Partin is a third-year political science student.
By Jerod Partin
Sarkis Babikian’s submission “Outdated electoral
college system hinders democracy” (Daily Bruin, Viewpoint,
Nov. 13), criticizes the electoral college as an
“outdated” system that “hinders democracy.”
Referring to Vice President Al Gore, Babikian states, “It is
illogical that someone who wins the popular vote has a chance at
not winning the presidency.” Babikian also implies that the
only purpose of the Electoral College was to make it easier to
tally votes for the president. These statements indicate a
misunderstanding of the Constitution.
In the famous Federalist No. 10, James Madison makes it clear
that the founders fashioned a republic, not a pure democracy. While
the founders knew that the consent of the governed was the ultimate
basis of government, they denied that such consent could be reduced
to a simple majority or plurality rule.
As John Samples from the CATO institute states, “Nothing
could be more alien to the spirit of American constitutionalism
than equating democracy with the direct, unrefined will of the
people.”
The constitution puts limits on unchecked power, including the
will of the people, in many ways. At the national level, power is
divided into three branches. It is again divided between the
national government and the states. In the view of Madison, these
divisions of power created a double security for the rights of the
people.
What about the “logical” idea that the winner of the
popular vote should be president ““ the idea of “one
person, one vote”? Isn’t this idea consistent with our
form of government? Not according to the Constitution.
Neither the Senate, nor the Supreme Court, nor the president is
elected on the basis of “one person, one vote.” This is
why Montana, with a population of 883,000 gets the same number of
Senators as California, with 33 million people. If we got rid of
the Electoral College wouldn’t we have to get rid of the
Senate as well? The Electoral College is a major facet of the
American republic and of the Constitution, a document expressly
written to thwart the excesses of the majority.
Babikian eventually states that the bickering in Florida
“makes me feel like my vote in California does not count as
much as a Florida vote.” In response, I would like to point
out one of the major functions of the Electoral College. If we had
popular election of the president, we would probably see elections
dominated by the most populous regions of the country or by several
large metropolitan areas. As a result, there would be many regions
in the United States whose populations are too sparse to merit
attention.
Should a large and diverse nation really write off whole parts
of its territory? In light of the regional conflicts that have
plagued large and diverse nations such as China, Russia and India,
this would seem to be a bad idea.
Furthermore, the Electoral College injects the states into the
process of the presidential elections. In this way it is an
important part of our federal system. Federalism is not only
central to the constitutional system of restraining power, but it
has also proven to be an important aspect of much policy innovation
occurring throughout the country.
At the present time, our country is not experiencing any type of
constitutional crisis. Rather we are viewing a playing out of the
process that our founders intended. Those who wish to get rid of
the Electoral College are free to try and amend the
constitution.
But they must understand that in doing so they will be taking
America away from its roots as a constitutional republic and will
be jeopardizing the freedom of every individual in this nation for
generations to come.