Defending the
Electoral College, Part 3: When a Majority Doesn't Work
by Steve Farrell
Read Parts 1, and 2
George Chapman observed,
in 1605, "Young men think old men are fools." And so do
progressives.
As the Constitutional
debate over the future of the Electoral College has found renewed
vigor in our day, there certainly is no shortage of youthful, progressive,
cocksure "experts" exuding but one message: The Founders
were narrow, provincial men who took no thought for tomorrow - while
we, the elite class of the latter days are a better educated, more
forward-looking group of Universalists, who are so much the wiser.
But wisdom doesn’t
work that way. Wisdom slows down, takes a deep breath, looks back
into history and humbly searches the moral and political memory
banks of those "old men" for a few valuable lessons. Wisdom
knows that if one fails to learn from history, one will ultimately
fail.
It was respect for the
wisdom of the senior class that inspired the Founders to wear white
wigs, because back then, generally older meant wiser.
Where is that humility,
patience and respect for tradition today? In a "crisis,"
moderns prefer to arrogantly and impulsively do whatever it takes
and get it over with, regardless of the principles compromised,
regardless of the long-term risks, regardless of how they trample
upon the graves of their forefathers.
Consider election 2000.
One side believed in essence, ‘if we lose the electoral college
count, fair and square, let’s insure victory next time by
reinventing the counting process, reinventing the Constitution,
converting a Republic into a democracy, and call the move progressive,
and our opponents reaction, backwards.’
On the other hand, many
of those on the side who benefited by the electoral college, when
confronted with tough questions like "why not one person one
vote?" are too often inclined not to take the time to rummage
through dusty old books in search of ageless answers, but to cave
in, in order to fit in.
One person, one vote,
one national tally sounds like a good rule, but if we listen to
the voices of the past, we might just learn that flat-out majority
rule is not the best rule. After all, absolute reliance upon the
wisdom of majorities without the balance and checks of other considerations,
can get us into big trouble. De Tocqueville wrote in 1832: "If
ever the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event
will arise from the unlimited tyranny of the majority."
Lincoln echoed the same:
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author
and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time,
or die by suicide." Moderns don’t seem to understand
that liberty brings with it those kinds of risks, and that to decrease
the risks, the Founders put together something more complex than
majority rule, a republic.
John Marshal, chief justice
of the Supreme Court between 1801 and 1805, explained: "Between
a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that
between order and chaos." An over-reliance on majority opinion
can bring injustice, stupidity and eventual suicide.
Evidence abounds:
• By majority vote,
ancient Israel rejected a free system of judges, for kings.
• By a majority (unanimous) vote, Christ was convicted and
sentenced to death.
• By majority vote, Greek city-states came and passed away
in violent, short-lived fits of passion.
• By majority vote, Rome changed from a free republic to a
brutal empire.
• By majority vote, the British House of Commons soundly rejected
Thomas Jefferson’s proposal to abolish slavery in colonial
Virginia.
• By majority vote, the British House of Commons passed the
Stamp Tax, and other oppressive measures, which led to the War of
Independence.
• By majority vote, the Continental Congress forced Jefferson
to remove from the Declaration of Independence a passage calling
for the abolition of the British tradition of slavery in the United
States.
• By majority vote, the Sedition Act of 1798 passed, restricting
liberty of speech and the press.
• By majority vote, in the early and mid 1800’s, the
institution of slavery continued and spread to new states as they
joined the Union.
• By majority vote (of Southern States), the South seceded,
state by state, initiating a civil war, the bloodiest war in U.S.
history and the beginning of the end for states' rights.
• By super majorities, Congress and the states passed the
17th Amendment in 1913, rejecting America’s most important
check against socialism and federal domination of the states - the
election of U.S. Senators by state legislatures - in favor of the
direct election of the Senate by the people. Within a decade socialism
was introduced in America.
• Ever since, by majority vote Americans have adopted one
socialist measure after another, until the majority have come to
believe that the federal government has the right to forcibly redistribute
wealth and control nearly every economic, educational, and social
activity in this nation, moving us toward the diametric opposite
of the inspired system our Founders gave us.
• Sometimes, by majority vote, compelling evidence against
murderers and others is thrown by the wayside by juries, in favor
of racial, political, social, and religious causes or issues which
have nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the accused, resulting
in innocent men going into prison or bankruptcy, and guilty men
being set free and made, on the backs of others, rich.
• By majority vote, a president of the United States, guilty
of perjury and obstruction of justice was acquitted, because a feigned
majority (represented in opinion polls) told these Senators that
a conviction would hurt their reelection chances, and so they refused
to examine the evidence, making a mockery of the American belief
in equality before the law, setting a precedent for later presidents
that they are above the law.
• Finally, This big city/state majority feels that it matters
not that the opposing presidential candidate in the year 2000 won
the support of 2,434 counties, compared to its candidate's 677 counties;
that the opposing candidate won the approval of the people who live
in over 2.4 million square miles of U.S. territory as compared with
its candidate's half a million miles, that the opposing candidate
won 60 percent of the states, compared to its candidates 40 percent,
and that the opposing candidate captured the virtual representation
of 143 million Americans v. its candidate's 127 million (virtual
representation meaning the Electoral College rule gives the winner
in each state the electoral backing of the entire population of
the state, including those who failed to vote).
The majority makes mistakes, sometimes dreadful ones. To help prevent
this, other factors need to come into play which often halt the
mistakes of a misinformed, emotionally driven, self-centered majority.
Things like unalienable rights, constitutional checks, division
of powers, state rights, alternative or appellate court hearings
(upon appeal) - things our founders thought of, but sometimes, we
forget or ignore or endeavor to do away with.
Here are some examples
the Founders put in our system to check pure majority rule.
• Appellate
courts of state and federal judges (with no jury involved) reverse
the decision of people’s courts of original jurisdiction.
• Civil convictions can be used as a back-up to hold accountable
those who fooled the majority of the jury on capital charges, and
this because more liberal rules of evidence apply. The O.J. Simpson
provides an example.
• A President’s veto checks the majority will expressed
in congressional bills.
• Supreme Courts declare unconstitutional laws approved by
majorities of both Houses of Congress.
• Congress and the President can pass legislation to reverse
the majority decision of the Supreme Court, or to limit its jurisdiction.
• Constitutional amendments override Constitutional laws previously
approved by supermajorities of the people.
• Amendments are won, not by simple majorities, but by a tough
and time consuming house by house, state-by-state process, in search
of new supermajorities.
• The Bill of Rights overrules laws which violate those rights.
• Presidents issue pardons (as do Governors) which overthrow
the majority votes of juries, the affirmations of appeals courts,
and prevent civil court action from taking place in the interest
of preserving the peace, or reversing a possible injustice.
• State legislatures (like in Vermont) create laws which reject
a law approved by the national will in Washington. All of which
points to one thing, obtaining a sense of the majority will is important;
but the majority will is not the word of God (as some claim), because
in far too many cases, it is about as far from that word as one
can go. We all know this is true. So who are we trying to kid by
insisting upon pure democracy?
Our government is a republic, and republics, though imperfect, are
careful about making laws and initiating change. They explore the
law from a variety of angles, rather than just the one angle of
the majority. If anything, what is needed is to shore up and restore
our Republican features, not throw them out or tear them down.
American statesmen John
C. Calhoun warned: "People do not understand liberty or majorities.
The will of a majority is the will of a rabble. Progressive democracy
is incompatible with liberty. Those who study after this fashion
are yet in the hornbook, the ABC of governments. Democracy is leveling--this
is inconsistent with true liberty. Anarchy is more to be dreaded
than despotic power. It is the worst tyranny. The best government
is that which draws least from the people, and is scarcely felt,
except to execute."
Some of our worst mistakes
as a nation, and by other nations have been made by majority vote.
It is only by considering the rights and interests of a broad sweep
of our nation that we hope to avoid making such errors again. That
is why we have a Republic, and why we have such features as the
electoral college.
The tendency of moderns
to arrogantly and impulsively do whatever it takes to win, to move
on, to avoid having to draw upon the past and think about it, is
as great a danger as a free people can face.
Yes, "Young
men think old men are fools." but there’s more to Chapman’s
quote: "Old men know that young men are fools." Perhaps,
with a little bit of wisdom, a little bit of listening and learning,
a little bit of patience and a little bit of faith, some of those
young progressives might find out why this is so.
Click
here to sign up for Meridian's FREE email updates.
© 2002 Meridian
Magazine. All Rights Reserved.
|
