|
Electoral College protects small states |
|
December 2, 2016 |
By U.S. Congressman Raul Labrador
Some Americans are so disappointed by the result
of the election that they call for abolition of
a 229-year-old institution that has kept our
nation strong and united, the Electoral College.
How can it be, they ask, that Secretary Clinton
received 2 million more popular votes than
President-elect Trump but lose in the Electoral
College 306-232?
The answer is at the core of our great
experiment in self-governance.
The Framers intended to protect small states
like Idaho, designing a system that dilutes
direct democracy in favor of a stable
constitutional republic. The result has been the
most successful system of government in the
history of the planet.
One of the final compromises of the
Constitutional Convention in 1787 was the
Electoral College. For most of the Convention,
the debate was chiefly between those who
advocated state legislatures choosing the
president and those who wanted Congress to do
the job.
Eventually, Pennsylvania delegate James Wilson
suggested that the people elect the president.
That idea prompted a deal striking a balance
between population and the states. Each state,
regardless of population, would get two senators
and two electors in the Electoral College, with
additional electoral votes based on population
reflecting seats in the U.S. House.
The Founders expressly intended to give the
states a say in electing the president. That is
precisely why 100 of the 538 members of the
Electoral College are apportioned to states
equally.
Knitting together the original 13 states
demanded respect of state sovereignty.
Otherwise, the three large states of
Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Virginia would
dominate the 10 small states and our great
experiment might well have failed.
In the 2016 election, Clinton received 64.8
million popular votes, Trump 62.5 million. But
her margin in the popular vote came from a
single state – California – where she bested
Trump by four million votes, 8.3 million to 4.3
million!
Without the Electoral College, California would
have singlehandedly swung the election,
thwarting the wishes of its sister states.
Trump’s electoral victory was broad, carrying 30
states to Clinton’s 20 states and D.C.
Idaho has four electors. Taken together, Idaho,
Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska and North and South
Dakota have 21 electoral votes. Were the popular
vote to decide the matter, these states would
truly be irrelevant “flyovers” ignored by
candidates spending virtually all their time on
vote-rich California, Florida, Texas, New York,
Pennsylvania, Illinois and Ohio.
I heard a great analogy about the Electoral
College.
Football games are not won by how many yards you
run or how many first downs you make but how
many touchdowns you score. As you can imagine, a
team's strategy for winning the game would be
different if the rules changed to count the
yards and first downs instead of the touchdowns.
Similarly, the strategy would change for
campaigns if the result was based on the popular
vote and not the Electoral College.
Unfortunately, that strategy would include
ignoring states like Idaho and paying all the
attention to states like California. That would
have dire consequences beyond campaigns, as big
states would dominate policymaking to the
detriment of Idaho and other small states.
The Electoral College ensures candidates listen
to both Idaho farmers and Hollywood moguls. It
is part of a constitutional fabric protecting
minority rights. These include a bicameral
Congress, the Bill of Rights, and a
constitutional amendment process requiring
ratification by three-quarters of the states.
This outcome affirms the genius of the Framers,
who established a system of federalism that
makes America a great and diverse republic. |
|
Questions or comments about this
article?
Click here to e-mail! |
|
|
|
|
