Back in July 2018, I began a series of posts on democracy which ended with a discussion on the "Electoral College," a term not found in the Constitution. I am somewhat surprised to see what I wrote about back then emerge as a potential issue for political debate in the upcoming presidential election in 2020. In this post, I would ask that my readers revisit what I said in the posts on democracy which I posted last July. Click here, here, and here to take an excursion on how I understand democracy as defined by the United States Constitution to get up to speed with what I will be addressing in this post.
Pure democracy is like pure oxygen. It sounds good until one realises how combustible it is when exposed to the unreasoned flame of populist passion.
I am a registered Democrat, who supports many liberal and progressive ideas. In saying that, most could reasonably assume that I am in favor of eliminating or effectively gutting what has become known as the "Electoral College."
Let me be very clear: I am not in favor of doing any such thing!
It horrifies me that liberal politicians and some states are not only advocating doing so but are in the process of doing just that. The motive to do so is obvious; avoid the travesty that resulted in the last presidential election and is embodied in person of the current incumbent. The idea of ridding this nation of presidential electors has been a can kicked around the alleyway of the United States for some time. The problem is that any move to eliminate or further minimize the role of electors is nothing more than an ill-thought reaction to an election or elections gone wrong. The problem is not with the elector, but the way states have used them throughout this nation's history as political pieces to weigh a states' popular vote in presidential elections.
THE ELECTOR PROBLEM
How we elect the President of the United States is a concern; so too is the mindless way of treating electors as numerical pawns to weight a given state's popular vote in presidential elections. If states wished to remedy this problem, they would do well to de-politicize the role of electors by freeing them from the obligation to vote for a particular party's nominee should an elector consider it a bad idea for the nation. Unfortunately for the nation, the role of the elector has never been given a meaningful role or purpose apart from providing political gravitas to a state during a presidential election year.
GUTTING THE CONSTITUTION
The Second Article of the U.S. Constitutions, in identifying electors as the means to elect the President is deficient in defining the role of electors, as I have mentioned in past posts. The lack of constitutional definition needs to remedied by amendment of the role via state legislative action, not by circumventing or exploiting the role as exhibited by current liberal leaning states to use its electors as counting pegs to do the bidding of the popular, national majority. Such an attempt accomplishes nothing more than to gut the Constitution by rendering much of the Second Article useless and setting a precedent for states to further circumvent and dismantle the distilling process of democracy and the rule of law that is the beating heart of the U.S. Constitution.
To put it bluntly, the U.S. Constitution exists, in large part, to protect the Republic of the United States of America against the tyranny of democracy via a populist insurgency that can arise within the nation's electorate. We've had a taste of that type of insurgency in our most recent presidential election precisely because the role of the electors is so poorly defined in the Constitution. Considering that a hostile foreign entity was able to manipulate a section of the electorate in the most recent presidential election to the extent that state electors were used to elect a president that favors such an entity should give the nation pause to think about the role of electors. The answer, however, should not be a quick fix by consigning the role of the elector as being some sort of constitutional oddity.
Consider the possibility and the probable likelihood of an effort to undermine an election, as has been done by a hostile entity (i.e. Russia) through social media, being applied on a much larger scale; let's say in a variety of populated areas throughout the nation. Eliminating electors or neutering their role does not eliminate the problem of a hostile entity's interference. It will merely result in that entity casting a wider web and shifting the direction of such efforts to a broader and perhaps diverse population. Treating the role of electors as the problem is taking away the one constitutional means of remedying the cancer of enraged populism via the use of propagating false and misleading information via social media to a vast majority of the populace.
A TEMPERATE BARRIER
As mentioned in my previous posts on democracy, it is my belief that the role of the elector was meant to create a temperate barrier against populist sentiment that is often focused on narrow minded, self-serving political interests posed as threats to various demographic groups within the nation's electorate. The unfortunate reality in this country is that voters are more likely to pay attention to a message that appeals to their fears rather than their hopes and aspirations.
I believe the role of the elector was intended to be as apolitical as humanly possible; that is, above the fray of the mash and sludge of a common political sentiment found in the initial stages of the democratic process that ultimately results in selecting a President and Vice President. I see the role of the elector as using factual information, a keen understanding of the Constitution, and a stringent vetting process in determining the persons who are best fit to hold the highest singular offices in the land; that of the President and Vice President of the United States.
FIXING THE PROBLEM
Through constitutional amendment and definition, electors should be required to forfeit any ties to political parties, should not be involved in running any state or federal agency, should not hold or have held any state or federal office for a designated period of time, and should not have been a lobbyist or directly connected to any business the utilizes lobbyists. The Elector's sacred duty to this nation should solely be that of choosing the President and Vice President of the United States from amongst the nominees who have risen to a percentage level of popular votes that merits consideration by a true Electoral College.
In other words, the popular vote would be instrumental only to the extent of elevating candidates to the level of a nominee worthy of consideration by the Electoral College. Once the decision as to which nominees merit the College's consideration is made, the decision who should hold these offices would be turned over to the electors. It's a tall order, but the fact that the role of the elector is being brought to the surface of political debate requires that before gutting the Constitution, we take a long hard look at what it contains and, in particular, why it includes the role of electors in choosing who should occupy the highest offices in the land.
SWINGING THE PENDULEM
The "Electoral College" debate as it is currently emerging is a good thing, however, roles identified in the Constitution; particularly, those related to the branches of government should not be reduced or eliminated by a reactionary moment or a reactionary movement to elections perceived as "gone wrong." Our republic works best when the pendulum of government swings rhythmically at a steady beat that is neither too far left nor too far right. Democrats would do well to avoid attempting to swing the pendulum too far left as a means to correct or compensate for it having swung too far right in the last presidential election. The mid-term election has given the legislative pendulum some balance and though we are far from enjoying a truly bi-partisan effort in calming things down and getting back on track in the performance of their Constitutional duties, there are signs of recovery at work.
Presidential politics must change. Using the "Eliminating the Electoral College" mantra to stir popular/populist sentiment is wrong and wrong-headed. Above all, choosing the President must not become a popularity contest. True campaign reform is written into the Constitution already; particularly, with regard to presidential elections as hinted at in the role of the elector. Defining the use of electors as independent guardians of the Constitution to ensure that whoever holds this powerful office is right for the job is greatly needed.
I firmly believe that this is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they created this role. As mentioned in other posts, I also believe that it was left undefined because they lacked the political clout at the time to bring it to the level I have described in this post in order to ensure the Constitution's ratification by the original thirteen states. Instead of trying to use electors to weight the nation's popular vote in Presidential elections, states should define the role of its electors (as allowed by the Constitution) to be independent and free to deliberate who best would serve this nation as its chief executive in the cause of preserving our Republic by protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States.
Until next time, stay faithful.
Norm
No comments:
Post a Comment