The very important historical memory of the Electoral College
WASHINGTON: The Electoral College intent is not to prevent democracy. It is (or was) to elect a chief presiding officer over a union of sovereign republics. The, almost vicious, cries for the elimination of the electoral process are in realty cries for “democracy” within our Republic. It is the rueful cry of the mob. A single state driven and governed by a single popular vote. A single lynch-mob.
“I think it needs to be eliminated,” Hillary Clinton says of the Electoral College. “I’d like to see us move beyond it, yes.”
“It is well past time we eliminate the Electoral College, a shadow of slavery’s power on America today that undermines our nation as a democratic republic,” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrote.
The constitutional means to elect a president typically comes under fire from the likes of Ms. Clinton or a Ms. Casio-Cortez. They are but two, of the many, party politicians, a cast of animals of which the framers greatly disdained. Also, typical of people, like a Clinton or a Casio-Cortez, those who have little pertinent knowledge of something as basic as a constitutional backdrop in history, cry the loudest.
Their notorious supporters such as monstrous statist disciples writing for the Huffington Post also collude with many of the same untutored ilk. From the right or the left, Republican, Democrat, or any political party, in their cry to change the “outdated” electoral system ignorance shines.
This is modern NeoCon and left wing socialist historical blather principally derived from the rhetoric of European socialist revolutions of the mid-Nineteenth century. Cries of power to the people, en masse. It’s what Casio-Cortez refers to as a “democratic republic.”
A system wisely devised
The electoral system defines a system of voting for the president of a republic of republics. Whereby there is the also a limited and qualified number of people voted as representatives to govern; all republics simply being in union.
That is: The state does not govern the people; the people are governors of the state.
Usually the left demands a “will of the people.” The “popular” vote as truly serving the rule of all the people. The fact is, the so-called popular vote was never meant to be counted. There is no popular group of people within an amalgamation of a single state of the U.S.A. Only people in their localities of states, joined together to honor and defend each other, i.e. These United States, not, The United States.
“These” states have apportioned votes, issued by electors, in a combination of population plus state entity to choose a president.
The United States is….
It was only a few years after the Civil War that the United States is the singular “The United States is…” This as opposed to “The United States are…” Each of the sovereign states, in union, are, under the constitution to vote for a president of their choice. That vote being through electors; not a popular one man – one vote basis. The electoral represent the will of the state’s people. Equally. Regardless of the size, or the density, of the state.
The Neocon gangs of pseudo historians such as Newt Gingrich, Rich Lowry or Victor Davis Hanson, or minor league fumbling wannabe historians such as Dinesh D’Souza, Brian Kilmeade or Rush Limbaugh promote the constitutional requirement of the electoral college under a banner cry of a single state sovereignty (the U.S.A.). This stance supposedly makes them conservative, right of left.
Deliberately or not, these nationalists are soft supporters of Clinton-Casio-Cortez et al.
Gingrich once told Bill O’Reilly that the cause of the civil war settled this question: “There is one sovereignty.”
Oddly enough Newt also said that slavery was the settling question, and cause. Go figure. Superficial historians pretend as actors and end up contradicting their own lines. But, if there is a single national sovereign, then electoral votes are merely proportionate numbers of votes cast from national areas.
Statehood be damned! The republic be double-damned!!
The individual and sovereign states, the independent republics, are meant to elect the president by their populations vote. Plus equal senatorial weight. But to the Neocons this sovereignty does not exist anymore than the sovereignty of the state. Had these states ratified an agreement whereby they were no more than unequal county governments, with the lesser populated states given a little extra power, there would be no Constitution.
Patrick Henry refused to attend the Constitutional Convention because: “I smell a rat.” He called them rats. Today we call them Neocons.
Electoral versus Popular vote a stately choice
Furthermore, the states have the authority to choose their electors as they see fit. Whether they allow a popular vote to choose electors is a (supposedly) state decision.
Semantics is a study not simply of the changes of signification of words, historically, but also psychologically. It would not be a surprise to note that both Clinton and Casio-Cortez failed to identify properly the procedure for no longer operating under the electoral college.
So, their choice of “elimination” as opposed to “amending” perhaps is more than semantics.
Lead Image: Map of the Electoral College: By Gage - 2012 Electoral College map, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=35172210