Electoral College attacked
Gov. Tim Walz, the Democratic candidate for vice-president, sent the first volley of what we expect to be a barrage of criticism from members of his side of the aisle. The issue – again – the Electoral College. Briefly, Walz told a group last week that the use of the College was out of date, and the nation should go to a national election with no regard to individual states.
This indicates two things: the narrowing possibility of the Harris-Walz team getting the necessary 270 electoral votes to win Nov. 5; and the possibility the team may get the majority vote and lose the electoral vote. We have seen this movie before.
The left wing of the political aisle as represented by the present-day Democratic Party wants to change the rules, and always to what it perceives as a change to its benefit. Whenever Democrats lose, the rules must change. The Supreme Court has taken a more conservative stance on issues, it must be packed. The Senate holds up Progressive legislation, the filibuster must be eliminated. The Democrats’ strength is on the right and left coasts, so we must go to a majority election.
The reasons for the establishment of the Electoral College in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention are as valid now as they were then: the tyranny of the bigger states over the smaller ones. When the Constitution was drafted, the Founders saw the danger of larger states having their way over smaller ones, and various checks were established. The Electoral College was one, two senators from each state, regardless of population, was another.
Most of the population in this vast country lives on the two coasts, but that is immaterial. The needs of the people throughout the country must be met, and with regional differences and interests, the nation would be catering to the myopic views of the coastal majorities.
It is interesting to note, of the several states considered “swing states,” only one, Pennsylvania, is considered a large state by population and size. The rest are Southern, Western or Mid-Western states with smaller populations by comparison. We would call that evidence of the genius of the Electoral College. This large nation must represent all people and all regions, not the coastal elites.
This issue will play out once again, but it is only a talking point. Even Walz, not the brightest of politicians, knows a Constitutional Amendment would die on the vine, and the smaller states would not give up a bargaining chip.
Instead of trying to tear down the mechanism and look for rule changes, the Democratic Party should be more responsive to more people, something it was known for during past generations.
The Electoral College as with many of the checks within the Constitution gives representation of all points of view, and all regional differences while putting all 50 states and the various territories in play during the Presidential election process. We do not have one election, but one in every state, and every voter in every state counts.
It was an ingenious idea in 1787 and continues to be a marvel of the minds of the Founders more than two centuries later.