Tag: Electoral College

Fallacy of One Person – One Vote

George Noga

“The right to vote is a consequence, not a cause, of a free social system. Its value depends
on strictly delimiting the voters’ power; unlimited majority rule is tyranny.” (Ayn Rand) 
Fallacy of One Person – One Vote

By: George Noga – March 1, 2020

        Our February 2, 2020 post about the Electoral College generated one of the highest open rates on record and left readers asking for more. We are happy to oblige. This post further probes: (1) the wisdom of the Electoral College; (2) problems innate in popular vote elections; (3) perceived inequalities in our federalist system; and (4) inherent problems of a one person, one vote system. Visit our website: www.mllg.us to read our 2/2/20 post in case you missed it the first time.

         Progressives consternate about what they view as egregious inequalities in the US federalist electoral system – particularly in the Senate and the Electoral College. They are particularly fond of pointing out that California (population 40 million) and Wyoming (580,000 people) each have 2 senators. They call this undemocratic. They are ignorant that under the Constitution senators represent states, not people.

         We need to go back to first principles. What is the purpose of government? Is it to actualize the will of the majority at any and every moment? If instant actualization is what you want, a popular vote system will deliver it – as in the French Revolution. Or instead, is the measure of good government whether it is effective at creating long-term justice, freedom, security and stability – like in the US for the past 233 years?

       Of 195 countries in the world today, only a few, mostly in Central and South America, use popular vote; how has that worked out? Canada’s Senate has members, appointed by the Governor General, who represent regions and are not based on population. In Switzerland each canton, regardless of size, has two members. The Senate in Australia has 12 members for each state – independent of population. Most nations use a variant of the parliamentary system, wherein majorities are rare.

          Majorities usually tyrannize minorities. Consider Switzerland’s solution. In a one person, one vote system, Italian or French-speaking Catholics feared tyranny by German-speaking Protestants and vice versa. To allay such concerns, the Swiss adopted a double majority system in which important matters require a majority of the popular vote and also a majority vote in a majority of cantons. The Swiss system has endured for 729 years and counting. Note: When rural Swiss go to vote today, they carry rifles and swords as symbols of how their freedom was attained and preserved.

        Consider Iraq with its Shia, Sunni, and Kurd factions or Afghanistan with its many feuding tribes. Particularly relevant is the former Yugoslavia; when the Serb majority demanded one person, one vote the country disintegrated into chaos resulting in genocide and the deaths of 140,000 people. How did that work out?

       When drafting the Constitution, America’s founders considered the history of majority tyranny and, on multiple occasions, rejected a popular vote. The states had stark differences. Slave states and free states were in conflict. Small states were concerned about domination by large states. Agricultural states were at odds with industrial states. Inland states worried about maritime states. Pietists in New England, Catholics in Maryland and Lutherans in Pennsylvania worried about each other.

       Those demanding a national popular vote and restructure of the Senate believe things are different today. Although differences between states may have moderated since our founding, many significant chasms remain. More to the point, human nature has not changed since 1787 and tyranny of the majority remains of great concern. A present-day poster child for this is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Imagine what horrors would be loosed on America if she and her squad ever acquired unchecked power.

       The Constitution of the United States of America has served us well for 233 years, including the Electoral College and the makeup of the Senate. Those advocating for fundamental change are ignorant both of history and of human nature.

Next on March 8th, we blog about UBI – Universal Basic Income.  
More Liberty Less Government  –  mllg@mllg.us  –  www.mllg.us

There is No Such Thing as the Popular Vote

George Noga

The United States is not a democracy and there is no such thing as the popular vote.

There is No Such Thing as the Popular Vote
By: George Noga – February 2, 2020

 

The Electoral College (“EC”) gets no respect! Hillary’s 2016 loss whipped progressives into a frenzy, prompting much talk about abolishing the EC; there also has been action. A leftist, Soros-funded organization, National Popular Vote (“NPV”), aims to overthrow the EC. Thus far 16 (blue) states with 195 electoral votes have passed legislation to cast their votes for whoever wins the national popular vote. The NPV compact takes effect if and when states with 270 electoral votes ratify the pact.

       It is past due for MLLG to provide a full-throated defense of the EC. Following are compelling reasons why the Electoral College is preferable to a popular vote.

The United States of America is Not a Democracy

       The US is a constitutional republic; the word democracy is nowhere to be found (not even once) in either the Declaration or the Constitution. The EC is consistent with, and a popular vote is inconsistent with, a republican form of government. A national popular vote would destroy the carefully crafted constitutional architecture which is based on federalism, separation of powers and checks and balances. A direct popular vote would sever the election of the president from the rest of the constitutional forms and would create a myriad of new troubles including tyranny of the majority.

There is No Such Thing as a National Popular Vote

      There are many things crucial to winning a presidential election: fund-raising, advertising, grass-roots organization and personal campaign appearances. Republican candidates would not waste precious and limited resources on New York or California. No democratic candidate would squander such resources on Texas or Wyoming.  Moreover, if you were a democrat voter in Utah or a republican voter in Illinois, just how motivated would you be to vote, knowing your vote for president is meaningless?

       The simple truth is that there never has been and there is not now a true popular vote in America. There is only a meaningless total of votes cast within the electoral college system. No one knows who would have won a popular vote since none existed. Therefore Hillary did not win the popular vote and, as shown infra, could have lost.

Hillary Probably Loses a True Popular Vote Election

       Since 1824, when popular votes first were recorded, 19 presidents, or 40% out of the 48 elections since then, failed to receive over 50% of the vote. In a true popular vote election there would be a runoff if no candidate received 50%. In 2016 Hillary got 65,853,516 votes to Trump’s 62,984,825. In a runoff Hillary probably gets Jill Stein’s 1,457,216 Green Party votes and Trump gets Gary Johnson’s 4,489,221 Libertarian Party votes. Trump then wins with 67,474,046 votes to Hillary’s 67,310,732.

      Not only would Hillary likely have lost the 2016 popular vote election, Bill also would have lost in 1992. Bill got 44,909,806 votes, Bush 39,104,550 and Perot 19,743,821. If Bush picks up 65% of the Perot vote, he wins and Bill loses and most observers believed Bush would have gotten a strong majority of the Perot vote.

Other Nations Don’t Conduct Popular Vote Elections

       Few countries use popular vote; most advanced democracies use indirect systems. In the recent Canadian election, Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party won with 33.0% of the vote to the Conservative Party’s 34.4%. Parliamentary systems, ubiquitous throughout Europe, routinely elect minority leaders. In virtually no democratic system is the popular vote decisive. The measure of our system is how effective it is at bringing about just, free and stable government. A popular vote, like in the French Revolution, does a good job of actualizing the will of the people. How did that work out?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

        Our Constitution is the best and most enduring document ever created to define the relationship of man to the state. The Electoral College contains fraud within small jurisdictions, reduces federal power over elections and fosters the building of broad coalitions while discouraging regionalism. It has served us well for over 232 years. It is a foundational safeguard against the tyranny of the majority. We need to preserve it and importantly, we must help our fellow Americans understand why it is worth keeping and not to be discarded whenever there is a tough electoral loss.

Next on February 9th, we shine our light on the 2020 presidential election.
More Liberty Less Government  –  mllg@mllg.us  –  www.mllg.us

If the Election Goes to the House of Representatives

George Noga
What happens if the presidential election goes to the House of Representatives?
You could be in for a surprise; the process may not work the way you believe.
By: George Noga – March 2, 2016

      MLLG is providing this post as a service to our readers. It is way too early to speculate about the outcome of the election; however, the possibility of a third (or fourth) party candidate is much greater this year. Michael Bloomberg is poised to enter the race and to spend billions of his own money under a variety of scenarios such as a Trump nomination or a Clinton indictment or medical crisis. Trump could run if denied the Republican nomination. There are some other plausible scenarios as well.

    Most Americans know if no candidate receives a majority in the Electoral College, the election goes to the House of Representatives (“House”). Once the election goes to the House however, the process operates much differently than is generally believed. You may want to print this post and retain it for future reference just in case.

    In early January 2017 in a joint session of the new Congress, the President of the Senate opens the Electoral College ballots; tellers count them; and the results are announced by state in alphabetic order. If there is no majority, the Twelfth Amendment prescribes what happens. The House must choose among the top three receiving votes in the Electoral College – the 12th Amendment says this is to be done “immediately”.

    Each state gets one vote regardless of size; Wyoming counts the same as California. To be elected president, the winner must receive 26 votes. Under a rule of the House (not a Constitutional provision) a majority of each state’s delegation must vote for one candidate. Florida has 27 house members; a majority of 14 is needed for Florida’s vote to count. There are 7 states with only one house member (AK, DE, MT, ND, SD, VT and WY); how they vote determines their entire state. If there is no majority (a tie for example) that state’s vote is not recorded. The process continues as long as necessary.

    Meanwhile, the Senate chooses the vice president from the two highest vote getters for vice president. Each senator gets one vote and a majority of 51 is needed for election. There is no requirement that the Senate coordinate its vote with the House and it is possible the president and vice president could be from different parties. Note: The 12th Amendment requires a quorum of two-thirds of the Senate to be present before voting for vice president; thus, any party with 34 senators could prevent a vote.

    The term for President Obama and Vice President Biden ends at noon on January 20, 2017. If the House has not acted by that time but the Senate has, then the Senate’s choice for vice president becomes Acting President. If neither the House nor the Senate has acted by January 20, then the Speaker of the House becomes Acting President with the President Pro Tempore of the Senate next in line.

    The president has been elected only once before under the 12th Amendment. In 1824, a four way election between Andrew Jackson, John Quincey Adams, William Crawford and Henry Clay left Jackson 32 votes short of an electoral college majority. Clay threw his support to Adams and on the first ballot Adams received 13 votes of the 25 states then extant – giving him a bare majority and the presidency.

    The next time you find yourself in a conversation and someone brings up the possibility of the 2016 election going to the House, you will be loaded for bear.

 The next post on March 6th revisits our favorite topic – climate change.