SIGN UP - IT'S FREE!

National Debt Clock


A million seconds pass in 12 days.
A billion seconds pass in 31 years.
A trillion seconds pass in 31,688 years!

Eurabia Watch


Family Security Matters has started a new feature, called Eurabia Watch, which will warn Americans that what happens in Europe with political correctness and Islamism will soon be on its way to America. What do you think?







View results


Sign Up for FSM Updates!

HOME > PUBLICATIONS > The Electoral College is Under Attack

August 6, 2010

The Electoral College is Under Attack

Paul Hollrah

Print This
  Comments (11)

Yes, the Electoral College is once again under attack. The attackers feel they are close to claiming victory, but they are far from achieving their goal.  Truth remains to be told.
 
Once again, a group of modern day revisionists have decided that they are far wiser than the geniuses who wrote the U.S. Constitution more than 220 years ago. They’ve decided that, if the tried and proven method our Founding Fathers gave us for selecting our national leaders is not entirely perfect, or (more importantly) if it doesn’t produce the sort of leaders who happen to agree with their liberal view of the way things ought to be, it must be because the Founders erred in creating the Electoral College. 
 
An organization called National Popular Vote (NPV) has launched an effort to create a compact among states whose combined electoral votes represent a simple majority of the 538 votes in the Electoral College. Their goal is quite simple. If they can produce an agreement among states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes to automatically assign their electoral votes to the presidential/vice presidential slate receiving a plurality of the national popular vote, the Electoral College will then become meaningless.
 
Among liberals, the Electoral College has always been one of the least favorite institutions of our federal system. Liberals being what they are, they could never quite grasp the notion that under our system of government the states are supreme and that it is the states, not the citizens of the individual states, who select our national leaders. That concept is inimical to their desire for an all-powerful central government. 
 
In spite of… or perhaps because of… the best efforts of legions of social science teachers over many decades, few Americans understand the purpose of the Electoral College or the role that it plays in the selection of the president and vice president. 
 
The Founding Fathers had some very specific reasons for creating the Electoral College. Aside from their insistence that the president and vice president be elected by the states, and not by the people, their primary concern was that a foreign power might one day attempt to achieve through corruption and political intrigue, that which they could not achieve on the battlefield. 
 
As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper No. 68, “These most deadly adversaries of republican government (cabal, intrigue, etc.)” might come from many quarters, “but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”
 
The Founders were so concerned that none but a “natural born” citizen should ever ascend to the presidency or the vice presidency that they sought to devise a system wherein a small group of men (yes, this was pre-women’s suffrage)… prominent in their communities, well-informed, and trusted by their fellow citizens… would be delegated the responsibility for selecting the president and vice president. 
 
The alternative they settled on was the Electoral College, an independent body consisting of citizen electors chosen for the sole purpose of selecting the president and vice president. The manner in which presidential electors were to be chosen was left solely and exclusively to the legislatures of the various states, and neither the governors of the states, nor the courts, federal or state, were given any role whatsoever in that process. 
 
Unfortunately, the Electoral College has fallen short of expectations in recent elections. The idea that a foreign power might purchase the friendship or the acquiescence of a President of the United States was never a major concern until 1996 when Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and other Democrats were the recipients of large sums of cash from agents of the Peoples Republic of China. Those illegal contributions were not disclosed until well after Clinton and Gore were reelected and inaugurated for a second term. Would Democratic electors have withheld their electoral votes, had they known? It makes for a very interesting speculation, but knowing Democrats as we do it can be assumed that they would not.
 
In 2004 the Democrats nominated Senator John Kerry. While claiming to be a Vietnam War hero, Kerry refused to release 100 pages of his military records relating to the circumstances surrounding his discharge from the U.S. Navy. Had it been learned conclusively that Kerry was dishonorably discharged in 1971 or 1972, would Democratic electors… veterans of World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and Desert Storm… have cast their votes for him? We’ll never know.
 
In 2008, Democratic electors were forewarned that Barack Obama’s qualifications under Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution were much in doubt. When the Constitution was drafted the Founders made it quite clear that only “natural born” U.S. citizens could serve as president or vice president. Yet, Democratic electors ignored the indisputable fact that Obama was born to an American mother and a Kenyan father. As a citizen of Kenya, a British crown colony, Barack Obama, Sr. passed on his British citizenship automatically, by descent, to his son, Barack Obama, Jr. (See Part 2, Section 5[1] of the British Nationality Act of 1948). Hence, Obama was born with dual US-British citizenship. 
 
Accordingly, Obama is a U.S. citizen but not a “natural born” citizen as required by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, making him ineligible to serve in the presidency.   
 
Nor did the 2008 Democratic electors place any importance on the source of Obama’s funds. As the date of the election approached in late October 2008, Obama announced that he had raised some $600 million from 2.5 million contributors, with one-fourth of the money, or $150 million coming from contributors of $2,000 to $2,300… approximately 65,000 individual contributors. The remainder of the $600 million ($450 million) was contributed by, as Obama insisted, those who contributed “$10, $20, or $25… or whatever they could afford.”
 
Any fourth grader… a level of education achieved by few Obama voters… could have calculated that $450 million cannot be contributed by 2.4 million people in $10, $20, or $25 amounts. The average contribution would have to be approximately $185. That has never happened before in American politics and it did not happen in 2008. Obama lied.
 
Finally, it was determined by investigative journalists that Obama’s official reports to the Federal Election Commission contained no fewer than 66,383 contributions in odd amounts, such as $188.67, $1,542.06, $876.09, $388.67, etc., etc… obvious foreign currency conversions. However, upon interviewing randomly selected contributors, investigative journalists for NewsMax.com found that many Obama supporters were unaware that they had contributed that much money. The amounts of money reported were real, the contributors were fictitious. What was the source of Obama’s campaign funds? It is unlikely that we will ever know.  
 
So the question arises, are these historical anomalies a product of a weakness in the system, or are they a product of shortcomings of the individuals who populate the system?
 
That question can be answered conclusively by placing the shoe on the other foot. In other words, what would Republican electors do if confronted with the candidacy of presumptive president-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger, a native of Austria and the son of Austrian parents? 
 
There is no doubt whatsoever that the Schwarzenegger candidacy would be rejected. In fact, it is inconceivable that a Schwarzenegger candidacy would ever have made it past the Republican nominating convention. As a naturalized citizen, Schwarzenegger would have received no serious consideration by convention delegates. Unlike Democrats, Republicans care about constitutional principles and the rule of law.
 
Since the shortcomings of the presidential selection process in recent years can be shown conclusively to be related to human failings, as opposed to the failure of process, the National Popular Vote movement may wish to perform a valuable service to the nation by urging the legislatures of the various states to place criminal penalties on electors who violate their oath of office by failing to perform the necessary due diligence.
 
As Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers, “It was… desirable that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station… A small number of persons, selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to so complicated an investigation.”
 
The members of the Electoral College are expected to “analyze the qualities” of presidential candidates and they are expected to “possess the information and discernment requisite to so complicated an investigation.” This does not describe what Democrat electors have done in recent elections, nor does it describe the qualities and the characteristics that they have brought to the solemn responsibility they have been given. We don’t need a better system; the system is not at fault. We just need Democratic electors who can put country above party.
 
FamilySecurityMatters.orgContributor Paul Hollrah is a Senior Fellow at theLincoln Heritage Institute.

Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (11) | Sign Up for FSM Updates!

Print This
  Comments (11)

Why am I having a problem printing this article? Really excellent, thank you.

hdw

posted by: hd wood
Friday, August 6, 2010 at 11:15 AM

State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award electoral college votes were eventually enacted by 48 states AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, .

The Founding Fathers only said in the U.S. Constitution about presidential elections (only after debating among 60 ballots for choosing a method): "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote.

In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all rule to award electoral votes.

There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.

posted by: kohler
Friday, August 6, 2010 at 12:09 AM

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, Minnesota -- 75%, New York -- 79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 30 state legislative chambers, in 20 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These six states possess 73 electoral votes -- 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

posted by: kohler
Friday, August 6, 2010 at 12:11 AM

Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, supports the National Popular Vote plan as the fairest way to make sure every vote matters, and also as a way to help Conservative Republican candidates. This is not a partisan issue and the NPV plan would not help either party over the other. http://www.thatssaulfolks.com/2010/04/01/national-popular-vote-why-i-support-it/

By state (electoral college votes), by political affiliation, support for a national popular vote in recent polls has been:

Alaska (3)- 78% among Democrats, 66% among Republicans, 70% among Nonpartisan voters, 82% among Alaska Independent Party voters, and 69% among others.
Arkansas (6)- 88% Democrats, 71% Republicans, and 79% independents.
California (55)– 76% Democrats, 61% Republicans, and 74% independents
Colorado (9)- 79% Democrats, 56% Republicans, and 70% independents.
Connecticut (7)- 80% Democrats, 67% Republicans, and 71% others
Delaware (3)- 79% Democrats, 69% Republicans, and 76% independents
District of Columbia (3)- 80% Democrats, 48% Republicans, and 74% of independents
Idaho(4) - 84% Democrats, 75% Republicans, and 75% others
Florida (27)- 88% Democrats, 68% Republicans, and 76% others
Iowa (7)- 82% Democrats, 63% Republicans, and 77% others
Kentucky (8)- 88% Democrats, 71% Republicans, and 70% independents
Maine (4) - 85% Democrats, 70% Republicans, and 73% others
Massachusetts (12)- 86% Democrats, 54% Republicans, and 68% others
Michigan (17)- 78% Democrats, 68% Republicans, and 73% independents
Minnesota (10)- 84% Democrats, 69% Republicans, and 68% others
Mississippi (6)- 79% Democrats, 75% Republicans, and 75% Others
Nebraska (5)- 79% Democrats, 70% Republicans, and 75% Others
Nevada (5)- 80% Democrats, 66% Republicans, and 68% Others
New Hampshire (4)- 80% Democrats, 57% Republicans, and 69% independents
New Mexico (5)- 84% Democrats, 64% Republicans, and 68% independents
New York (31) - 86% Democrats, 66% Republicans, 78% Independence Party members, 50% Conservative Party members, 100% Working Families Party members, and 7% Others
North Carolina (15)- 75% liberal Democrats, 78% moderate Democrats, 76% conservative Democrats, 89% liberal Republicans, 62% moderate Republicans , 70% conservative Republicans, and 80% independents
Ohio (20)- 81% Democrats, 65% Republicans, and 61% Others
Oklahoma (7)- 84% Democrats, 75% Republicans, and 75% others
Oregon (7)- 82% Democrats, 70% Republicans, and 72% independents
Pennsylvania (21)- 87% Democrats, 68% Republicans, and 76% independents
Rhode Island (4)- 86% liberal Democrats, 85% moderate Democrats, 60% conservative Democrats, 71% liberal Republicans, 63% moderate Republicans, 35% conservative Republicans, and 78% independents,
South Dakota (3)- 84% Democrats, 67% Republicans, and 75% others
Utah (5)- 82% Democrats, 66% Republicans, and 75% others
Vermont (3)- 86% Democrats; 61% Republicans, and 74% Others
Virginia (13)- 79% liberal Democrats, 86% moderate Democrats, 79% conservative Democrats, 76% liberal Republicans, 63% moderate Republicans, and 54% conservative Republicans, and 79% Others
Washington (11)- 88% Democrats, 65% Republicans, and 73% others
West Virginia (5)- 87% Democrats, 75% Republicans, and 73% others
Wisconsin (10)- 81% Democrats, 63% Republicans, and 67% independents

http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php

posted by: kohler
Friday, August 6, 2010 at 12:11 AM

We, The People, should agree to the loss of our beloved fraternal republic's Electoral College only after (ostensibly) "our" trusted servants, beginning with the senate, agree to the employment of the same method for their own election.

Too bad Delaware and Nevada, say, don't have enough people to elect any senators at all. But folks from those states and those others similarly inconsequential can travel to California and New York and talk to some of those states dozen or so senators.

posted by: Brian Richard Allen
Monday, August 9, 2010 at 10:54 AM

kohler......just fyi ONE post that is almost as long as the article your commenting on usually doesn't get read. Multiple? Almost never....at least by me!!!

posted by: sos
Monday, August 9, 2010 at 08:29 PM

Hello. And Bye.

posted by: XRumerTest
Saturday, March 19, 2011 at 05:04 PM

pictures of [url=http://dern.org.au/index.php/member/42760/] naked photos[/url] Nakedcelebs .

posted by: beachnakedj
Monday, April 18, 2011 at 12:12 AM

la respuesta Incomparable )
http://www.offporn.com/

allexis

posted by: hunter
Monday, August 29, 2011 at 04:16 PM

Do you recognize that it's high time to get the mortgage loans, which would help you.

posted by: EspinozaAgnes33
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 02:03 AM

Lots of specialists state that personal loans help a lot of people to live their own way, just because they can feel free to buy needed stuff. Furthermore, banks present sba loan for different persons.

posted by: RichardsonMara
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 02:19 AM