Originally Posted by
dneal
RE: "Tyranny of the majority", California's prop 22 and 8 are perfect examples. The majority said same-sex marriage would not be recognized. They removed "loophole" language in the first instance, and amended the constitution in the second instance. There are checks and balances on the system (the California constitution in the first case and the U.S. Constitution in the second).
The electoral college in effect does the same thing. It allows electors to not select someone who is unfit for the Presidency (which was the last-ditch effort we saw in the pleading video filled with actors), and it protects the less-populated States from a few that have large populations. Again, the latter principle was always the intent. Metropolitan areas will always have a higher population density than rural areas, and can otherwise impose their will on less densely populated rural areas. Technically democratic, but hardly "fair"; and the system we have is designed to mitigate that.
We are not a nation of 330M citizens. We are a nation of 50 States that happen to total 330M citizens. The citizens of the States select the President. The federal government was supposed to be limited in its scope, responsibilities and authority. It has usurped that with Wickard v Filburn. We used to not directly elect our Senators, but we were led to believe that the various "political machines" ensured whoever they wanted to received the appointment via the State legislatures. But we forgot that the Senate represented the will of the States in the Congress, to balance the directly elected House members. Now we see Senators at odds with State legislatures, and we discover we have removed an important check on the system. Eliminating the electoral college is not an entirely dissimilar notion, and a mistake IMHO.
Bookmarks