Episode 13 Show Notes- The Electoral College Works: So, leave it alone

Episode Description

There are those calling for radical changes to America’s institutions with the intent of remaking America. In this episode, Professor Giordano takes on those calling for the abolishment of the Electoral College. He reminds listeners why the Founding Fathers believed the Electoral College was essential, and how it is working exactly as intended. Since the advocacy news media fails to report the nefarious push to radically alter our institutions, Professor Giordano puts politics aside and shines a light on this dangerous movement.

Intro

Welcome everyone to another episode of The PAS Report Weekly Roundup Podcast. This is your host Nick Giordano. I want to take a minute and thank all the listeners out there. We started The PAS Report in the beginning of June. Each month since, we have doubled the audience by over 110% and our message is getting out there, and this week, we ranked within the top 175 political podcasts on iTunes. It shows that there is a hunger for truth that the advocacy news media continues to ignore. I just want to thank and hope you continue to share the podcast with others as we continue to organically grow our audience.

Last week I highlighted the collapse of our education system, and we also got to witness the product of this failed education system when Congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio Cortez stated that the United States is a democracy and the NY Times even wrote a piece on this.

She also called for the abolishment of the Electoral College, which will be the focus of today’s show. As always, if you want to see the show notes or the sourcing of my material, go to thepasreport.com.

The PAS Report will continue to explore issues that impact your life and go virtually ignored by the advocacy media. This week is no different.

Current Debate Surrounding the Electoral College

It’s a sad state of affairs when millions of Americans go and vote in a Presidential election, and don’t understand how the Electoral College works or why we use the Electoral College. Our failed education system has led to a culture that seeks to undo how the United States was designed, and everything America stands for.

Congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio Cortez has stated that the EC is a system based on racism and called for its abolishment. She is far from alone. Other high-profile elected officials have also called for its abolishment including many of the current presidential candidates.

In AOC’s case, it’s one of ignorance of American history. She has no idea why the founding fathers believed that the EC was the best way to elect a President. She does not understand the concept of federalism, and that we have a system with two levels of government, neither being created by the other and both operating independently of each other.

I cannot sit idly by and allow supposed leaders to mischaracterize our system of governance. Many of these individuals would fail a test on the Constitution and are seeking to undo our institutions for nothing more than power and control.

A Crash Course in the Electoral College

Understanding the Electoral College is necessary to appreciate why the founders selected it as our way to elect the President. No president is king, and so the founders instituted a complicated system based on the States.

Many people go to the polls believing they directly elect the President. Sadly, the advocacy media and the failed education system continually reinforce this false premise.

With the EC, we hold 50 State elections and one election in Washington, DC. While the people can pick their preference in these elections, the EC was a compromise between selecting a President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a national popular vote.

It was decided that the States would be the ones to determine who the President is. In fact, the real presidential election takes place on December 19^th at the meeting of electors.

There is a total of 538 electors

• 435 based on the House of Representatives
• 3 non-voting members of the House of Representatives
• 100 Senators

Each State has an allocated number of electors based on how many members they have in the House of Representatives plus 2 Senators. (House representation is based on the U.S. census and changes every 10 years so States can gain or lose electors based on population trends)

• NYS currently has 27 members in the House of Representatives and 2 Senators giving them 29 electoral votes.

State legislators determine how electors are selected.

• In most States, the political parties will nominate a slate of electors at their conventions.
• State legislatures direct the process for selecting electors, but they cannot be members of the House, Senate, or anyone holding an office of public trust with the United States.

To win, a candidate must 270 electoral votes which represents a majority.

• When we vote, we essentially are voting for a slate of electors.
• Electors are not bound by the popular vote of the State they represent.
• While several States have attempted to bind the Electors vote to the State popular vote, the 10^thS. Circuit Court ruled that Electors cannot be bound and can vote the way they see fit. (AP News)
• This decision is almost certainly going to go to the Supreme Court.

Why did the founders choose the Electoral College?

Unfortunately, we continue to perpetuate the myth that we are a democracy. We are a Republic and have federal democratic principles, but we are not a democracy. It is not always what the people want; they get.

The House represents the people, the Senate represents their particular State, and the President represents all States in the Union. It is the majority of States that would select the President, and Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution reads, “But in choosing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States… and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice.” (U.S. Constitution)

Our Founding Fathers selected the Electoral College for several reasons

First, take the acronym POTUS. We have been programmed to constantly refer to POTUS as the President of the United States, but really POTUS is President of These United States. By replacing a simple word with another word, it makes a world of difference. Can we really say we are the United States if 12 out of 38 states pick the Presidency? If we take it back to the founding, and 4 out of 13 states would select the President, why would any of the other States ratify the Constitution.

Another reason the founders selected the EC is that they did not want the larger states to dominate American politics. The most populous states were Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Massachusetts, New York & Maryland with a total population of 2.5 million people, and outnumbering the other seven states by an enormous amount with a combined population of 774,439. (US Census)

Under a popular vote system, large population areas would dominate politics, and the founders feared the Tyranny of the Majority. Our founding fathers feared the influence of a mob and how a majority will become tyrannical and eventually impose their will on the minority. They wanted to create a buffer between the president and the people.

In Federalist 68, Hamilton writes, “It was also equally desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place..” (Federalist 68)

Another reason is that the founders understood that if electors, selected by the States, cast their ballots, the system would be less likely to be penetrated by foreign governments and influence. It is much easier to manipulate one election system as opposed to 13 or 51 different election systems as opposed to one national election.

Finally, and most importantly, the founders realized that it was an imperfect system, Hamilton writes, “I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.” (Federalist 68) The EC was a system based on compromise and was designed to reinforce the idea of these United States.

Understanding the defects in the Electoral College

While I believe the EC was genius, it is not without flaws. I recognize, as the founders did that the system does have a couple of minor drawbacks. There is nothing wrong with recognizing these flaws.

The first flaw is how many states get ignored during a Presidential campaign. Our founders created a system which would force candidates to campaign in all states, including the smaller ones. While this seemed like a good idea at the time, due to advancements in technology, polling, and microtargeting, many states do get ignored today.

• A place like California and New York are Democrat strongholds, and Texas is a Republican stronghold, so it doesn’t make sense for a Democrat or Republican to campaign in these states and waste time, money, and resources. The only time a candidate will go to California is to raise money.
• In any given Presidential election, there are 6-10 swing states that receive the majority of attention from the candidates.
• In 2016, President Trump and Hillary Clinton spent 71% of advertising money and 57% of campaign appearances in four states- Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio.
  • In the 14 states deemed “battleground states” the campaigns spent 99% of their advertising budgets and it accounted for 95% of their campaign stops. (Lancaster Online)

Another problem of the EC is that it makes it really difficult for third party candidates to run and pose an actual challenge to the Democrat or Republican candidate. 3^rd party candidates have a difficult time because of:

• Ballot access- in order to make a realistic challenge, candidates need to get on the ballot in all fifty states. This is very difficult and nearly impossible. Third-party candidates do not have an operation in place from day one. Getting the required signatures requires time, effort and volunteers.
• Third-party candidates have to win states, and a lot of people believe they are wasting their vote. Also, even if you receive a decent percentage of the popular vote, it means nothing if you don’t win the state. Ross Perot won 18.9% of the popular vote, a huge showing for a third-party candidate, and he had 0 electoral votes because he didn’t win a single state.
• Money & media coverage are another problem. Democrats and Republicans have established fundraising capabilities and coordinate media activities. A relatively unknown third party candidate usually generates a little buzz. The media does not want to waste time and money, covering a presidential candidate with little to no chance of winning.
  • Have little name recognition, and so they have to spend more money on advertising
  • But they can’t raise money because they are not getting attention
  • Vicious cycle
• Only third-party candidate to win a Presidential election was Abraham Lincoln under the Republican party at a time when the Whig party was dying.

Benefits of the Electoral College

While I recognize the defects, the benefits far outweigh any of the drawbacks. The EC is a system that insures every State has a say on who becomes President, and that the larger, more populous states don’t dominate the political scene. It forces candidates to campaign in states they wouldn’t otherwise waste their time in.

If we go by a popular vote, essentially a candidate can become President simply by dominating the urban areas. Especially since it is much easier to coordinate get out the vote efforts in urban areas. Do we really want a system that’s controlled by the urban centers? Rural communities will largely go ignored and suburban communities won’t be that important. In a popular vote system, a candidate would not need to win a single majority vote in a State.

In the 2016 election, President Trump won 2,626 counties throughout the United States. Hillary Clinton won 487 counties. (AP News) Hillary Clinton did win the popular vote by 2.9 million according to the Federal Election Commission. (FEC) Sorry, but I don’t believe 487 counties should decide the fate of the United States over the 2,600+ other counties.

In order to win a majority of electoral college votes, a candidate must win the majority of States thereby creating the United States. As I said earlier, if we go by popular vote, we can no longer call ourselves the United States because the minority of States would have the control.

The EC is a system reinforcing stability and a peaceful transition of power. Amazingly those calling for a switch to a popular vote don’t realize that a popular vote can and will lead to an authoritarian ruler and an authoritarian mob. We created a system that prevents our politicians from being beholden to the mob. Our system is created to make sure that the demands of the people are tempered and restrained by the practice of statesmanship and the EC is one of several safeguards.

Furthermore, our founding fathers feared the Tyranny of the Majority, and that majorities can be wrong. We see this in our history when it comes to things like slavery and segregation. Just because a majority of people supported these issues, doesn’t make it right.

Is there really a problem with the Electoral College

Unfortunately, the advocacy news media, the ill-informed politicians, and those who want to completely change the United States fail to do any research or are knowingly misleading their audiences. Now I can understand Democrats anger towards the EC because it burned them twice in the last 16 years, but if the reverse happened, we would be hearing the Democrats sing the praise of the EC and Republicans calling to abolish the EC. Hypocrisy in politics knows no bounds and is not mutually exclusive to one party over the other.

When we look at the numbers, we would find the EC works perfectly. When examining the numbers, you would find that out of 58 Presidential elections, 53 were won by the candidate who won both the popular vote and the electoral college vote. That’s 91 percent. There were only 4 elections where the person who won the electoral college vote, lost the popular vote.

• 1876 Rutherford B. Hayes vs. Samuel Tilden
• 1888 Benjamin Harrison vs. Grover Cleveland
• 2000 George W. Bush vs. Al Gore
• 2016 Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton

Some one will ask what about the 1824 presidential race between John Q. Adams vs. Andrew Jackson. I don’t include that race because no one won the majority of the EC vote or the popular vote. While Andrew Jackson had more popular votes and more electoral college votes than the other candidates, the Constitution explicitly states that if no majority exist, the House of Representatives selects the President.

Should it be changed at all

One interesting proposal would be to allow electors be allocated on a proportional basis. Nebraska and Maine currently do this. Since each only has three electoral votes, it doesn’t make a big difference. However, if more states consider this, which is their right Constitutionally as States determine how electors are selected, it could have a dramatic impact.

Right now, California has a whopping 55 electoral votes that usually go to Democrats. Proportional representation would make a big difference as a Republican candidate would be able to gain a significant number of electoral votes. It would force candidates to campaign in nearly all states.

I do not believe we will see this go mainstream anytime soon as I think it would be advantageous to Republicans, and the Democrats that control these states would not allow that to happen.

Another interesting, albeit dumb idea, is to award a states electoral votes to the popular vote winner. I think this is a very dumb idea because it makes the state vote irrelevant. New Mexico, Colorado, and Delaware recently passed legislation that would do just that. (USA Today) It disenfranchises the voters in their state and tells them that the state does not care about their preference.

Take Delaware for instance. The last time Delaware voted for a Republican President was 1988. Hillary Clinton defeated Donald Trump in Delaware by a margin of 12 percentage points. Well, what happens if Donald Trump wins the popular vote in 2020. Then it won’t matter who the people of Delaware voted, the electors would be applied to him.

 

So, if there is no problem, why the calls to change it

So, if there are not any problems with the EC and it has served us well in the last 230+ years, why are so many calling for changing the EC?

The primary reason is power and control. Ironically Democrats start with an advantage in the EC because of California, New York, and the New England states. They believe that if we switched the presidential election to go by popular vote, it would dramatically increase their chances of retaining the Presidency. I disagree and believe they are short-sighted. As the numbers I just gave you show that 91% of the time, the winner of a presidential election usually wins both.

Other reasons are because some are simply ignorant of history and they lack any understanding about the EC.

For others, it is far more devious. They believe the United States is a bad country that has done far more bad than good. They don’t see the United States as a symbol of justice and believe the U.S. is a system of injustice (interesting why so many from around the world want to come here if we are such a horrible country).

I spoke about this in last week’s episode with education. There are those who despise the founding of this country and look to remake America’s institutions as a way to destroy it from within. It is not just the EC under constant attack. The Senate, The Supreme Court, how we vote, who is eligible to vote, and statehood are all being targeted and I will provide more depth in future episodes in each of these areas, and how they want to remake America into a country that we wouldn’t even recognize.

Closing

Here at The PAS Report, we will continue to call out those who seek to undo our founding principles. While the founding fathers were not perfect, they created the greatest system of governance the world has ever seen. The only way to lose this country is if we continue to forget why our system was created, the roles and responsibilities of our institutions, and understanding our role within the system.

Once again, I want to thank you for bringing us into the top 175 political podcasts on iTunes last week. And I would appreciate if you take one minute and write a good review for The PAS Report in iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, or however you listen to this podcast.

Please share this episode and sign-up for The Pas Report Newsletter at thepasreport.com.

As always if there is a topic or issue you would like me to focus on, send an email to podcast@pasreport.com.

Thank you for joining us, stay safe, and I’ll be back next week.

Follow Nicholas Giordano

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•