QUORA: ‘Was the Electoral College really intended as a device against tyranny of the majority?’

 QUORA: ‘Was the Electoral College really intended as a device against tyranny of the majority?’

I posted this answer:

Yes; that, among other paths to tyranny.

The Electoral College is part of the checks and balances designed to prevent concentrations of government power. For example, the United States Constitution supersedes the state constitutions, allowing the federal government to act as a check on states’ power. Likewise, since the elected legislatures of the states have the responsibility of choosing the presidential electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct," the states as independent governmental entities can, through the Electoral College, act as a check on executive federal power. 

Also, the Electoral College acts as somewhat of a power balance between large and small states as determined by population. 

Likewise, the electoral college acts as a check on populism, which can be quite tyrannical. Instead of one huge national majority acting as a single overbearing power, candidates must win enough smaller majorities in individual states, each of whom may have differing interests, to accumulate the necessary electoral vote majority. Furthermore, by requiring voters to select a group of Electors in each state, who would then join other groups of Electors from other states to choose the president, the chance of an irrational and impassioned majority from directly electing a charismatic tyrant. Placing an intermediary body between the popular vote and the choosing of the president makes the rise of an authoritarian much less likely; or, as Hamilton put it in Federalist 68, “an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements. . .” The point is to check populist power as a means of limiting concentrations of government power.

America was never to be a nation of majority rule—or, for that matter, minority rule. It was to be a country of individual self-rule--that is, of individual rights. Individual rights, not the unrestrained wishes of electoral victors, is what the government is intended to protect. Constitutional scholar Timothy Sandifur on James Madison’s thinking:

In “the extended republic of the United States,” a “great variety of interests, parties and sects” would prevent “a coalition of the majority of the whole society” from coming together in ways that might harm the minority or the individual.

There was always a risk of oppression in any form of government, of course, because factions would seek to benefit themselves at the expense of their rivals. . . The . . . solution was a constitution of limited powers, with a system of checks and balances by which “the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.”

Madison consistently recognized that the essential goal of the Constitution was not to expand democratic authority or give voice to the “will of the people”—an idea he regarded skeptically—but to establish a political system that would enable the majority to accomplish its legitimate goals while protecting minorities against oppression. [from The Genius of James Madison by Timothy Sandefur for The Objective Standard]

This does not mean that populism doesn’t have its place: It gets its expression, for example, in the powerful U.S. House of Representatives, where members face election every two years by direct popular vote, bypassing the state legislatures; where each state’s representation is proportional to population, which in turn counterbalances the senate, where each state has equal representation regardless of population. 

The intricate structure of checks and balances embedded in our constitution checks, but does not negate, populism just as it checks, but does not negate, state power, presidential power, court power, and legislative power. The purpose of this structure is to protect the primacy of individual liberty. The Electoral College is a part of that structure. That’s why the Electoral College of the United States of America exists. 

Related Reading:

QUORA: ‘Where do you stand on the question of deleting the electoral college as it can and has clearly obviated the vote of the majority twice in recent history?’

Voting Rights are Not the ‘Most Fundamental Right’—or Even a Fundamental Right

Avoid ‘Majority Rule’—Keep the Electoral College in Fact and in Spirit

The Conscience of the Constitution—Timothy Sandefur

QUORA: What's to stop a state . . . from making a law that just says their parties electors are chosen by default?'

Does the Electoral College Allow 'a Minority of Americans to Control Us All?'

Wouldn't going by Popular Vote be an even worse system than the Electoral College?

QUORA: Can't We Make the Electoral College More Democratic?

QUORA: ‘Where do you stand on the question of deleting the electoral college as it can and has clearly obviated the vote of the majority twice in recent history?’

QUORA: ‘Where do you stand on the question of deleting the electoral college as it can and has clearly obviated the vote of the majority twice in recent history?’

I posted this answer:

The Electoral College did not and does not “obviate the vote of the majority.” True, the Electoral College count sometimes doesn’t align with the national popular vote count. But, so what?  There is nothing sacred about the national popular vote. The Electoral College breaks down the election into 51 separate popular vote contests—the 50 states and the District of Columbia. To understand why this is necessary, one must consider its purpose within the broader context. 

The Electoral College is part of the constitutional checks and balances designed by the Founders to prevent concentrations of government power. For example, the United States Constitution supersedes the state constitutions, allowing the federal government to act as a check on states’ power. Likewise, since the elected legislatures of the states have the responsibility under ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 2 of choosing the electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct," the states can act as a check on federal power.

Also, the Electoral College acts as somewhat of a power balance between large and small states.

Likewise, the Electoral College acts as a check on populism, which can be quite tyrannical. Instead of one huge national majority acting as a single overbearing power, candidates must win enough smaller majorities among the individual states (and the District of Columbia), each of whom may have differing interests, to accumulate the necessary electoral vote majority. The point is to check populist power as a means of limiting concentrations of government power, by inserting the elected legislatures between the popular votes and the presidency. This is believed to be a way of tempering the more irrational democratic mob impulses that occasionally arise among the people. (The state legislatures can, of course, change the method of allocating its electors. And the people can, of course, change the legislature at election time in their respective states. To repeat, the Electoral College does not “obviate the vote of the majority.” It all, ultimately, goes back to the voters.)

America was never to be a nation of majority rule. It was to be a country of individual self-rule--that is, of individual rights. Individual rights, not the wishes of electoral majorities, is what government is intended to protect. Constitutional scholar Timothy Sandifur on James Madison’s thinking:

“In ‘the extended republic of the United States,’ a ‘great variety of interests, parties and sects’ would prevent ‘a coalition of the majority of the whole society’ from coming together in ways that might harm the minority or the individual.

“There was always a risk of oppression in any form of government, of course, because factions would seek to benefit themselves at the expense of their rivals. . . The . . . solution was a constitution of limited powers, with a system of checks and balances by which ‘the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.’

“Madison consistently recognized that the essential goal of the Constitution was not to expand democratic authority or give voice to the ‘will of the people’—an idea he regarded skeptically—but to establish a political system that would enable the majority to accomplish its legitimate goals while protecting minorities against oppression. [from The Genius of James Madison by Timothy Sandefur for The Objective Standard]”

This does not mean that populism doesn’t have its place: It gets its expression, for example, in the powerful U.S. House of Representatives. But the intricate structure of checks and balances embedded in our constitution checks populism just as it checks state power, presidential power, court power, and legislative power through its two branches. The purpose of this structure is to protect the primacy of individual liberty, not “majority rule” or “the will of the people.” The Electoral College is a part of that structure, helping to fulfil the goal of breaking up society “into so many parts, interests and classes of citizens.” 

That’s why the Electoral College of the United States of America exists. Eliminating it would cut the states out of the equation, concentrating more power into the national government, thus advancing America ever closer to the very tyranny the College was set up to help prevent. Keep in mind that freedom is not the right to vote. Freedom is the right to live your life regardless of other people’s votes.

Related Reading: 

QUORA: ‘Why does the Electoral College of the United States of America exist?’

Was the Electoral College a ‘Compromise to Protect the Institution of Slavery?’

Voting Rights are Not the ‘Most Fundamental Right’—or Even a Fundamental Right

Avoid ‘Majority Rule’—Keep the Electoral College in Fact and in Spirit

The Conscience of the Constitution—Timothy Sandefur

QUORA: What's to stop a state . . . from making a law that just says their parties electors are chosen by default?'

Does the Electoral College Allow 'a Minority of Americans to Control Us All?'

Avoid ‘Majority Rule’—Keep the Electoral College in Fact and in Spirit

Wouldn't going by Popular Vote be an even worse system than the Electoral College?

QUORA: Can't We Make the Electoral College More Democratic?

All of my posts on the Electoral College, including answers to QUORA inquiries.

QUORA: What's to stop a state . . . from making a law that just says their parties electors are chosen by default?'

 QUORA: Since the constitution leaves it up to the state legislature on how electors are chosen. What's to stop a state like Texas or Georgia from making a law that just says their parties electors are chosen by default? No elections I think they could.

I posted this answer:

I have no idea what is meant by “by default.”

But Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution reads: 

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

This means that the legislature can appoint the Electors. This does not mean, however, “no elections.” The legislators are, after all, elected representatives. This only means that the voters are involved indirectly through the legislators they vote for to represent them. This is perfectly legitimate. Remember that the United States is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. The definition of “republic” is 

a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law. 

So the legislature, the “elected officers and representatives responsible to” the voting citizens, can bypass a direct popular vote, and appoint electors themselves. Of course, since the 19th century, the popular vote method has been the “Manner” of choice for all of the states. However, the actual Electors are chosen by political party convention. It is this slate of electors that the voters cast their ballots for. For example, each presidential candidate represents a slate of electors chosen by his respective party. When people vote, they are actually voting for the slate of electors representing their candidate, not the actual candidate. The slate of electors chosen to attend the Electoral College in December is that of the winning candidate, who is chosen by popular vote.

Related Reading:

QUORA: ‘Why does the Electoral College of the United States of America exist?’

Voting Rights are Not the ‘Most Fundamental Right’—or Even a Fundamental Right

Wouldn't going by Popular Vote be an even worse system than the Electoral College?

Was the Electoral College a ‘Compromise to Protect the Institution of Slavery?’

Can Wealthy Candidates Actually ‘Buy Their Way into Office?' No, and Yes

QUORA: ‘Did the Founding Fathers ever intend for the People to elect the President? Is there anything in the U.S. Constitution that requires an election for President to be held?’

In his otherwise relatively accurate answer to this Electoral College question, John Cates wrote:

The only fly in the ointment in modern politics is when extraordinarily wealthy people without merit manage to buy their way into office.  It doesn’t always work, but too often, it does. 

Here is my comment to John Cates:

Constitutionally, I think this answer is well explained, and based on that I upvoted it despite certain misgivings. E.G. I completely disagree that the Georgia election law is “horrendously discriminatory.” 

I also believe that the following statement needs clarification: 

“The only fly in the ointment in modern politics is when extraordinarily wealthy people without merit manage to buy their way into office.  It doesn’t always work, but too often, it does.”

Taken literally, it almost never happens that any politician buys his way into office. There was a recent case in New Jersey in which a City of Hoboken city council candidate was convicted of trying to buy his way into office by paying voters $50 bribes for their mail-in ballots. Vote buying does happen. But this is not a “fly in the ointment” of our political system. Electoral bribery has always been illegal. And it is very rare.

Much more common, and more insidious in this welfare state era of massive redistributive government, is a different form of politicians “buying their way into office” -- or buying their way to reelection -- and its all legal. Again in New Jersey, Governor Phil Murphy, who is up for reelection in 2021, conspired with Democrats in the legislature to, in effect, buy his and legislative Democrats reelection—with taxpayer money.  In 2020, they passed a budget bill that would send $500 rebate checks to most NJ voters right before the 2021 election. One Republican justifiably accused Murphy of “looking to buy his reelection with your money.” It wasn’t only Republicans. Tom Moran, editorial page editor for the Star-Ledger, NJ’s largest newspaper and generally Left-leaning, called the gimmick a bribe masquerading as a tax credit.

But the charge that “extraordinarily wealthy people without merit [can] manage to buy their way into office” is usually used to rationalize restrictions on private spending on political campaigns and causes. Such restrictions are unconstitutional violations of free speech. No matter how much money a candidate has to spend on his own campaign, he must still persuade enough voters to support him. In the 53 voting years since my first vote in 1968, I’ve never encountered anyone who justified his/her vote based on a candidate’s net worth or campaign spending account. When people fill out their ballots, I doubt very many have the amount the candidates spent on their campaigns on their minds. If a wealthy candidate manages to win, no guarantee, it is because voters were persuaded—not an easy task, even for deep-pocketed individuals. For every Donald Trump who manages to get elected, there are many more Michael Bloombergs or Tom Steyers who flop. Yes, buying their way into office happens. But it’s not wealthy individuals merely exercising their free speech rights. It’s corrupt politicians literally bribing people, in both lawful and unlawful ways. 

It’s true that modern campaigns require lots of money. Candidates, after all, have to reach a mass audience. But there is little substance or evidence to the charge that wealthy individuals have any special advantage in elections. Candidates have myriad ways to raise money. Even if they did, so what? It’s still up to voters to decide. There is no credibility to the charge that political spending constitutes buying into office.

Related Reading:

QUORA: ‘Why does the Electoral College of the United States of America exist?’

Voting laws: How Georgia compares to other states -- By David Wickert forThe Atlanta Journal-Constitution

QUORA: 'I haven't heard any valid reason to restrict other than felony crimes. Why are so many state legislatures trying to put restrictions?'

Does the Electoral College Allow 'a Minority of Americans to Control Us All?'

A New Jersey Star-Ledger op-ed proclaims, The Electoral College allows a minority of Americans to control us all. This was written by—can you believe it?—two Rutgers Law School students, Edward Monaghan and Jessica Friesen. These two are—can you believe it?—enrolled in the International Human Rights Clinic.

You don’t even have to look past the title to see that these two don’t seem to understand America. When you read the very first sentence, their lack of understanding is confirmed. “The Electoral college,” they proclaim, “is antithetical to the founding principles of this nation, that the people will choose who governs them.”

Defying history, the Founding Fathers radically reinterpreted the relationship of the government to the governed. They conceived of a nation in which no one controls anyone. Each of us, as individuals, have the freedom to self-govern our own lives based on the inalienable individual rights to life, liberty, and property. The government doesn’t control us at all; neither does a minority of voters; and neither does a majority.

Monaghan and Friesen complain that the Electoral College “does not fairly represent all voters,” based on the number of people represented by each Elector in each state. This “voter inequality” is unfair, they say. But the Founders were primarily concerned with liberty, not democracy. To protect those rights, the Founders devised a system of governmental checks and balances, the purpose of which is to prevent a liberty-crushing concentration of political power. The Electoral College is an integral part of that system. Keep in mind that this is the United States of America. The balance of power applies to states, not just voters. 

Monaghan and Friesen are obviously biased toward the national popular vote. But there is nothing sacred about that. They ignore that the process of choosing the Electors is determined by state legislatures, who themselves are chosen by popular vote. The bottom line is that the entire electoral process begins with a popular vote, including the process of choosing the president. There is nothing magical or inherently necessary about a national popular vote, as opposed to state popular votes or, within the states, district popular votes or local popular votes. 

It’s not that voting isn’t important. That “the people will choose who governs them” is certainly a Founding principle. Voting is fundamental -- to the electoral process. But it is not primary. There is a hierarchy to rights, according to the Founders. First come rights. Then comes government. Then comes the process of voting. The Founders properly placed checks and balances above process. “Voter inequality” is not unfair, within the context of liberty and balance of power. And neither is the Electoral College. 

Monaghan and Friesen fret that:

The system has led to serious consequences that go beyond just determining the president but also who serves on the Supreme Court and who decides critical issues that will impact our lives, our children’s lives and our grandchildren’s lives.

It would be horrifying if the “critical issues” were decided by elections, rather than by each of us as free individuals. Unfortunately, we’re already too far from our Founding principles. That so much of our lives is already at the mercy of election outcomes is what is “antithetical to the founding principles of this nation.” Eliminating the Electoral College would just pull us further from those principles.

Monaghan and Friesen need to learn about America’s Founding principles. And they need to learn that human rights means individual rights, or they mean tyranny. Nor is governance about ‘the will of the people,” a dangerous Robespierrian term that Monaghan and Friesen use to delegitimize Trump’s presidency. With all of the talk of “safe spaces” on college campuses, of which Monaghan and Friesen are undoubtedly well familiar with, it is noteworthy that the Founding Fathers are responsible for the original safe space--the equal, inalienable rights of all individuals.

Related Reading:

QUORA: ‘Why does the Electoral College of the United States of America exist?’

Voting Rights are Not the ‘Most Fundamental Right’—or Even a Fundamental Right

On This Constitution Day, Remember the Declaration of Independence

QUORA: Why are the Clinton supporters mad at the Electoral College if they knew beforehand it would decide the winner?

QUORA: Why are the Clinton supporters mad at the Electoral College if they knew beforehand it would decide the winner? Why didn't they say something before the election?

I posted this answer:

The implication is that Trump is not the legitimately elected president. But that’s false.

Though a reluctant Trump voter, I am not a Trump fan. But I have to say: The whiny sore losers who have been calling Donald Trump illegitimate because he failed to win the national popular vote are hypocrites. Throughout the 2016 campaign, most pollsters were consistently predicting a close popular vote but a large win for Hillary in the Electoral College. We regularly heard that Trump had a difficult “path to victory” based on the electoral map, even at points where he pulled even or slightly ahead in the popular tracking polls. Where were these high-minded Hillary supporters when it looked like the Electoral College would work in her favor? Not a peep.

And what about the 2004 election between George W. Bush and John Kerry? That race almost produced an exactly opposite result, with the Electoral College heavily favoring the Democrat John Kerry. In 2004, a swing of a mere 60,000 votes in Ohio, which Bush narrowly won, would have handed John Kerry that state’s 20 Electoral votes, making Kerry the president with a 271-266 electoral win; this, despite G. W. Bush’s 3+ million national popular vote majority. Bush’s margin was larger than Hillary’s, yet Kerry came within a whisker of victory. 32 Ohio Democrats actually voted not to certify the state’s electoral votes in a failed attempt to overturn the election results.

Does anybody really believe that, had Trump won the national popular vote but lost the election, or if Kerry had squeaked by in Ohio, that these same folks would be screaming their heads off about how “unfair” it all is or refusing to attend the inaugurations of the “illegitimate” President Kerry or President Hillary Clinton? Don’t make me laugh.

Trump and Clinton both went in and played by the same electoral rules, as established by the U.S. Constitution. Both campaigned for an Electoral Vote majority, not a popular vote majority. Trump won the election fair and square. Trump is the legitimately elected president of the United States.

RELATED: See my answer to the QUORA question 'Why does the Electoral College of the United States of America exist?'

Related Reading:

Democrats Contest Ohio Electoral Vote, But Bush Officially Re-elected

On Trump as ‘Illegitimate’

QUORA: 'Can anyone give me a logical reason why we Americans are the only democracy using an Electoral College to choose our presidents?'

QUORA *: Can anyone give me a logical reason why we Americans are the only democracy using an Electoral College to choose our presidents?

I posted this answer:

Precisely because America was Founded on the principle of individual sovereignty and rights, whose government is a servant designed to protect those rights. As such, the democratic process was essential but not fundamental. America was never Founded as a democracy. It was a constitutionally limited republic.

There are numerous good reasons for having the Electoral College, in my view. But the most important was to head off a concentration of power within any one man or branch of the government. Given the primary objective of securing individual rights to life, liberty, and property, it was extremely important to limit government force through separation of powers to ward off tyranny—not just the tyranny of Kings, popes, and other kinds of dictators, but also the tyranny of an unconstrained popular vote. Hence, the Electoral College, under which the state legislatures, presumed to be less subject to mob passions and better informed by experience, were made responsible for choosing the electors, rather than depend on a direct national popular vote.

Keep in mind that state legislatures are popularly elected. But, being more seasoned by experience and legislative debate and compromise, they were considered to be an essential intermediary between the momentary and shifting passions of the popular masses and the extraordinary power of the presidency. The Electoral College must be considered within the context of the separation of powers doctrine, and thus a logical aspect of a free society based on individual rights.

Related Reading:

QUORA: ‘Why does the Electoral College of the United States of America exist?’

Was the Electoral College a ‘Compromise to Protect the Institution of Slavery?’

Avoid ‘Majority Rule’—Keep the Electoral College in Fact and in Spirit

Wouldn't going by Popular Vote be an even worse system than the Electoral College?

Voting Rights are Not the ‘Most Fundamental Right’—or Even a Fundamental Right

QUORA: Can't We Make the Electoral College More Democratic?

The Conscience of the Constitution—Timothy Sandefur

* [Quora is a social media website founded by two former Facebook employees. According to Wikipedia:

Quora is a question-and-answer website where questions are created, answered, edited and organized by its community of users. The company was founded in June 2009, and the website was made available to the public on June 21, 2010.[3]Quora aggregates questions and answers to topics. Users can collaborate by editing questions and suggesting edits to other users' answers.[4]

You can also reply to other users’ answers.]

QUORA: ‘How do we get rid of the Electoral College forever?

QUORA *: ‘How do we get rid of the Electoral College forever?

I posted this answer:

There is only one way that I know of—amend the Constitution (though I think that would be a mistake given that the College is an integral part of governmental checks and balances).

I might add that the proposed “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact,” should it ever be adopted, does not do away with the Electoral College. It just reorients its application. The popularly elected state legislatures would still hold the Article 2, Section 1 authority to appoint the Electors.

RELATED READING:

My posts on the Electoral College, including answers to QUORA inquiries.

* [Quora is a social media website founded by two former Facebook employees. According to Wikipedia:

Quora is a question-and-answer website where questions are created, answered, edited and organized by its community of users. The company was founded in June 2009, and the website was made available to the public on June 21, 2010.[3]Quora aggregates questions and answers to topics. Users can collaborate by editing questions and suggesting edits to other users' answers.[4]

You can also reply to other users’ answers.]’