By Alex Xenos for RealClearPolitics
In line with federalist rules, the Structure provides the states management over our presidential elections, offering a test on majoritarianism.
Because the 2000 presidential election, the left has labored to undermine the legitimacy of the Electoral School, labeling it a relic of slavery. Little doubt, if Donald Trump returns to the White Home whereas once more dropping the favored vote, these assaults can be renewed with fervor. In truth, it has already begun as commentators denounce the undemocratic nature of the system. Simply final month, the New York Instances revealed a piece trashing the Structure and asserting that the Electoral School’s solely goal was to guard slavery. These critiques are based mostly on misconceptions and hostility towards the very construction of our Structure.
RELATED: Florida Sues Over Violent International Nationals Being Launched from Jail into U.S.
The Historical past
Our methodology of electing the president happened by compromise. The framers agreed upon a system that ensured the states had a say in selecting the president. The Structure provides every state a share of electors, and the states resolve for themselves the right way to choose these electors.
On the time of the constitutional conference, widespread elections would have favored the North as a result of the North’s inhabitants of free individuals would have outstripped the South’s. This dynamic is why the South pushed for a system that proportioned the electoral vote based mostly on inhabitants, together with slaves.
However nothing within the Electoral School system inherently favored slavery. You possibly can have had an Electoral School system that didn’t rely slaves as a part of the inhabitants for the aim of distributing electors. Thus, it was the counting of slaves in proportioning electors by way of the notorious two-thirds clause that protected slavery.
In truth, even when slavery had by no means existed, the states would by no means have agreed to a way of electing the president that stripped them of getting a say within the matter. Defending state sovereignty and making certain much less populous states had affect have been key options of the compromise. Subsequently, slavery could have been one among a number of causes for the compromise, nevertheless it actually was not the cause.
RELATED: ‘Diversity’ Doesn’t Embody Disabled Veterans Like Me
The Deserves
The best way state delegations elect the chief government could have been the product of compromise, however that doesn’t detract from the deserves of the system, which embrace geographic illustration and respect for state sovereignty. That is true even for those who imagine the Electoral School is part of slavery’s legacy.
In a nationwide election, in a rustic as massive and numerous as ours, illustration based mostly on geographic segments of the inhabitants is way superior to the mob rule of a purely widespread vote. We’re not a monolithic society. Life and views fluctuate based mostly on location. That is very true when you think about the variations between state governments, which are a magnet for various kinds of folks.
America is a gigantic nation, and a system based mostly solely on the favored vote would enable densely populated cities to dominate. This dynamic is especially problematic when one considers that city populations usually need to impose their tradition and coverage preferences on others, whereas rural populations usually need to be left alone. Simply take into consideration how Democrats need nearly every part to be regulated nationally by the feds.
However no matter this left-versus-right paradigm, it’s merely higher to provide the totally different geographic parts of the nation and the states a voice on nationwide issues to considerably reduce the power of the bulk to steamroll political minorities.
Moreover, as a lot because the left would like to abolish the states, there isn’t a United States with out the states themselves. Our federalist system permits for higher illustration of various segments of our inhabitants and, subsequently, permits for higher governance. The states, as separate sovereigns, should have a say in who turns into president.
The Electoral School additionally impacts the politics of presidential campaigns. Candidates are compelled to contemplate the respective views held in numerous states, significantly of these voters within the much less partisan swing states. This political circumstance has a approach of diffusing energy and lessening the deal with densely populated cities, permitting for views exterior of the city thought bubble to take part.
One other widespread assault on the Electoral School is that it’s undemocratic. However American authorities was by no means meant to be based mostly on democracy. Relatively, democracy was meant to be a element, albeit an essential one, of our constitutional republic. The safety of liberty and the rights of people are way more essential than the power of the bulk to impose their will.
RELATED: Walz Subpoenaed for Oversight of $250 Million Fraud Scheme
Furthermore, the president shouldn’t be even purported to be a consultant of the folks in our constitutional system. That’s what the Home of Representatives is for. Thus, the argument in opposition to the Electoral School is an argument not simply in opposition to our Structure’s federalist rules however in opposition to the Structure’s separation of powers as effectively.
Our Electoral School system may not be good, nevertheless it is much better than an election by direct widespread vote, which disregards our federalist rules.
Alex Xenos is an lawyer and a Younger Voices contributor. His writing has appeared within the Boston Herald, The American Spectator, DC Journal, and NH Journal, amongst different publications. Comply with him on X @AMXenos.
Syndicated with permission from RealClearWire.
