Recently, Hillary Clinton has been complaining - once again - about losing the 2016 election. She has been making various claims that her candidacy was sabotaged, or that people didn't pay attention to the evils of her primary opponent, or that she won the "popular vote" and would be President if it wasn't for that nasty Electoral College.
Sorry, Ms. Clinton, but none of those assumptions hold true - for one simple reason:
The United States is not a Democracy. It is a Republic.
There are various memes about a Democracy being "two wolves and a lamb voting on dinner" or "the majority voting on what to take away from the minority". Aside for the ironic nature of those memes, the basic truth is that a Democracy can enable a majority to act in a tyrannical manner against the minority. A Republic can't.
The Founders were wise enough to know that a pure Democracy would be a failure if implemented in an environment where each of the original 13 Colonies had its own customs, economies, and products. They knew that forcing some of the Colonies to submit to the demands of other Colonies was a recipe for an inter-Colonial war (which actually happened in the mid-1800s, but that discussion is for another time).
Instead, The Founders designed a "federalism" system of government (remember, we are a "federation of States"). Each State would provide its own State-level governing structure. The citizens of each State would elect Representatives to their State-level government. The citizens of each State would also elect Representatives to the central Federal government as well.
The intention was to allow each State to implement laws that it felt were good for its citizens, and that the Federal Representatives would implement laws that all of the States could agree on. The laws of each State would only affect the citizens of each State, but the laws passed by the Federal government would have supremacy over the actions of every State.
Since this is a Republic, how could a Federal chief executive be elected in such a way that the majority could not completely overwhelm the minority, and where the minority could defeat a tyrannical majority?
The Electoral College was the solution. Here, "electors" from each state, based on the number of Representatives and Senators to that state, would elect the President. In this form, a state with a huge population would be no more powerful than many smaller states bound together.
This idea works because the President is the chief law enforcement officer of Federal laws- but has no power over State laws. He is also empowered to enact or veto Federal bills - a "check" on the power of the Legislature.
The President is not empowered to change State law, nor is he empowered to change Federal law. Hence, the electors from each State must cooperate to determine who "runs" the Federal government. The Founders solved that problem by using the same rules as the rest of government: the members of the Electoral College, each representing their own State, elect their own Representative - the "President of the United States".
It's actually a very clever system and one where no individual, group of individuals, or outside agency - such as Russia - can shift an election one way or the other.
We are a Republic, and the Electoral College enforced the same rules of the Republic
Now, Ms. Clinton wishes to eliminate the intent of the Founders by changing the most important aspect of the Federal government from a Republic to a Democracy.
This is the lip of the slippery slope. If we begin to change the Constitution - the "rules" for the United States - we could destroy the United States.
Ms. Clinton is not happy that she lost the election. I suppose that's only natural. But changing the Constitution because you aren't happy that you lost an election?
Perhaps, Ms. Clinton, you were unable to convince citizens of several states to vote for you instead of your opponent. Perhaps you counted too much on States that supported your candidacy and not enough on states that were "unsure". Perhaps you depended too much on "status quo" politics when your opposing candidate played according to different - but entirely legal - rules.
In any event, you should be ashamed of yourself for advocating the tearing down the current form of government because you depended too much on the "popular vote" and not enough on the Electoral College.
One last thing: if there was "interference" in the 2016 election, that interference would have had to be so extensive and so widespread that it would be obvious to a blind person. It wouldn't be hidden from view and only seen through cracks and crevices by only those who make improbable connections between unrelated events.
You legitimately lost the election because there were sufficient States, and thus Electoral College members, who declined to support you. And as I have explained, it had nothing to do with the "popular vote".
No comments:
Post a Comment