ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE, NO VALUE by T. Edwin Perry
It seems like the battle cry of Democracy: “One Person, One Vote.” And it certainly sounds like a concept that should protect the Freedom and Liberty of a population, something that I totally support. Unfortunately, there’s a problem with the concept, and the problem, oddly enough, is Democracy.
I’ve previously addressed the concept of Democracy in my post WOLVES AND LAMBS, which points out the fact that the United States is NOT a Democracy, but a Representative Republic. Why, you may ask, is because Democracies DON’T WORK! They never have. A Democracy is a form of government wherein EVERY CITIZEN must participate DAILY in its conduct! Nothing can be delegated. Every decision, every action, every discussion, must be considered by the entirety of the voting population, so it only works where there is a very small population with very little common business. In the case of every true democracy that has ever existed, the system inevitably collapses under the weight of its expanding population.
To combat the potential collapse of Democracy, our Founders created a form of government known as a “Representative Republic.” Instead of every person voting to decide every topic, the population would elect by district a representative to administer the government on its behalf. Our Constitution stipulates that the number of representatives for each State in the Federal Congress be divided based upon the population of that state in relation to the total population of the nation, with no state receiving less than one Representative in the House and Two Senators in the Senate. (That’s Article One, Sections 2 & 3, for those who haven’t read it lately.) In this way, all States would be represented in the House, with those States with the largest populations being granted the greatest amount of representation, while at the same time giving each state EQUAL representation in the Senate. The idea was to make sure that the rights and interests of the smallest States were not automatically overruled by the larger, and that, likewise, the smaller States could not impose adverse regulations on the larger States.
Now, here’s where Democracy comes into play: Each Representative in the House is allocated ONE VOTE. As representatives of their respective districts, that representative is SUPPOSED to vote in the best interests of his or her constituents. (For the moment, we’ll ignore the “elephant” of Partisan Politics in the room.) Likewise, each Senator is allocated ONE VOTE. Originally, as addressed in my post THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE, these Senators were to be selected by the State Legislatures to vote on issues relating to the needs of the State Governments; however, that was changed by the 17th Amendment. By administering our government through REPRESENTATIVES of the Population, elected BY the Population, the Freedoms and Liberties of that Population should be protected while leaving that Population free to conduct its daily business without having to administer its government as well.
Now comes the issue of the Electoral College, which is currently under assault. The Electoral College is used for the Election of a President, and, like the selection of Representatives and Senators in the Congress, the Electoral College is intended to administer the selection of the population for the purposes of appointing the President and Vice President in accordance with the wishes of the populations of each State. Where the controversy arises is that it is possible for a President to be elected WITHOUT winning the popular vote of the entire Nation. How, you may ask, is that possible? Simple: In the electoral college system, each State appoints a number of “Electors” equal to the number of Representatives in the House and two Senators. Then, the population of the individual states votes for the President and Vice President. The winner of the popular vote in each State wins the votes of the “Electors” from that State. For example, at the time of the 2000 Presidential Election, Florida had 25 Electoral Votes. By winning the popular vote in the State (Shut your pie hole already, Mr. Gore: the recount showed the winner over and over again, and it wasn’t you. Get over it!), George Bush received all 25 of those Electoral College Votes. While Bush DID NOT win the popular vote as a National total, he did win the popular vote in a sufficient number of States to have enough Electoral Votes to become the President.
There is currently a push to eliminate the Electoral College System. According to Ken Rudin of NPR, the States of Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey and Washington have already passed a law that would apply their electoral votes to the winner of the National Popular Vote, with Massachusetts sending a similar bill on Tuesday to its Governor for signature. A Bipartisan group, named (oddly enough) National Popular Vote endorses the plan. I wonder if the populations of these States are aware of the fact that under this plan, their individual votes become WORTHLESS! If 100% of the population of these states were to vote for a single candidate, in the 2000 election, their votes would have only counted for 14.1% of the National Popular Vote; however, that’s hardly likely to occur, therefore not substantially influencing the outcome of the National Popular Vote. Under this legislation, however, even if the winner of the National Popular Vote DOESN’T win the majority in these six States, they WOULD receive the 73 Electoral Votes FROM these States!
And try this one on for size: of the six States whose legislatures have approved this measure, only ONE of them is among the top 8 States in total population. If a candidate were to win the other 7 states and the National Popular Vote, that candidate would win 278 Electoral College Votes, a total of 51.7% of the Electoral College and a clear majority. One Person, One Vote: Really?
Thomas Jefferson said, “Democracy is nothing more than Mob Rule where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Under the National Popular Vote law, smaller States wouldn’t even need to show up for the vote, and the largest States would control every facet of our Government. The Electoral College, as it currently exists, protects both the rights and the representation of the ENTIRE country!
But under this plan, it’s not One Person, One Vote. It’s not Democracy, and it certainly isn’t AMERICAN. So I say “JUST SAY NO!”
There would be no reason for candidates to campaign outside of major metropolitan areas, so the country’s leaders would be elected by the urbanites, don’t ya think?
IMHO, you are absolutely correct, Bob. If the election will be decided by a single segment of the population, that would be the only segment worth appealing to in order to get elected. It undermines the intent of the Constitution and creates a de facto “Noble” Class, rendering the majority of the nation irrelevant. It is, in fact, the reason why the Southern States seceded from the Union, spurring the Civil War. (The actual issue of slavery was a concern, but it was the fear that a President (specifically, Lincoln) could be elected without winning A SINGLE Southern State in the course of the election…another point I didn’t make.)