fbpx

The Uphill Battle to Preserve the Electoral College

If truth is stranger than fiction, then presidential politics must be the truest part of American government. Consider the 2016 presidential election. The contest featured the two least popular candidates in American history, and the victor had no prior political experience and little understanding of the government he was to lead. He achieved office by winning only a majority of electoral votes, despite having once called the Electoral College a “disaster for democracy.” In the period between Election Day and the December meeting of electors, a high-profile effort by celebrities tried to lure so-called “Hamilton electors” to cast their votes for someone other than Trump. In the name of preventing a demagogue, these electors were asked to ignore the preference of a majority of voters in their states. After the electors’ votes were cast, three of ten “faithless” electors were fined by the State of Washington for violating their pledge to vote for Hillary Clinton, and their suit led to a 2020 Supreme Court decision in Chiafalo v. Washington. No wonder one of the most insightful comments on the election came from a news-parody site, The Onion, which posted a headline declaring that “Electoral College Does What It Was Either Designed To Do Or Explicitly Designed To Prevent.” Who knows what may be in store this time around?

An Enduring Controversy

Some aspects of the American political system have always been a tough sell, and the Electoral College was controversial from its beginning. It was conceived as a solution to the problem of selecting a chief executive who would have sufficient independence to faithfully execute the laws, balance the power of Congress, provide stable administration, and protect the Constitution. Yet it quickly came under attack for separating the president from the people, as the Antifederalist writer “Republicus” made clear: the electoral system, he proclaimed, introduced obstacles and complexities to the “plain simple business of election,” forcing a free people to “resign their right of suffrage into other hands besides their own.” This anonymous Kentucky writer had captured the enduring essence of the case against the Electoral College.

In the decades since the adoption of the Constitution, the Electoral College has continued to be criticized and often misunderstood. It has been presented as confusingly complex (even by people who should know better), undemocratic, and even a mysterious system by which faceless (and faithless) electors really select the president without regard for the “will of the people.” As anyone who has taught American government to undergraduates can attest, the idea that electors are a potentially malevolent force waiting to unleash a coup d’etat and overrule the outcome of the popular vote is a staple objection to the Electoral College held by many Americans.

These criticisms make the process of electing a president seem to be at best a “lottery” (to use the expression novelist and 1968 presidential elector James Michener once attached to it) and at worst a kind of conspiracy. The Electoral College has been denounced as a device to protect slavery and as a means for exacerbating income inequality, although the evidence for the first charge is non-existent and the second claim is a conclusion drawn from the premise that the Electoral College is inevitably undemocratic.

The case against the Electoral College been a staple of American political debate, but it has received renewed attention in the wake of two presidential elections in less than 20 years (2000 and 2016) that awarded the Oval Office to the second-place finisher in the national popular vote. Critics of the electoral system have called for reforming it in a number of ways: by adopting an interstate compact to award electors to the winner of the popular vote, by eliminating electors and making the casting of state electoral votes automatic, by awarding electoral votes proportionately according to popular vote percentage, and—most dear to the hearts of the College’s critics—by the outright replacement of the electoral system with a direct popular vote for president.

The Electoral College has its defenders, although critics of the system seem to receive more attention online and on social media. Three of the most effective advocates for the Electoral College are Allen Guelzo (of the James Madison Program at Princeton University), Tara Ross (a retired attorney and author from Dallas), and Gary Gregg (of the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville). Each has written cogently on the need to maintain the Electoral College, although they are fighting something of an uphill battle. If it were not for the fact that the Constitution is so difficult to amend, the electoral college likely would not still exist, given the criticism it receives.

Into this debate steps a new documentary film, Safeguard: An Electoral College Story. The film, available for streaming on Amazon, is written and directed by M.A. Taylor. Taylor, a conservative filmmaker, directed the documentaries Clinton Cash (2016) and The Creepy Line (2018) and was a cinematographer on Hillary: The Movie (2008), the film that was at the center of Citizens United v. FEC (2009). Taylor and his colleagues have assembled an array of scholars, experts, and activists to present an hour-and-a-quarter case for the Electoral College.

The threat of billionaires buying elections is greater under direct election than under the electoral vote system.

The case is presented in a fashion familiar to viewers of documentaries of recent years. There is an overarching narrative that moves the film forward, punctuated by video clips from historical and contemporary events and insights presented by a variety of expert talking heads. One thing that distinguishes this film is that it is tightly organized to present its case in a fairly systematic fashion, eschewing much of the meandering mode of presentation that is common with many contemporary documentaries. Like many a Ken Burns film, it deploys creative means to present static images of America’s Founders in a way that holds the viewer’s attention.

Fighting the Uphill Battle

A notable element of this defense of the Electoral College is that it goes to great lengths, both in whom it presents and how it frames its case, to make it clear that support for the constitutional system of selecting presidents is not just something that should appeal to white men. Among the first images of the film are clips of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., giving his “I Have a Dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial, and Barack Obama speaking to the 2016 Democratic National Convention on why “I am more optimistic about America than ever before.” The opening narration that precedes the credits is presented by Joseph Pinion, an African American political entrepreneur, businessman, and philanthropist. The experts whose comments form much of the evidence of the film are a diverse group that includes African Americans, a woman (Ross), scholars (including Guelzo and Gregg), politicians (particularly Steve Forbes), think-tank experts, and others. A message repeated several times in the film is that minorities—whether ethnic, religious, viewpoint, or otherwise—have a stake in the Electoral College.

Following the opening credits is a short history of the American Founding, emphasizing the Framers’ determination to produce a system of government that would be “carefully crafted” to protect liberty while promoting deliberation and policy directed to the public interest. The Electoral College is placed in this context as a device for helping to ensure that the presidency is not beholden to the legislature, the states, or even popular factions. The film also makes the case for the Electoral College’s relationship to federalism, and Safeguard presents one of the best defenses of federalism that has been made since the 1980s enthusiasm for “laboratories of democracy.” While the history is necessarily telescoped, it is effective at demonstrating that the Electoral College is more than just an afterthought of the Framers (another charge often leveled against it).

From this grounding, the film proceeds to make its case for the continuing value of the Electoral College as a protector of individual rights, the rights of minorities, and of the two-party system. Given that dismissal of the two-party system as an obstacle to effective governance has also become commonplace, the film makes a fairly bold claim that two-party politics is worthwhile and certainly better than its alternatives. The party system necessitates the building of coalitions in order to win elections, thus avoiding greater fragmentation and tugs toward the extremes than already exist.

Safeguard intentionally takes on the major arguments against the Electoral College. It demonstrates that the critics are right: it is not simple majority rule—and thank goodness for that. The complex system of checks and balances and indirect presidential elections helps to protect individual rights, which simple majority rule could threaten. As Allen Guelzo puts it, “The majority usually gets its way, but not always.” Likewise, it shows that the supposed threat of faithless electors is overstated. The film also addresses the issue of money in politics, showing how the threat of billionaires buying elections is greater under direct election than under the electoral vote system. It even addresses the 2000 Florida recount and points out how that ordeal would likely have metastasized had a direct popular vote system been in effect.

The film’s greatest virtues are its organization (which makes it more effective for educating than entertaining), its use of diverse experts, and its grounding in history. Its treatment of federalism is effective and shows that concern for decentralized authority is not just a defense of segregation. Its commentators are interesting and even lively at times, with Allen Guelzo providing the backbone for the film’s argument in the way that Shelby Foote served in Burns’ The Civil War.

Nevertheless, there are weak spots that deserve notice, especially if one is to recommend the film as a primer on the Electoral College. Surprisingly, Safeguard says little about how electors are chosen by states, which is important for understanding why all the hand-wringing over “faithless electors” is overwrought. When citizens understand that electors are chosen by the parties themselves (however specific state rules provide), they see that electors have little incentive to interfere with their party’s candidate when casting their votes. Moreover, in light of this year’s Chiafalo decision, in which the Supreme Court upheld the power of states to discipline “faithless electors,” the purported threat of rogue electors is vanishingly small. Another shortcoming is that, while the film takes up the possibility of candidates winning in a direct popular vote with only a small fraction of voters (say, a plurality of 25 percent), it ignores the fact that many direct election proposals set a minimum threshold of 40 percent for winning election. This oversight thus ignores a problem with direct election proposals: either they allow a candidate to win with a small plurality, or they potentially require a runoff and thus drag out election campaigns further and raise costs to the sky.

Like many documentaries these days, Safeguard at times blurs the line between the film’s creators and the experts who are interviewed on-screen as authorities. This is not a major problem, but it does leave a careful viewer wondering whether the remarks of some commentators are scripted. This is a problem that also plagues the work of other famous documentarians, but just because it is common does not make it any less problematic.

Safeguard makes a strong case for keeping the Electoral College, but it is still an uphill battle. Too many Americans view the presidential election system simplistically, as my own experience illustrates. A few years ago, Dr. Guelzo was the Constitution Day speaker on my campus and he gave a full-throated and powerful defense of the Electoral College. A bright student sitting near me in the audience listened to him and then just dismissed everything he said with a shaking of his head. “But it isn’t a majority of the popular vote” is all he muttered. Breaking through that shell will be hard. Let’s hope Safeguard can help crack it; the Electoral College needs more friends like this.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on November 02, 2020 at 07:49:13 am

But it isn't a majority of the popular vote. I teach the (relatively) complex mathematics and the the original concept of the Electoral College to 12 year olds. They all say the same thing at the end, and if the wisdom of a 12 year-old can see it, so should we all. After 200 years the people, who are named as the creative force behind the Constitution (We), ought to finally claim their place as the electors of the President. Republicans in California and Democrats in South Carolina would have votes for president that mattered and it would be healthy for all of us to clear the air of the invented confusions, disagreed upon by and dissatisfying to the men who invented it.

read full comment
Image of Michael J Grey
Michael J Grey
on November 02, 2020 at 11:15:57 am

What would "the wisdom of a 12-year-old" tell us about state equality in the Senate, bicameralism, different populations of House districts from one state to another, the Executive veto, the congressional committee seniority system, multiple supermajority requirements in the amendment systems, states with highly disparate populations, judicial review, or any of a number of other elements of our constitutional structure that don't comport with one man, one vote?

read full comment
Image of Kevin Gutzman
Kevin Gutzman
on November 02, 2020 at 09:06:54 am

At the risk of sounding simplistic--only one time since 1988 has the Republican candidate won the Presidency with a majority of the popular vote. The electors in the college are not proportionally distributed. Using the same metric as the original college would mean incrasing the numbers for states like California, New York Texas, Florida, etc. This means that small sates own a disproportionate share of the Presidential vote. One person, one vote--that would be the best rule for a modern democracy in the 21st century. The Electoral College was originally erected to protect the interests of slave states, and also intended to block the path of demagogues and rank populists--which clearly has failed in the latter task in our time. Eventually, the EC became the tool of avid segregationists-- and gladly those times are past. Why not fix it? The author, Mr. Barilleaux, works over time pitching for a retrograde institution that sows more division than it moderates. In 2020 the only people really happy to keep the EC are folks intent on controlling and suppressing the votes of the broader citizenry in a pluralist and democratic Republic. I guess I am being simplistic, but I prefer to believe that the vote of a cab driver in New York City is the same value as a hotel maid in Houston, Texas, and an eye surgeon in Washington state.

read full comment
Image of Anthony Raymond Brunello
Anthony Raymond Brunello
on November 02, 2020 at 10:38:30 am

That "the Electoral College was originally erected to protect the interest of slave states" is false, as I show here.

https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/the-electoral-college-rooted-in-racism/

read full comment
Image of Kevin Gutzman
Kevin Gutzman
on November 02, 2020 at 10:20:58 am

The whole point of the electoral college is that it separates majority will from the knowledgeable and well reasoned will of chosen representatives. (The same can be said of all republican government processes.) The US Constitution--no disrespect intended--is an antique. Today we have more knowledge and more capabilities than we did in the 1790s.
.
Today we know that score voting will generally produce better results than first past the post voting. That's really how the members of the electoral college should be elected, and that's how the college should be choosing the president. That would end the absurdities of the current hyperpartisan system. Score voting would have been impractical in the 1790s because of the amount of computation needed to come to a result. Today a whole lot of grade school kids have the ability to implement a score voting calculator that would suffice to calculate a result for a federal election, with the total effort being a mere weekend spent designing and writing the code for the calculator.
.
We also know that the secret ballot is needed to ensure that the electors are acting from conscience and not from the influence of the wealthy and powerful. And yet we see that the electors voting without a secret ballot. The current practice of published ballots is highly undemocratic. A lot of Americans sense the wrongness of that.
.
We know that a constitution needs a clearly stated and clearly understood political philosophy to accompany the architecture. No large technical project succeeds without a simple, centralized, and clearly laid out philosophy of why the various design decisions were made. We see a lot of Americans confused about the design and operation of government organs such as the college, so we see other Americans expending a tremendous amount of time and resources trying to unconfuse the confused Americans, and not doing a great job of it since the educators also frequently lack a clear understanding of the philosophy themselves. When inventing the original Constitution, its philosophy was intentionally obscured. A lot of what we have for reference material is the writings of political salesmen trying to sell the new Constitution to the unknowing public. To the degree that there is no clear centralized philosophy, there will be chaos in the implementation and exercise.
.
Will I watch the film? Probably not. I already know generally how the story ends. Extractive government is government in which a small group gets into power and uses that power to keep themselves in power and make themselves wealthy using the instruments of government. Extractive government causes many miseries and social problems. The current US system is extractive (although it is less extractive than most other systems of government). The parties run things, and they do so very much on behalf of the very wealthy. They will never give up the current electoral system because it is one of the tools they use to retain power. Reforms will not be forthcoming. Things will chive on, as is, with no guarantee of merchantability, no returns allows.

read full comment
Image of Scott Amorian
Scott Amorian
on November 02, 2020 at 11:10:05 am

Interesting!
I would wager a not inconsiderable sum that an overwhelming preponderance of those favoring either Direct Popular Vote or "Compact" would also quite willingly express their support for the United Nations. Curious, isn't it that the United Nations General Assembly votes are predicated upon a majority of independent States (nations) not on the population counts of the respective nations.
Thus, the concept of utilizing a (theoretically) representative entity (State or Nation) as a proxy for the populace is not entirely unheard, nor may it be said that it has fallen in to such disrepute that it MUST be abandoned at all levels of governance. Or are we prepared to allow China and India to make all decisions on UN governance as those two would represent a plurality (or near plurality) of human population.

Now as to simplicity:

How simple is it to tally up the majority of States electoral votes? Especially when one considers that the American system of governance is NOT a direct democracy but rather a Representative Republic and that in the strictest AND original sense, this nation was a confederation (without the Anti-Federalist bugabaloo) of STATES. It is quite easy to dismiss the Electoral College if one remains willfully and blissfully ignorant of the doctrine of Federalism that both undergirded and cemented the new nation.

And NO, we do NOT know all that much more than we knew in 1787 - unless, of course, we mean to equate scientific and mathematical knowledge with ALL relevant knowledge.
We are as base, mean, selfish and as easily lead astray, subject to malicious influences as we were in the late 18th century.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on November 02, 2020 at 12:04:05 pm

If the president should not be elected by a majority of the people, then by whom? And on what basis? Why should states elect the president? Would anyone in her/his right mind favor electing governors by an electoral college system--giving each county a certain number of votes regardless of its population? If any state were to adopt such a system, even the current Supreme Court would strike it down as unconstitutional.

read full comment
Image of Ellis West
Ellis West
on November 02, 2020 at 13:02:16 pm

I like this fellow Samorian and I like score voting. After all, we Democrats, THE Party of Science, as you all know, appreciate the very hard work, the computational energies involved in ranking a candidate from 1 to 10. It is both rigorous and scientific, virtually as error proof as a dartboard; so it will further convince us that "we all know" it will produce better results. And we Democrats do get to determine "better."

read full comment
Image of Hill a re: Clintone
Hill a re: Clintone
on November 02, 2020 at 13:42:59 pm

"If [laws should not be passed by a majority of the people, then by whom? And on what basis? Why should [Legislator enact the Laws]?

Would anyone in her/his right mind favor governors by an electoral college system..."
No, and the answer is that Counties, cities, municipalities are the direct creation of state governments. That is clearly not the case with the "Several States" which pre-existed the United States.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on November 02, 2020 at 14:08:35 pm

Some preliminary questions:

1. Why do states have their own legislatures?

2. What is the argument for "more democracy?" Is it that more democracy is "more fair" or that it produces inherently better governance, or what?

3. If more democracy is a good thing, and ballots have spaces for write-in votes, why can't we write in "Fire Fauci," or "ban fracking!" and have that incorporated into the operation of our government?

4. A certain hospital's medical staff is divided into departments. The department of neurosurgery has 2 members, OB/GYN 13, General Surgery 10 and internal medicine and its subspecialties 35. Yet each department has a single seat on the medical executive committee. Is this obviously detrimental to the purposes for which a hospital exists? Is it obvious that this produces either better or worse clinical governance that proportional representation?

5. Does the term "democracy" represent a single, well-defined and circumscribed concept, or does it have varying degrees with the potential for destructive extremes at either end?

6. Why don't the people get to vote on the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, or Director of the FBI, or ambassador to Burkina Faso? Why don't we get to vote on ratifying treaties?

Thoughts to follow....

read full comment
Image of z9z99
z9z99
on November 02, 2020 at 23:01:27 pm

Okay, now. A few thoughts:

1. First a point of procedure. The electoral college has been with us for 230+ years and we still seem to be here, with no obvious injury clearly traceable to the institution. In fact, being that the electoral college is responsible for keeping Al Gore and Hillary Clinton from the presidency, some may argue that it is a source of providence. That particular point is a matter of subjective politics however, and is not itself an argument for preserving the status quo. The electoral college is nonetheless the current arrangement, and a functional one, so the burden of proof properly rests with those advocating change. The inquiry concerns what benefits derive from a national popular vote that are deficient in the present arrangements, and why are they better? The proponents of the the former need to explain.

A key inquiry related to the above is what are the assumptions underlying advocacy of change? How will a popular vote deliver tangible benefits? Are these benefits merely theoretical or abstract phenomena, fool's gold offered in a bait-and-switch, or perhaps some other idea that sounds better than it actually is? What evidence do we have that change will be improvement?

A related issue is what are the priorities for altering our electoral process? Is it to produce the best government possible? To be more inclusive, or fair? To preserve and expand liberty? To create an illusion of egalitarianism, or to promote ideological trends that are not only insular but impatient? Is a dysfunctional government that might result from fealty to the idea of "one man one vote" inherently preferable to a functional government that has a less pure democratic origin? If one believes that a national popular vote is better, what are the grounds for such confidence?

2. Notwithstanding the burden of persuasion lying with the proponents of change as described above, there are certain ideas that favor the present system. The answer to the question posed in my introductory post regarding the nature of democracy, seems to me anyway, to be that "democracy" does not identify a clearly and narrowly defined system of government. Both a national popular vote and the electoral college are legitimate points on the spectrum of democracy, with extremes of mob rule on one end and sham elections at the other. All systems of government are susceptible to producing unhealthy concentrations of power, which are inevitably hostile to the concept of liberty. I prefer an electoral system that is most protective of minority rights and congenial to the concept of ordered liberty. To the extent that the electoral college dilutes ideologically defined concentrations of power that accompany concentrations of people, and concentrations of wealth, this alone is huge point in its favor. Furthermore, to the extent that the electoral college is an obstacle to a drift toward mob rule, there is another point in its favor.

3. Related to the above, while it is uncontroversial that democracy is a good thing, it does not follow that a purer democracy is better. Such an assertion is a fallacy, born of the same type of ideological obsessive-compulsive disorder that labels anyone "racist" for not being in lockstep with the progressive Gleichschaltung. There is a sweet-spot along the spectrum of democracy that is not necessarily fixed, but is comfortably away from the tumult that exists at the extremes. The electoral college provides a moderating influence and a mechanism of stability. It also acts, as Madison noted in Federalist 10, as an impediment to the mischief of factions.

4. Vital interests are not uniformly distributed throughout the country. In the comments to the "Uncivil Wars of Civil Religion" essay,
JR astutely observed that "non-voting acres" are essential to the grocery shelves in Manhattan. Agrarian interests do not diminish with a decline in the number of people who work in agriculture or food production. In a practical sense, it is the agriculture that has an interest, much the same as the investment industry, or energy industry has an interest, and whether the mass of people realize it or not are vital interests that are best understood and stewarded by the people involved with them, i.e. people who live in Iowa, or Texas or Manhattan. These interests and their importance to the country may be disproportionate to the number of people who make their living from them. So yes, I think it is a good thing that there is a mechanism that moderates the population disadvantage of Iowa or Idaho and recognizes that those land areas are more than the place where deplorables live. The importance of Iowa and Nebraska to the country's well-being is not proportional to their populations and the methods for selecting leaders in a republic should reflect this fact.

This was the idea behind the question regarding the medical executive committee. It is quite common for vital interests to represent a small number of people, but exert a large influence in the broader world. The Mississippi delta, or the North Slope of Alaska represent a national interest disproportional to the number of people who vote there.

read full comment
Image of z9z99
z9z99
on November 03, 2020 at 14:01:32 pm

One other thing...

The electoral process is not merely a philosophical abstraction. It also has a significant influence on practical politics. It determines the allocation of campaign resources, cynical political pandering, back-stabbing tradeoffs, etc. What matters in a national popular vote is not how many votes a candidate gets in a particular place, it is the differential number of votes that contribute to a final majority or plurality.

Let us consider the 2016 presidential election and look at 2 blue states, both of which went for Clinton: California and Minnesota. In that election Clinton got 8,753,788 votes in California to Trump's 4,483,810. In Minnesota it was Clinton 1,367,716 to 1,322,951 for Trump. Thus, California contributed a differential of 4,269,978 to the total for Clinton, while Minnesota only contributed 44,765.

California has approximately 7 times the population of California. It has 5.5 times the number of electoral votes, so under our current system the relative contribution of each state to the electoral outcome is reasonably proportional to the population, at leas the same order of magnitude. But as a matter of practical politics, California's contribution to the nationwide differential in votes for Clinton was 95.4 times greater than Minnesota. Given this, why would a prudent politician dedicate significant resources to Minnesota, or bother to address its unique interests, when there is so much more leverage provided by the population and partisanship of California? It is also useful to note, that the differential in California was greater than the total number of votes cast for both Clinton and Trump in Minnesota. Even if every vote in Minnesota had been for trump, under schemes such as the National Popular Vote compact, Clinton would get Minnesota's electoral votes. Why campaign in Minnesota if you can get its votes by campaigning in California? Why consider the logging and agriculture industries in Minnesota when it is more electorally profitable to go along with the environmentalist moods prevalent in California?

read full comment
Image of z9z99
z9z99
on November 02, 2020 at 18:56:39 pm

Excellent review of a documentary film that could be very helpful for the multitudes of Americans whose poor K-16 education has left them ignorant of American history and of the unique nature of America's brilliant constitution. Simplistic, defective understandings of the US Constitution abound, particularly as to the Electoral College.

Yet, Democrat politicians fully understand the constitution; they appreciate the genius of the Electoral College, and Democrat politicians oppose it solely because, like the rest of the constitution, it stands in their way to absolute power. Objections from such people are self-serving and lack credibility.

read full comment
Image of paladin
paladin
on November 02, 2020 at 19:45:38 pm

Agreed on Dopey Dems knowing the constitution but....
Some of the comments above lead me to believe that many are a) either ignorant, b0 willfully ignorant / oblivious or c) are unable to grasp the exquisite "craftmanship" exhibited by the Framers.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on November 02, 2020 at 22:46:44 pm

Correcto! And now I realize that I understated the breadth of the class of constitutional opponents must be dismissed out of hand as mere self-serving. That class of willful ignoramuses includes not jus Democrat politicians but includes as well millions of supporters of Democrat politicians who know better or who should know better, but adopt their constitutional ignorance willfully out of convenience to their ideology and expediency to their political motivations.

read full comment
Image of paladin
paladin
on November 03, 2020 at 07:43:52 am

And what's with this Amorian guy and that "extractive government" nonsense? He also said, "When inventing the original Constitution, its philosophy was intentionally obscured." That's not true. Read the debates; read the Federalist Papers.
Amorian closed with, "Things will chive on, as is, with no guarantee of merchantability, no returns allows." Is that a quotation of Joe Biden, or what? Maybe Professor Irwin Corey? Do you know what it means? Please tell me.

At least when I use words like "eleemosynary" people can look them up. They have meaning.

read full comment
Image of paladin
paladin
on November 03, 2020 at 10:21:09 am

Apparently, COTUS philosophy was intentionally obscured because James Madison, a culinary expert put too many chives in the recipe for COTUS thus making it hard to sell and also hard to return to the sellers.
Or sumpin like dat!

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on November 03, 2020 at 17:24:34 pm

Z:

I hope you remembered to "Drop the Mic."

Although the Framers did not construct their rhetoric upon "differential margins" THAT is PRECISELY what they intended with the (methinks) rather effective mechanism of the Electoral College.
Unless the rest of the nation desires to be ruled by the coastal elites and their "avaricious" and envious followers, we had better retain the Electoral College.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
Trackbacks
on November 03, 2020 at 01:10:35 am

[…] Why Do We Have an Electoral College? – Gary L. Gregg, II, at The Imaginative Conservative The Uphill Battle to Preserve the Electoral College – Ryan J. Barilleaux at Law & Liberty Farage will Make Boris Regret his Panicky Second […]

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.