Rural Americans would be serfs if we abolished the Electoral College
If the National Popular Vote drive kills the Electoral College, rural and small town Americans who supply our food and energy will lose their voice.
Should
rural and small-town Americans be reduced to serfdom? The American
Founders didn’t think so. This is one reason why they created checks and
balances, including the Electoral College. Today that system is
threatened by a proposal called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, or NPV.
Rural America produces almost all our country’s food, as well as raw materials like metals, cotton and timber. Energy, fossil fuels but also alternatives like wind and solar come mostly from rural areas. In other words, the material inputs of modern life flow out of rural communities and into cities.
This
is fine, so long as the exchange is voluntary — rural people choose to
sell their goods and services, receive a fair price, and have their
freedom protected under law. But history shows that city dwellers have a
nasty habit of taking advantage of their country cousins. Greeks
enslaved whole masses of rural people, known as helots. Medieval Europe had feudalism. The Russians had their serfs.
Read more commentary:
Credit
the American Founders with setting up a system of limited government
with lots of checks and balances. The U.S. Senate makes sure all states
are represented equally, even low-population rural states like Wyoming
and Vermont. Limits on federal power, along with the Bill of Rights, are
supposed to protect Americans from overreaching federal regulations.
And the Electoral College makes it impossible for one population-dense
region of the country to control the presidency.
Skipping the constitutional amendment process
This
is why Hillary Clinton lost in 2016. Instead of winning over small-town
Americans, she amassed a popular vote lead based on California and a few big cities.
She won those places with huge margins but lost just about everywhere
else. And the system worked. The Electoral College requires more than
just the most raw votes to win — it requires geographic balance. This
helps to protect rural and small-town Americans.
Now
a California millionaire named John Koza is trying to undo this system.
He is leading and funding the National Popular Vote campaign. Their
plan is to get state governments to ignore how their own citizens vote
in presidential elections and instead get them to cast their electoral
votes based on the national popular vote. If it works, this will be like getting rid of the Electoral College but without actually amending the Constitution.
'2 wolves and a lamb' voting on lunch
California has already passed NPV, along with 13 other states plus Washington, D.C. Nevada, with six electoral votes, could
be next. NPV only takes effect if it is joined by enough states that
they control 270 electoral votes, which would then control the outcome
of all future presidential elections. If that happens (NPV needs 81 more
electoral votes), and if the courts do not strike it down, big cities
will gain more political power at the expense of everyone else.
The
idea that every vote should count equally is attractive. But a quote
often attributed to Benjamin Franklin famously reminds us that democracy
can be “two wolves and a lamb
voting on what’s for lunch.” (City dwellers who think that meat comes
from the grocery store might not understand why this is such a big
problem for the lamb.) And when you think about it, every check on
government power, from the Electoral College to the Bill of Rights, is a
restraint on the majority.
The Electoral College
makes it even harder to win the presidency. It requires geographic
balance and helps protect Americans who might otherwise have their
voices ignored. All Americans should value constitutional protections,
like the Electoral College, that remind us that the real purpose of
government is to protect our individual rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment