She Said/Eliminate the Electoral College for truly representative democracy
By Amy Sandberg
Obviously, the framers of the Constitution foresaw that amendments would be necessary. Indeed, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, aka the Bill of Rights, were proposed by the framers themselves.
Amy Sandberg
I could get behind an amendment to eliminate the Electoral College. This would make for a truly representative democracy rather than one in name only; and prevent another miscarriage of justice such as the 2000 presidential race when the candidate receiving the most popular votes was not the candidate who was sworn into office.
I would also support an amendment that limited First Amendment and other civil liberties to individuals. By extending these rights to corporations as the Supreme Court did recently, we open the floodgates for political corruption and bribery in our elections.
A balanced budget amendment is also a nice idea. We’d all do well to live within our means. But a household budget is not a government budget. Economics 101 teaches us that while individuals can help their financial position by saving, a society as a whole cannot, especially during recessionary times. John Maynard Keynes called it the “paradox of thrift” and it goes something like this: When individuals close their wallets, no one shows up at the malls to spend money. Consumption goes down, and so, too, do incomes and employment. Sound familiar?
As tempting as it may be tell those scoundrels in Washington “If we have to live within a balanced budget, so should the government,” it is a very simplistic argument. Norman Ornstein of the conservative American Enterprise Institute says of the balanced budget fantasy: “It would virtually ensure that an economic downturn would end up as a deep depression by erasing any real ability of the government to pursue countercyclical fiscal politics and in fact demanding the opposite at the worst possible time.”
Presidents Bush and Obama both exercised Keynesian economics —two bail outs and a stimulus package — in an effort to pull the economy out of its nose dive. And while the recovery has been lethargic, most economists agree that things would be a lot worse if government hadn’t stepped into the fray and spent money. Keynes believed, rightly, that governments should solve problems in the short run rather than waiting for market forces to do it in the long run, because, “in the long run we are all dead.” Hoover used deficit spending in an effort to reverse the tide of the depression. So did FDR and Nixon, who famously proclaimed “we are all Keynesians now.”
As for the “exceptions” Dick proposes to his balanced budget amendment, they would perversely incentivize us to declare war, and would mean politicians would have to agree on what constitutes an exception. Recent history suggests that this approach would never work. Dick’s proposal is a reactive, unsophisticated and blunt solution to a complex problem. A balanced budget amendment would be akin to using a rubber mallet to repair a watch. What is needed is precise work by intelligent minds and constant calibration until we find the right balance of tax revenue, expenditures and spending cuts.
As for Dick’s second suggestion that we put judges up for election and have forced retirements, I couldn’t agree more that there are many judges who have lost sight of their role. The problem is, Dick and I probably couldn’t agree which judges. And although lifetime appointments do lead an occasional dead beat on the bench, an electoral process would open our justice system to the highest bidder. If anything, perhaps we should give members of Congress lifetime appointments. The perhaps they’d stop running for office 24/7 and get down to the business of governing.
Short URL: http://www.pomeradonews.com/?p=15733
Posted by Steve Dreyer
on Sep 1 2011. Filed under Columnists.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
Anyone who takes the time to study and understand the legislative intent of the founding fathers and their genius in creating the electoral college – plus has studied the resounding success of that mechanism over the past 200 years, can’t possibly conclude that it should be eliminated.
The idea that a budgets and saving money work for a household but not for a government is ludicrous. Budgets always work anywhere if you use them. Saving a little money in case of an emergency can never be wrong. Those who print money for themselves (national governments) hate creating budgets and saving money. The stimulus and bailouts did absolutely nothing to help the economy. In truth, such actions only ever impede economic recovery and growth. Keynes was completely wrong. Bastiat’s parable destroys Keynesian theory. Hoover, FDR, Nixon and now Bush / Obama, who all made their ‘effort’ to use deficit spending fix the economy, have proven Keynes wrong. Keynesian economics is a false theory and has never been successfully applied anywhere.
People who have actually taken economics 101 know better than to reference it in any economic discussion.
Mr. Marc,
The Electoral College was a concession to states rights' advocates. I have not only studied the Constitution and the rationale of the Founding Fathers, I've taught U.S. government at a college level. I suspect my knowledge of such matters runs a little deeper than most in the blogoshpere.
When Bill Clinton left office there was a budget surplus of $130 billion dollars. Rather than "save" that money, Bush decided to refund it to the American taxpayer using tax cuts to do so. Those tax cuts, i.e. supply side economics were supposed to stimulate the economy, which I think we can both agree they did not.
Can you really deny the logic of the paradox of thrift? People stop spending and the economy contracts. Look at corporations today–do you see them hiring even tho profits are up? NO.
We are a constitutional republic. 'States rights' and limits on federal power are what the constitution is all about. I spent my career litigating in Federal court and I taught constitutional law, civil rights law, contract law and torts at two different law schools. I am certain my knowledge of such matters doesn't match yours.
Tax cuts are not a refund. Clinton's surplus was a myth. Bush sent $38 billion worth of govt. checks back to taxpayers. Quit blaming presidents. The national debt has gone up with every presidency (except the FDR/Truman years 1945 – 49). The total federal debt and obligations currently sits at over $60 trillion. This administration has added $4 trillion and counting in just 2 years – but you can't pin that on Obama. The president only proposes. It's the legislature (particularly the House) that allocates spending through bills. Blame them.
Of course when 'people' stop spending the economy sinks. When government spends it celebrates a 'jobless recovery'. This is where people have no money to spend because they have no jobs – and the economy sinks.
Mr. Marc – I too have spent my entire career (almost 30 years) litigating in both state and federal court, taught Constitutional Law as an adjunct professor at a local law school, first studied Constitutional Law while attending law school (one consistently ranked in the top 5 in the country) with two professors (one tenured, one visiting) considered foremost authorities in the world on the subject, majored in economics as an undergraduate (which involved studies well beyond Econ 101 under prominent professors at a highly-ranked university) and have continued to read and study both Constitutional jurisprudence and economic theory throughout my career. Given the limited space permitted for comments, suffice it to say that your claimed credentials do not impress everyone (indeed, your stated opinions are largely macroeconomic, not Constitutional, the area in which you claim some qualifications), and your opinions would be considered amusing to many scholars in the field. It appears your right-wing ideology clouds your reasoning and judgment, as is typical of those who select (or more typically are told to believe) an ideology and then look for evidence that supports it, rather than the other way around. Ms. Sandberg makes some excellent points, most of which you choose to ignore.
And what have you said in chiming in here besides puffing yourself with your resume and disparaging my reasoning and judgement? You don't really have any contribution to make to the discourse do you….
Mr. Marc,
We're all very impressed. I'm not sure who knows more about the Constitution (tho I bet you don't have one on your bedroom dresser), but I do know which one of us is more humble ;-)
Anyway, the question Mr. Lyles and I were asked to address was whether there should be amendments to the Constitution and if so, which? So while you give us a nice summary of why we have the electoral college, that really doesn't address the question of whether the Constitutiont should be amended it to abolish it. If we were to go with all the logic of the Framers (and yours) we'd still have only aristocratic white males voting.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states. …
The Electoral College that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
Wo! – don’t let big, obvious, indisputable historical facts get in the way of your position.. The concept of the Electoral College was introduced by the Virginia delegation (based upon the Virginia Plan) at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, discussed and debated by the founding fathers, recommended by the Committee of Eleven, finalized, and adopted into the Constitution on Sept. 6., 1787 (204 years ago to the day next Tuesday). See Article 11, Section 1, Clause 1 as well as Clause 4 in our United States Constitution. The term ‘Number of Electors” written there came to be informally referred to as the ‘College of Electors” until it was officially written into law in Title 3 of the United States Code in 1845.
I hope I haven't breached any security by exposing this information publicly.
In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.
The federal government is not a "representative democracy," and for good reason. Unconstrained democracy can degenerate into mob rule, thereby infringing upon the basic human rights and individual liberties our Founders cherished.
Our constitutional federal republic was intended by the Framers to perform a very limited set of powers specified mostly in Article 1, Section 8, of the US Constitution. Over the years, our nation has meandered rather far from those limited powers at federal level.
Thus, we've lost many of our individual liberties, and we have debt and future unfunded obligations that will be impossible to pay. The author's proposed constitutional amendment for representative democracy will make that situation even worse.
Under National Popular Vote, citizens would not rule directly but, instead, continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes, to represent them and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.
The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
I may rather live with mob rule than live in a corporate oligarchy. And what is "mob rule" anyway? In any case, the raison d'etre for government in the first place is to provide for a civil society. We all agree to exchange some liberty for some order. Furthermore, the creation of central government sprung from the failure of the Articles of Confederation. Finally, Section 8 actually grants very broad powers to the federal government, that is unless you skipped the following line: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers"
Corporations are owned by individuals, and those individuals should have the same First Amendment rights via their corporate face as they do individually. Political corruption involves politicians by definition, so limit them rather than individual citizens.
Just because corporations are owned by individuals doesn't make them individual. The individual can use his First Amendment Rights, but shouldn't be allowed to hide behind the corporate shield.
51% votes against gay marriage. Democracy! Democracy!
I support gay marriage, and I also agree with your comment. The people have spoken…for now.
The only problem with democracy is that 51% will trump individual rights. It's not Democracy when 51% of Californians vote against Gay marriage, but is Democracy when 51% vote for gay marriage. When you start giving money and "free" things to people for their votes, democracy is tainted.
True Harvey. BUT the Bill of Rights as well as 14th amendment were intended to protect the interest of the minority over the tyranny of the majority. In other words, the "Eyes" don't always have it. Same sex marriage is a good example because it has been legalized in some states and may well be legalized in California based on constitutional (equal protection) arguments. Most major pieces of social legislation, such as same sex marriage have been challenged in the courts, often as an infringement of individual liberty. The Social Security Act in the 1930s and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were struck down by lower courts as unconstitutional before being upheld by the Supreme Court. Today, those laws are part of the fabric of American society. Hopefully same sex marriage will be as well some day soon. Hip-hip hooray for checks and balances!
An interesting academic argument. The probability that a Constitutional Convention will be assembled to consider the Electoral issue is low, like nil.
A Balanced Budget amendment is a different story because everyone is suffering from the congressional/presidential binge that is a way of life in D.C.
Congress is driven by special interest and getting 364 legislators to vote for a convention is near nil. State legislators is the best shot. 32 states supported the application for a convention in 1983 and I think budget conditions are much worse today. Getting the needed 34 is has a good shot. Getting 38 to ratify a proposal would probably be easy.
If you think a balanced budget is needed, forget the Washington crowd. I urge you contact your state legislators and ask for their support.