Article 1; Section 1: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
During the debates on the Constitution in 1787 one of the hotly debated issues was the manner in which a President and Vice President would be elected. The debates on this matter are easily accessible and no representative is without excuse for not knowing these debates. The most assured point is that the election of the President was not to be a popularity contest. Small states sought equal representation in elections so that the larger states could not unfairly use their population and size to undercut the voice of their own states. This was to be a Republic, not a mob rule democracy.
It is sentimentally nice to think that all that should matter in a national election is the popular vote. Whoever wins the most votes, wins the election. This thinking has been brought on through an educational system that fails to understand the advantages of an electoral system that seeks to give fair representation to the minority voice as well. Just as large States should not have the ability to impose their will on smaller states, as the founders said at a time when the entire population of the United States of America was less than 4 million people; today we should be looking for ways within the individual states to give fair and equal representation to the entire state.
In Pennsylvania, Presidential elections need only focus on major cities. These major cities are also the most rampant places for voter registration fraud and as seen in the last Presidential election, literal voter intimidation. Just glancing at a map of how the people voted we find that most areas in the state voted opposite of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh but the voice of the rest of the state is silenced through the popular vote. The rest of the state, through the winner take all democracy stance yields ALL electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state rendering all other votes null and void. Now we are seeking to turn that into a nationwide Democracy of mob rule rather than the Republic, for which WE STAND.
We are a Republic. Not a Democracy. Perhaps no principle exemplifies this more than the Electoral College and if it were implemented as intended, to give equal representation to all voices, then there would be no discussion of a national popular vote.
Benjamin Franklin was asked after the signing of the Constitution what type of government we had been given and he replied “A Republic, if you can keep it!” The National Popular Vote will take us one giant step towards destroying what is left of the Republic.
We are a nation guided by a rule of laws firmly established in the Constitution of the United States of America. Those laws are intended to protect the rights of all, not just the majority view of Democracy which was described by our founders as being “two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner”. Many are fighting to destroy what is left of the Republic our founder’s gave us and the National Popular vote is another attempt to move away from being a Republic towards being a pure Democracy.
Even when not abused, as it is during this administration, the office of the President of the United States of America is far too important an office to be decided solely upon a majority vote.
Franklin said that the Republic would stand until people realized they can vote themselves more money. We are in those times. Votes are generated through entitlement programs, not based upon what is good and right for the whole country. Major cities voter bases are largely populated by people who are dependent upon entitlements from the Government. Corporations establish their offices in major cities where they benefit from more of the government’s doling out of corporate welfare initiatives. Most of the major cities are drains to the economy of the rest of the country and are in such debt that they are crippling the rest of their state. The education in these cities is often deplorable. Living conditions for many in these cities is often far below sub-standard. And each of these cities in crises have demonstrated a shift from the governance of a Republic to the governance of a Democracy and we wonder why they are failing. Now we seek to embrace that ideology for the whole country.
The National Popular Vote is an affront to all that our founders fought for. It was a viewpoint during the Constitutional debates that held no strength and was held by only a few representatives, who conceded upon hearing the arguments against it. The National Popular Vote is an affront to all that a Republic Stands for. As the language of the bill states, it works towards the complete elimination of the Electoral College by rendering it pointless. As such, it is an attempt to change the Constitution of the United States without going through the Amendment process.
By forming a collective of states under a contract, it seeks to establish a new form of governance replacing what our founder’s intended and it seeks to undermine the Constitution of the United States.
Does the Constitution frame what we, as American’s believe? Are we a Republic or are we a Democracy? That is the real question this bill poses cleverly disguised in a feel good winner take all popularity choice. I for one, am passionately opposed to it because I do believe we are a Republic and I do believe the Constitution is a rule of law that should not be strategically by-passed through an attempt at manipulating its intent or rendering just one of its principles useless purely for political gain without first seeking to amend the Constitution as provided for within its own language.
The Electoral College was unique to America in its foundation of the principles of a Republic and remains unique to America in recognizing the rights of each individual state while giving strength to the weaker voice of the smaller states. Any attempt to remove it is to topple one of the pillars of America.
Defendants of the proposal are quick to state that they are not in violation of the Constitution of the United Sates according to the 12th Amendment of the Constitution. That might be true but what about Article 1; Section 10 (printed here with the violating sections in boldface and underlined).
Article 1; Section 10: No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque or reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit ; make anything but gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts; or grant any title of nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Some of our Founders thought on Democracy vs. a Republic
• Virginia’s Edmund Randolph participated in the 1787 convention. Demonstrating a clear grasp of democracy’s inherent dangers, he reminded his colleagues during the early weeks of the Constitutional Convention that the purpose for which they had gathered was “to provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and trials of democracy….”
• John Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, championed the new Constitution in his state precisely because it would not create a democracy. “Democracy never lasts long,” he noted. “It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.” He insisted, “There was never a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.'”
• New York’s Alexander Hamilton, in a June 21, 1788 speech urging ratification of the Constitution in his state, thundered: “It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.” Earlier, at the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: “We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy.”
• James Madison, who is rightly known as the “Father of the Constitution,” wrote in The Federalist, No. 10: “… democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths.” The Federalist Papers, recall, were written during the time of the ratification debate to encourage the citizens of New York to support the new Constitution.
• George Washington, who had presided over the Constitutional Convention and later accepted the honor of being chosen as the first President of the United States under its new Constitution, indicated during his inaugural address on April 30, 1789, that he would dedicate himself to “the preservation … of the republican model of government.”
• Fisher Ames served in the U.S. Congress during the eight years of George Washington’s presidency. A prominent member of the Massachusetts convention that ratified the Constitution for that state, he termed democracy “a government by the passions of the multitude, or, no less correctly, according to the vices and ambitions of their leaders.” On another occasion, he labeled democracy’s majority rule one of “the intermediate stages towards … tyranny.” He later opined: “Democracy, in its best state, is but the politics of Bedlam; while kept chained, its thoughts are frantic, but when it breaks loose, it kills the keeper, fires the building, and perishes.” And in an essay entitled The Mire of Democracy, he wrote that the framers of the Constitution “intended our government should be a republic, which differs more widely from a democracy than a democracy from a despotism.”
In light of the Founders’ view on the subject of republics and democracies, it is not surprising that the Constitution does not contain the word “democracy,” but does mandate: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.”