Contumacious
Radical Freedom
Why the Electoral College?
by P. Andrew Sandlin
In this atmosphere, the Founders were concerned that a popular regional candidate in a populous area may be able to garner enough votes to win the election, particularly if several other candidates divided the balance of the vote. This regionally popular first candidate would not likely have the interests of the entire number of states the nation itself at heart. If a candidate needed to win only the popular vote, it would possible for him to be elected President without winning a majority of anything. He would not have been elected on the basis of any sort of consensus of the states, but simply on his popularity in a particular state or in two or three heavily populated areas.
Article 2 of the Constitution and its 12th Amendment stipulate that the President is chosen by electors, who are themselves chosen by the state, "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." This arrangement obliges candidates to make a much wider appeal than they would if they simply were required to win the popular national election.
The electoral college is a bulwark of states rights yet, perhaps paradoxically, it also tends to foster the cohesiveness of the entire nation. It makes it difficult for more populous urban states, or states with larger populations, like New York, Florida, and California, to gain an unfair advantage over less urban and populous states like North Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana.
To eliminate the electoral college would be essentially to eliminate the role of states in presidential elections. It would comprehensively nationalize the selection and insinuate that states as such have no interest in national presidential politics. For all practical purposes, it would remove the borders between states and transform the United States of America into the united people of America.
.
by P. Andrew Sandlin
In this atmosphere, the Founders were concerned that a popular regional candidate in a populous area may be able to garner enough votes to win the election, particularly if several other candidates divided the balance of the vote. This regionally popular first candidate would not likely have the interests of the entire number of states the nation itself at heart. If a candidate needed to win only the popular vote, it would possible for him to be elected President without winning a majority of anything. He would not have been elected on the basis of any sort of consensus of the states, but simply on his popularity in a particular state or in two or three heavily populated areas.
Article 2 of the Constitution and its 12th Amendment stipulate that the President is chosen by electors, who are themselves chosen by the state, "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." This arrangement obliges candidates to make a much wider appeal than they would if they simply were required to win the popular national election.
The electoral college is a bulwark of states rights yet, perhaps paradoxically, it also tends to foster the cohesiveness of the entire nation. It makes it difficult for more populous urban states, or states with larger populations, like New York, Florida, and California, to gain an unfair advantage over less urban and populous states like North Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana.
To eliminate the electoral college would be essentially to eliminate the role of states in presidential elections. It would comprehensively nationalize the selection and insinuate that states as such have no interest in national presidential politics. For all practical purposes, it would remove the borders between states and transform the United States of America into the united people of America.
.
