Alex Zenos (RealClearPolitics)
In accordance with the principle of federalism, the Constitution gives the states the power to elect the president, thus curbing majoritarianism.
Since the 2000 presidential election, the left has been working to undermine the legitimacy of the Electoral College, calling it a relic of slavery. Those attacks would surely intensify again if Donald Trump were to return to the White House, despite losing the popular vote once again. In fact, they have already It has begun Critics have denounced the system as undemocratic. Last month, The New York Times piece They claim to destroy the Constitution and that the sole purpose of the Electoral College is to protect slavery. Such criticism is based on a misunderstanding and hostility to the very structure of the Constitution.
RELATED: Florida sues violent alien released into U.S. from prison
history
Our method of selecting a president was born out of compromise. The Framers of the Constitution agreed to a system in which each state had a say in choosing the president. The Constitution assigned electors to each state, and each state would decide for itself how to select those electors.
At the time of the Constitutional Convention, the population of free people in the North outnumbered that of the South, so popular suffrage would have favored the North. This dynamic is why the South promoted a system of apportioning electoral votes based on population, including slaves.
But there was nothing inherently pro-slavery about the Electoral College system. There might have been other Electoral College systems that did not count slaves as part of the population for purposes of apportionment. Thus, counting slaves in electoral votes, through the infamous Two-Thirds Clause, was pro-slavery.
In fact, even if slavery had not existed, the states would never have agreed to a method of electing the president that would have taken away their voice. Protecting state sovereignty and ensuring that less populous states had influence were key features of the compromise. Thus, while slavery may have been one of the reasons for the compromise, it never was. of reason.
RELATED: “Diversity” Doesn’t Include Disabled Veterans Like Me
merit
The way in which state representatives select their chief executive may be a compromise, but it does not undermine the benefits of the system, such as geographic representation and respect for state sovereignty. This is true even if you believe that the Electoral College is part of the legacy of slavery.
In a country as large and diverse as ours, representation based on geographical divisions of the population in national elections is far superior to mob rule based purely on popular vote. Our country is not a monolithic society. People live and think differently in different places. This is especially true when you consider the differences in state governments that attract different types of people.
The United States is a large country, and a system based solely on popular vote would favor densely populated cities. This dynamic is especially problematic given that city dwellers often want to impose their culture and policy preferences on others, while rural residents generally just want to be left alone. Consider that Democrats want federal regulation of virtually everything nationwide.
But despite this left versus right paradigm, it is simply better to give different geographical elements of a country or state a say on national issues in order to weaken some of the power of the majority to overpower political minorities.
Furthermore, the left wants to abolish the state system, but without the state system there would be no United States. Our federal system allows for better representation of different segments of the population and therefore better governance. Each state, as an independent sovereign, needs to have a say in who becomes president.
The Electoral College also influences presidential politics, as candidates must consider the opinions of voters in every state, especially in swing states with less partisan bias. This political landscape decentralizes power, dilutes focus on densely populated cities, and allows perspectives outside urban thought bubbles to participate.
Another common criticism of the Electoral College is that it is undemocratic. But American government was never supposed to be based on democracy. Rather, democracy was supposed to be a component, albeit an important part, of our constitutional republic. The protection of individual liberties and rights is far more important than the ability of the majority to impose its will.
RELATED: Walz subpoenaed for oversight of $250 million fraud scheme
Moreover, the President is not even supposed to represent the people in our constitutional system; the House of Representatives does. So an argument against the Electoral College is not only an argument against our Constitution’s federalist principle, it’s also an argument against our Constitution’s separation of powers.
Our Electoral College system may not be perfect, but it is far better than elections by direct popular vote, which ignores the principles of federalism.
Alex Zenos is an attorney and Young Voices contributor. His writing has appeared in the Boston Herald, The American Spectator, DC Journal, NH Journal and other publications. Follow him at @AMXenos.
Distributed with permission From RealClearWire.
