An Information Network

When our constitution was written two centuries ago, our founding fathers faced many challenges in creating a system that would provide for the fair governance over what then were thirteen highly diverse countries.

The main hurdle on the road toward a cohesive federal government lay in the issue of representation. States containing major metropolitan areas with the lion's share of America's inhabitants, such as New York or Massachusetts, wanted representation in the federal government to be allocated solely on population. They claimed that, in a democracy, legislation should be passed based on "The will of the people."

But this idea did not suit all of the people. The smaller, more sparsely populated states, such as Rhode Island and Delaware, believed that representation in the government should be equal for all of the states in the union. Therefore, they suggested that each state have the same number of representatives; after all why should two or three of the most populated states run rough shot over the whole of the country, dictating policy to all of the others?

This dilemma was resolved in the idea of a bicameral legislature. The House of Representatives was established based on "The will of the people." The number of representatives per state is based on the population of that state. Conversely, each state is represented in the Senate by two senators. The Senate was established on the principle that all of the states in the union are of equal standing; we do not favor Virginia any more than we favor Maryland in this country.

This is the structure which has made us the most stable and democratic nation in the history of mankind. The Senate prevents us from being governed by a tyranny of the majority, mob rule. The House likewise prevents us from being governed by a tyranny of the minority.

And so this noble concept of a balance of power through representative government extended into the system which we use to select a president of the United States.

The Electoral College system is neither archaic, nor is it undemocratic as some unscrupulous people would have you believe. It is a cornerstone of our democracy which guarantees proportional representation.

When you vote for a president of the United States, what you are actually doing is selecting which party will decide on the electors for your state. The number of electors is equal to the sum of your states representatives and senators, so it is directly proportional to the population of the state. They then meet in their respective state capitals one month after the popular vote is cast. Most states bind Electors to vote for the declared candidate of the party which won a majority in that state as a matter of law.

On Tuesday November 7, 2000, we voted for a president of the United States. As it turned out, Al Gore received a narrow majority of the popular vote but George Bush ended up with the majority of Electoral College votes. The fact that George Bush was elected President of the United States while his opponent won the popular vote is a testament to how just and vital the Electoral College system is. Undoubtedly, many people are taken aback by this; they ask "How could this be possible?", especially Gore supporters; let me explain:

When all was said and done, Al Gore and the Democratic Party only won a majority in 21 states, (40% of the union), while George Bush and the Republican Party won a majority 29 states (60% of the union). The only reason why Al Gore won the popular, or "Raw vote", is because two of those states, California and New York, have a disproportionately high population rate. New York State has over 18 million people, many of which live in the New York City area. California has approximately 33 million people, many of which live in the Los Angeles and San Francisco metropolitan areas. The combined population of California and New York dwarfs the populations of even half a dozen normally populated states.

But the Electoral College keeps population concentration in abeyance by providing for the equality of the states while maintaining representational proportionality. Why should voters in 3 or 4 metropolitan areas be able to nullify the will of the people in scores of thousands of townships across our nation?

Our system may allow for those metropolitan areas to hijack elections state-wide, but it stops them dead in their tracks from hijacking the country. Our founding fathers feared such disproportionality, and the Electoral College insures fairness.

There are those people, who for whatever purpose, are now seizing on the results of this election to try and manufacture enough popular outrage to abolish the Electoral College.

I beg of every American not to listen to them.

The abolition of the Electoral College would be so inherently catastrophic to our constitutionally democratic way of life that our country would end up destroying itself as poorer and less populated states would grow more and more disenfranchised from the electoral process. The result would be that 20% of the union would end up dictating the fate of the nation to the other 80%. My friends, THAT would be inherently unfair, inherently undemocratic and anti-American.

The College is a check on the system to make sure that the selection of the president of the United States is legal and just, accomplished with proportionally while maintaining the integrity and sovereignty of the states which comprise the union in which we live.

Ari Adam Spett

# # #

---

© Ari A. Spett, 2000.