our nation want to change that system and eliminate the safeguards that have held the nation together for so long.
I *reject* that "wisdom".
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/10/10_202.html
Comments?
I feel the same after reading it as I did before. I have no idea if the
site is "liberal" (or whatever other label you want to put on it), but the
logic is certainly flawed.
Look at it this way. *If* the arguments put forth on that site are
persuasive, then consistency would demand that you get rid of the Senate as well. After all, the main thrust of the argument is that "it's the people
who should decide". Well, "the people" *don't* decide in the Senate,
because the smaller population states are disproportionately represented.
There are sound *reasons* why America is a republic. Our founding father *rejected* democracy and explained *precisely* why they rejected it in the Federalist Papers. If you fully understand their arguments yet disagree, then more power to you. Most people have no clue.
It was to avoid the passions of democracy that our system was designed the way that it was. Were we to go to a popular vote for President, then the smaller states would have ample reason to secede because their input would be meaningless. It is precisely *because* we have the electoral college *and* the Senate **both of which are "unfair" (to use the popular argument today) that our nation has lasted as long as it has.
In the election of 1860, Stephen Douglas won *one* state - Missouri. Yet,
due to its population, he came in second in the popular vote. It's
entirely possible for a popular vote to reflect the desires of a small
handful of states, simply because their populations are so dense, and to
completely ignore the desires of the rest of the country.
That is a recipe for revolt. Our forefathers realized that possibility and
rejected it. Now people who purport to be "smarter" than the men who
founded our nation want to change that system and eliminate the safeguards that have held the nation together for so long.
I *reject* that "wisdom".
