Time to Fix the Electoral College

The method of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in that state is a product of the American environment after the Revolutionary War. States, not the national government, were paramount.

As presently constituted, the Electoral College disenfranchises millions of Americans every four years. The institution of the Electoral College should be retained, but the method of allocating electoral votes should be revised to apportion them based upon the popular vote in each state. This issue is addressed below, based solely upon sources from the Constitutional Convention of 1787 itself.

A Union of States, Not a Federal Government

In the summer of 1787, some of America’s ablest men met in Philadelphia “to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union.” Recognizing the precarious state of the Union, the attendees developed the United States Constitution, far exceeding their charter, which was merely to amend the existing Articles of Confederation.

 The Constitution was framed in an environment in which individual states were more powerful than the national government. The thirteen colonies had rebelled against Great Britain, securing their independence from the mother country. Successful, they entered “into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare…” Thus reads part of Article III of the Articles of Confederation, establishing the United States of America, the government of which was embodied in a single-chamber Congress made up of two-to-seven members from each state.

But this was not truly a federal government. There was no national executive, nor a national judiciary. Congress could not levy taxes: it had to requisition money from the states, which were not compelled to respond. Frequently, states simply chose not to provide funds to Congress. The states printed their own (often worthless) paper currencies, negotiated their own trade agreements, taxed each other’s commerce, declared war on the Indians and largely did whatever they wanted, ignoring the restrictions of the Articles as was convenient. It also required an all-but impossible unanimous vote of all thirteen states to amend the Articles, ensuring that the welfare of one would prevail over the good of all.

It is possible, from reading the notes of certain delegates to the Convention, to deduce that THE most significant concern facing the delegates was the striking of a balance between the fledgling national government and the established states. A new, federal form of government that stripped too much power from the states was in danger of not being ratified by nine of those very states, as was required by the proposed Constitution. And a government containing a strong executive would awaken still too-fresh memories of rule by a tyrannical monarchy.

So, a document was crafted, containing concessions and compromises that were necessary to gain the approval of both the delegates and also of the state ratifying conventions. Even Alexander Hamilton, who played a key role in the ratification of the Constitution[1] referred to it as “a bundle of compromises.”

Items that today seem hardly worth discussion were vitally important during the Constitutional Convention, such as navigational rights on American waterways and who could negotiate international treaties. These matters were indicative of the important role of states at the Convention. Those who supported ratification of the Constitution were dubbed ‘Federalists:’ Those who opposed, ‘Anti-Federalists.’ It was a contest between those who favored a central government and those who supported state’s rights.

It is true that factions also existed between small and large states, and northern and southern states. But these alliances could shift and change with the issue being discussed. Those who subscribed to federal and state perspectives remained constant in those views.

An ideological concern at the Convention was that of giving the uneducated, uninformed public the power to select the President. There was much debate over the how to elect the members of what became known as The House of Representatives. Roger Sherman of Connecticut said “The people should have as little to do as may be about government. They lack information and are constantly liable to be misled.” Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts added “The evils we experience flow from an excess of democracy.”

Charles Pinckney of South Carolina said that election by the people was impracticable in South Carolina because the settlements were sparse. It was difficult to get voters together to cast their ballots.[2] He also said that, “The citizens will be free and equal but the States will be unequal, and their sovereignty will be degraded.” If some delegates felt that the people shouldn’t elect the House of Representatives, is it any surprise that they didn’t trust the fate of the Presidential election to the general population as well?

Multiple Proposals for Electing the President

The method of selecting the President was one of the final issues to be resolved and many proposals had been made over the course of the convention. Flaws were identified in each and the issue remained unresolved as the Convention moved towards its final days.

Selection by the National Legislature
On May 29, Edmund Randolph of Virginia unveiled what is now known as The Randolph Plan, which served as the framework for the Constitution. That same day, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina also introduced a plan of government (which was referred to a committee and not discussed). Both plans posited selection of the President by the National Legislature. William Paterson of New Jersey [3] and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut[4] also proposed election by the National Legislature

However, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts said that a President appointed by the National Legislature would show favor to those members who appointed him[5]. George Mason of Virginia agreed, arguing that a President elected by the Legislature could become complaisant to the Legislature in hopes of improving his chances of re-election.[6]

James Madison asserted that it would “agitate and divide” the Legislature, setting it against itself in battle over who should be President. It is inconceivable to us today to imagine the President directly selected by The US Congress, the US House of Representatives, or both, with no input from the people.

Selection by Election District Electors
On June 18, Alexander Hamilton of New York introduced a plan of government that would institute a President for life (sounds a bit like a monarchy). The states would be divided into Election Districts and delegates chosen by the Districts would elect the President. Hamilton’s radical plan, including the method of executive election, was ignored by the Convention.[7]

Selection by State-Designated Electors
Oliver Ellsworth proposed that the President be selected by delegates chosen by the state legislatures.[8] This is essentially a modified version of the Electoral College method. He apportioned the number of delegates based on state populations, but there was significant debate on the number of electors to be awarded to each state. It should be noted that it was state legislatures, not the people, which would select the delegates. 

Hugh Williamson[9] said that having electors choose the President would be expensive and troublesome. He then supported having the National Legislature pick the President, based on both ease and convenience.

Selection by State Governors
Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts proposed that the President be selected by the state governors. However, Edmund Randolph of Virginia countered that the President would court the favor of the governors and their states. He also mentioned the cost and difficulty of bringing the governors to one place to select a President.[10]

Selection by State Legislatures
Madison spoke against appointment by the state legislatures, pointing out that times might arise when a majority of the state legislatures have a common purpose and select a President sympathetic to that purpose. The National Legislature would then be subservient to the state legislatures through the powers of the President.

Selection by the People
Paterson’s New Jersey Plan featured a weak executive. Supporter Roger Sherman said, “The Executive magistracy is nothing more than an institution for carrying the will of the legislature into effect. The person or persons ought to be appointed by and accountable to the Legislature only, which is the depository of the supreme will of the society.” Federalists lined up on the opposite side, arguing for some form of popular election which would vouchsafe the separation of powers among the branches. However, smaller states feared the larger states would dominate popular election and many (most) delegates felt that the populace weren’t ‘qualified’ to select the national executive. Direct election by citizens had few champions.

The Electoral College at Last
The Electoral College was devised as a compromise measure to get enough support to settle the issue. Election of the President was one of the final matters to be resolved before the delegates adjourned.

 The large states were pleased that the number of electors was based on population. Small states were satisfied that the House of Representatives would select the President if no candidate received a majority of electoral votes. Finally, the state legislatures were appeased by being given the right to choose the electors.

People, Not States, Should Elect the President

We are not citizens of a state. We are residents of a state: we are citizens of the United Stares of America. The strictures that bound the Founding Fathers are no longer applicable.  Due to the climate and practical realities of 1787, the government that was forged struck a balance between the Federal and state governments. That distinction is today an artificial one. William Patterson of New Jersey stated that the delegates met as the deputies of 13 independent, sovereign states, for federal purposes. He doubted that they could consolidate the states’ sovereignty and form one nation, annihilating the sovereignties of the states.[11] Common at the time, such a notion is completely unthinkable today. The United States of America is greater than the fifty-two individual states that make it up.

But the President is not elected by the people: the President is elected by the states. Has not America granted voting rights far beyond that granted by the Founding Fathers? Suffrage has long since been extended beyond white, male, property owners.

Yet, due to the exigencies of a time long passed, every four years, millions of voters are institutionally and systematically disenfranchised. In 2004, 5,509,826 voters in California cast their ballots for George Bush Those votes counted for nothing. That same year, in Ohio, 3,583,544 supporters of John Kerry should have just stayed home: their votes did not matter.

The Electoral College need not be abolished. However, state electoral votes should be awarded proportionate to the popular vote. Thus, all votes cast will count towards election of the President. This is in direct contrast to the current system, in which only the votes cast for the majority in a state count.

The Constitution is an enduring document, and its creators included a provision for future amendments as times dictated. But the meeting in Philadelphia did not produce a flawless document. For example, the Founding Fathers declared that the Senate should be chosen by the state legislatures. And so it was, until the 17^th Amendment, ratified in 1913, decreed that Senators would be elected directly by the people. 

And so it is that in 2016 and beyond, the States should no longer elect the President. Electoral ballots should be awarded based on the popular vote within a state, enfranchising American voters not only in name, but in voice.

The popular mantra of “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” cannot be followed here. It should not take a crisis similar to the election of 1800 to right a wrong and fix a flaw[12]. In 1824, Andrew Jackson received more popular votes, but John Quincy Adams carried the Electoral College. Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888) and George Bush (2000) received fewer popular votes but carried the Electoral College, frustrating the will of the people in favor of the states.

 In our increasingly apathetic society, those who fulfill their responsibility to vote should be rewarded, not disregarded.  

---

[1] Hamilton is credited with writing at least XX of the Federalist Papers. These were anonymous essays, published in newspapers, supporting and explaining the proposed Constitution. Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay wrote a total of XX essays. 

[2] Rufus King’s Notes for June 4

[3] Rufus King’s Notes for June 13

[4] James Madison’s Notes for June 25

[5] Robert Yates’ Notes for June 9

[6] Rufus King’s Notes for June 3

[7] James Madison’s Notes for June 18

[8] James Madison’s Notes for June 19

[9] William Pierce’s Notes for May

[10] Robert Yates’ Notes for June 9

[11] Robert Yates’ Notes for May 9

[12] In 1800, Aaron Burr, running as Thomas Jefferson’s Vice Presidential candidate, utilized a loophole in the Constitution and actually received the same number of electoral votes for President as Jefferson. It took 36 ballots to break the deadlock. Four years later, Aaron Burr shot and killed Alexander Hamilton, who was credited with carrying the election for Jefferson. The XII amendment to the Constitution addressed this flaw, specifying which offices candidates were vying for.

A (Thoughtful) Christian Perspective on the Election

If you watch science fiction shows like Star Trek and whatnot, you’ve probably run across the word “anomaly” a time or two. Basically, it means an odd or bizarre circumstance (hey; I’m not Merriam-Webster. It’s good enough).

I don’t know that we will see a more perfect example of an anomaly during our time than millions of Christians being disappointed that a Mormon was not elected President. I’m not sure you can fully appreciate the unlikelihood of that. In any election year other than 2012, several million Christians rallying behind a Mormon in a campaign against a professed Christian, would be Twilight Zone-ish.

Mormons are not Christians. The very root, the one, fundamental thing that makes a Christian a Christian, is the belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and, quoting John 14:6, Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. Period. If you don’t believe that Jesus is the Son of God, you are not an actual Christian (I mean, look at the root of the word!). Barrack Obama has presented himself as a Christian since before his run in 2008. Unfortunately, his actions and don’t bear out his professed beliefs. At best, he’s a misguided Christian.

So, Christians found themselves choosing between a pseudo-Christian and a faux-Christian. And millions chose the one who, admittedly is not a Christian. I’m reasonably sure this is because, the ‘Christ as savior thing aside’ (talk about ignoring the elephant in the room!), Romney better reflected Biblical values than Obama did. So, many Christians voted for someone who is diametrically opposed to their most fundamental belief. I get it: I voted for him.



Hey: when else am I going to get to use
an Ace Frehley album cover? I like Kiss. Which  may
be an anomaly itself...

But you want an anomaly? THAT is an anomaly.

There seems to be much gnashing of teeth, wailing and beating of breast among Christians with Obama’s re-election as President. 

The separation of powers built into the US Constitution is the bell weather of democracy. I assert that the single greatest power of the Presidency is the ability to nominate Supreme Court justices. The Supreme Court has more influence on the morality and foundation of this county than any other entity.

It was the Supreme Court that instituted the separation of church and State (it is NOT in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Look it up). And it was the Court that allowed abortion (do you think the Founders built in the murder of unborn babies?). And it is the Court that decides the balance of power between the national and local governments. So, the most enduring impact of Obama’s re-election will be related to how many Justices he gets to nominate in the next four years.

To the Christians who are morose, distraught and feel crushed that their candidate (again, a Mormon..) didn’t get elected, you  need to turn to your Bible (which is pretty much ALWAYS the right option).

Romans 13:1 says, Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God.

And in verse 4, The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good.

God’s plan, right now, is for Barrack Obama to be President. I don’t know why. I don’t know why it’s his plan for my son to have asthma. I don’t have to understand: I just have to accept and to believe.

Psalm 27:1 tells us, The Lord is my light and my salvation – whom shall I fear? The Lord is the stronghold of my life – of whom I shall be afraid?

The President of the United States is the leader of this country. But he is not the leader of your life. And his relationship with God and the actions he takes are between him and God. But the Lord of your life is Jesus Christ. And events are proceeding according to God’s plan. Keep that in mind as we move on in the next four years.

Nationwide Arena? Yeah, that was a great purchase

'Franklin County taxpayers have little on the line in hockey lockout.'

“It turned out to be an excellent deal for the taxpayers,” Riggs said.

A misleading headline and quote in today's Dispatch. Little is on the line because millions of dollars in casino revenues are already obligated to the Nationwide Arena purchase. That money is GONE whether or not they play hockey. If you've ever heard of the term, 'sweetheart lease deal,' this is one. For the Blue Jackets.

The Blue Jackets and Nationwide were the winners in the arena sale (I guess you could say it's nice the Blue Jackets can at least win off the ice) The County and City gave up the casino moneys, meaning central Ohio residents were the losers. Public bailouts of multimillion dollar corporations don't just happen in Washington.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/09/19/whats-the-impact.html

And something that I didn't see the Dispatch mention: The owner of the Blue Jackets voted to support the NHL Commissioner locking out the players. So, the public buys the hockey arena, then the team's owner votes not to play hockey.

This is the same owner that threatened and bullied Franklin County and the City of Columbus into buying Nationwide Arena, freeing his team from an onerous lease agreement that ownership willingly entered into. In an arena that was built privately  because Columbus taxpayers voted NO to public funding of it.

Wow. A solid citizen who clearly wants what is best for Columbus and central Ohio.

Make sure you visit the Columbus Casino, source for the government bailout of the poor Columbus Blue Jackets

President Obama said he was a Christian

I find this to be an interesting piece from President Obama from 2008:



Especially at the 1:07 point, when he talks about living out what it means to be a Christian. If you are a Christian, and you read the Bible, I cannot see any possible way you could come to the conclusion that today he sincerely believes what he said in 2008. It's easy to say that one is a Christian. I know quite a few people who say they are, but have really created their own personal religion. And they'll realize what they've done when it's too late.

It takes a genuine effort to actually live as a Christian and to follow what the Bible tells us. Obama is the only one who knows whether or not he has truly accepted Jesus as his savior. But words and actions can be seen by all, and the man is not living as a Christian follower of God.

I voted for Obama in 2008. I find it disheartening that just four years later, as a Biblical Christian, I view a Mormon as the best choice for President. To give Mitt Romney credit, he is honest about what he believes in. And his beliefs are a lot more rooted in the Bible than Obama's.

I have never said this before, but I miss Ronald Reagan. Change Russians to radical Islamists and try to picture President Obama making this speech: http://www.nationalcenter.org/ReaganEvilEmpire1983.html

Now, someone recently said that Obama couldn't live out his Christian beliefs as President because "that's why separation of church and state is in the Constitution." You know what, No, it's NOT. 'Separation of Church and State' is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote. He was referring to the First Amendment as a tool to keep government from interfering with religious practice. It was the Supreme Court under Earl Warren that turned the phrase on its head so that the restriction would be on the citizens, not the government.

What the Constitution does have is:

The Establishment Clause - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."; which is immediately followed by

The Free Exercise Clause - "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Separation of church and state is a general term used to describe a concept. It is NOT a concept written in the Constitution. Go look up the first amendment. BTW, the founding fathers didn't even include those two clauses in the original Constitution. James Madison got them added in the Bill of Rights, passed AFTER the Constitution was ratified.

When Congress tries to pass a law establishing a national religion, then it will be violating the Constitution. Supreme Court decisions regarding church and state have been used by uninformed individuals to create their own version of the Constitution (just like the personal religions mentioned above). Those decisions are part of the law, but they are NOT a part of the Constitution. Just semantics? I don't think so.

In 2008, it served Obama's presidential aspirations to say that he was a Christian. In 2012, he believes it furthers his chances to take actions that fly in the face of the Bible. The pilgrims (who seem to be forgotten today) came to America to found a Christian nation. In 2012, we're a far cry from one.

It's a Dilbert World

As a joke yesterday, I climbed across the receptionist's desk in our front lobby. She's a germaphobe (and WAS a friend). I thought it was funny. Apparently she didn't, as I received the following email from HR shortly thereafter, with the Subject line of : Horseplay
Bob,

Your actions this morning in the lobby are troubling and could bring about discipline for horseplay, misuse of county property, and discourteous treatment of a co-worker.  It could have resulted in injury to yourself, others, or county property.  I will assume it was a temporary lapse of judgment, but please refrain from similar behavior in the future.

The HR person who sent it is a friend and I thought it was a joke. Nope, dead serious.

This is the most ridiclous thing yet since I started here. And that's not a short list.

VOTE!!

The apathy of Americans towards voting is both sad and disgusting. There is no privilege that Americans should cherish more than the right to select their representatives at all levels of government. Take a little time out of your day and go to the polls and cast your vote today.

And if you don't vote, then keep your opinions and comments to yourself for the next year. If you don't care enough to vote, I don't care enough about what you think to listen to you.

Ann Coulter - Clueless

I'm both a Christian and a Republican. And it is SO disappointing to hear the blatherings of shallow blowhards like Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck. They typify right-wing extremists who embarrass rational Republicans and certainly missed the boat on Christ's message.

I saw a book at Barnes and Noble this weekend (Actually, I saw several). But this one was a piece of revisionist history that posits that Joseph McCarthy had it right. Joseph. McCarthy. Good guy. Yeah. Right.

But it was the quote from Coulter on the cover that grabbed me.

The most important book since the Bible.

It's both ridiculously wrong and overblown hyperbole. And it's kinda funny, because McCarthy had a lot more in common with the moneylenders in the temple than he did with Jesus Christ. I'm betting she missed the irony in that reference.