How one sees reality, is very much influenced by one's value system.
Additionally, people tend to interpret things from their political
prospective. So, the author of the article, obviously doesn't trust the
democratic process because he doesn't trust the judgment of most people.
However, had Trump lost, the article might have been written very
differently. In the same light, people are very upset about Trump's promise
to deport millions of immigrants, but there was not all that much criticism
by liberal groups and Democratic politicians of Obama's mass deportations.
Miriam
_____
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard Driscoll
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2016 3:15 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] The Electoral College
All:
The following article was copied from the ACB Chat List and was submitted by
Diego Demaya.
I await your condemnations.
Quote We (still) need the Electoral College
It seems bizarre that the person with the most votes doesn't win the
presidency - that is until you open up a book, read what the Founding
Fathers were doing, and grasp the significance and importance of federalism
in the lasting success of our American Republic.
Sadly, since many choose not to do that and instead appear driven solely by
their political passions, we're enduring another spate of "abandon the
undemocratic Electoral College" fits.
Contrary to the conventional wisdom of those who paid no attention in
government class, ours is not a democracy, and we would never want it to be.
The Founders feared a mass democracy, where a large faction could vote
themselves favor from the pockets of smaller factions. The interests of big
states, they reasoned, should not override the needs of the small states;
coastal towns should not exercise supreme authority over the vastly
different concerns of a landlocked western frontier; industrial northern
states should not wield unlimited power over the heads of the agrarian
southern states just because they're more populated.
That's why the House of Representatives was intentionally designed as the
only part of our national government that would be directly elected by the
people. Since the House was to represent people's local interests, it made
sense to have representatives chosen directly by a majority of voters in
those small residential districts. But other parts of the national
government were to be representative not of "the people," but of the
interests of the states.
It's why the Senate was originally designed as a body whose members were
chosen by the states' legislatures, not citizens. And it's why when it came
to choosing a national executive, the Founders rejected James Wilson's
suggestion that the president be elected by popular vote and turned to James
Madison to craft an Electoral College - a non-permanent body of electors
chosen every four years among the states to convene for the sole purpose of
selecting the national candidate most suited for the office of president.
Why is the Electoral College so critical to keep around? For the very same
reason it was critical in 1787. Our factions today may not be north-south,
coastal-frontier, or even industrial-agrarian. But there are still varying
interests and factions of the country that must be tempered. There are the
interests and expectations of the heavily populated urban centers, and there
are the interests and needs of the less populated (but far more expansive)
rural regions. Those who would discard the Electoral College would upend
the Founders' intent to guard against the tyranny of the majority. A simple
look at a county-by-county breakdown of the 2016 election shows why.
Geographically speaking, though she won more votes, Hillary Clinton won only
17% of the country. Without the Electoral College, then, the regional
interests of 83% of the nation would have been unrepresented by their chief
executive. That would be a destabilizing reality with dangerous
implications for the future of American politics. Donald Trump said himself
that he could have won the popular vote if he had focused his campaign only
on major cities and the issues that appealed to them.
Imagine the kind of candidates and campaign we would engender if both
nominees needed only to appeal to urban voters. Consider the disconnect
between a leader chosen every four years by two metropolitan strips
(Boston-New York-Washington, and San Francisco-Los Angeles-San Diego) and
the remainder of the country.
The national executive was designed to represent the national interest, and
the Electoral College sees to that brilliantly. It prevents the office from
being occupied by someone who encapsulates the interests of a powerful
majority faction (in this case, urban interests) that is not representative
of the national body politic.
I can sincerely understand the frustration of those whose candidate won
overwhelming majorities of urban voter districts but lost because she could
not persuade a significant number of voters in virtually every other region
of the country.
But rather than attack the Electoral College as being unjust - a system
enshrined in our federal Constitution that acts to preserve the essence of
federalism more than maybe any other vestige remaining from 1787 - perhaps
their energies would be better spent finding candidates whose message
appeals to more than one faction (numerous as they may be) of the
electorate. That is, after all, precisely what the Founders intended.
Peter Heck is a speaker, author, and teacher. Follow him at @peterheck,
email peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> , or visit www.peterheck.com.
_______________________________________________
acb-chat mailing list
acb-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Unquote
