-By Nancy Salvato
The constitutional amendment process is a complicated and lengthy affair. This is because we cannot be certain what consequences might arise from a seemingly minor alteration of the Constitution. To be sure, exchanging the electoral-vote system for direct election would adversely impact the entire constitutional and political structure of the United States.
To begin, our Constitution is dedicated to securing everybody’s rights. This requires that we be concerned not only with size, but with the character of the majorities voting our president to office. There are many ways in which our Constitution is configured to prevent simple majorities.
- The federal system prevents less populous States from being engulfed by more populous States.
- A bicameral legislature divides responsibilities between House and Senate on grounds other than those of population.
- Power is invested in a non-elective judiciary.
- Each State has a minimum of three electoral votes in the Electoral College.
One way the Electoral College creates moderately characterized numerical majorities includes assuring that each state’s vote actually represents the state’s interests in the selection and election of Presidents. By requiring a majority of electoral votes to win the presidency, a political party must campaign in all or most of the States -expanding its base of support beyond a narrow geographical region.
Political parties must appeal to a wide range of interests in order to gain a majority electoral vote. This is an inducement to more moderate political platforms which are less likely to put off those on the fence and promotes compromise among minority factions who want their interests represented within the party, all of this taking place well in advance of elections. Compromise between minorities is what creates a majority. But it is well to remember that a party’s capacity to command the allegiance of its followers is constantly challenged. Coalitions vary and parties are elected in and out of office based on support for their platform and their adherence to the platform while in power. Parties are wise to continually seek new bases of support and not to alienate any interests.
If the Electoral College was replaced by direct election, size, not the distribution of votes, is all that would matter. State interests would no longer receive the same consideration, their power diminished under direct election. No longer compelled to moderate their views or compromise with other groups within their resident States, interest groups would radicalize the public opinion influencing our Presidential Candidates, who would no longer feel compelled to present a broadly based platform within each State, or even campaign in all the states. Minorities would find their political power greatly diminished. Our Constitution would no longer secure everyone’s rights.
For more comprehensive information about this subject, go to: Direct Popular Election of the President
________
Nancy Salvato is the President of The Basics Project, (www.Basicsproject.org) a non-profit, non-partisan 501 (C) (3) research and educational project whose mission is to promote the education of the American public on the basic elements of relevant political, legal and social issues important to our country. She is also a Staff Writer, for the New Media Alliance, Inc., a non-profit (501c3) coalition of writers and grass-roots media outlets, where she contributes on matters of education policy.
To further underline what Nancy is talking about everyone needs to consider that the so called “one man (person) one vote” principle is NOT proportional in and of itself. Of the 300 million living in the US only those “citizens” who are 18 and older may vote unless they forfeited their rights by committing a felony under their home State laws. Those who are not of sound mind can not vote either. Please note that a husband and wife are also voting the interest of their children and wards, so their vote represents not one person but many. In this sense a single person’s vote actually counts more than a voting parent in terms of self interest and effect.
There are those who choose not to vote, which is the biggest issue since motivation of self interest or disinterest may be used to corrupt the electorial process. If you will remember in the 2006 election cycle, Democrats via their MSM allies deliberately attempted to suppress the vote by telling people via trumped up polls that their candidates already won based on majority percentages in their polls. In 2004 the Dems via their MSM allies went on TV claiming they won the Florida vote BEFORE the polls closed thus discouraging voters who would not be voting for their opposition, the margin of victory for Bush would have been greater.
Let’s add to this situation if a direct election were to be done it is totally conceivable that several large states could decide the election while the rest of the country disagrees. With motivated Dem party machines like in Chicago, Philadelphia and Miami selectively bussing people who ordinarily wouldn’t vote but will do so for the candidate that got them to the polls the process can be easily corrupted as they repeatedly have demonstrated.
Finally, a direct election encourages, not discourages, voter fraud on the scale of Chicago and Philadelphia. Such fraud is blunted by the electorial process since they have to fully orchestrate the vote fraud in virtually every state to rig the election. Groups like ACORN have been caught repeatedly creating voters out of thin air in fraudulent voter registration drives. Now why would they do that IF they didn’t think the fake voters wouldn’t vote???? If you think fake and dead people and illegals won’t influence our elections process, think again because we are dealing with people who don’t play by the rules. In a fair world everyone eligible would vote and those not eligible would respect the process. The world isn’t fair, and it’s our job to put in the proper safeguards to make sure everyone follows the rules and keep it that way.