When we explored the constitutional problems that would likely be created by the "National Popular Vote" in Thursday's column, this writer received a plethora of responses extolling the virtues of why the scheme, which is designed to undermine (and therefore to abolish de facto) the electoral college as the direct means of electing the President of the United States. What was most telling about this experience was that the overwhelming majority of these comments came by way of Facebook, but used AOL Open ID, so we saw no name, just a plethora of convenient statistics that failed to answer the central question: Is the goal of this movement one to undermine the electoral college and move toward direct poplar election-something that would destroy the last effective vestage of States' rights within our government? A few of you who hold the pro-popular vote view were kind enough to give your name-or at least a respectable name-when you commented, and you are to be commended, since your views certainly didn't have the appearance of rehearsal.

 

There is obviously a clear attempt-and one that is being paid for-to get the populous to accept what is, in reality, a major constitutional change by stealth. It sounds good to most people, doesn't it? After all, shouldn't the candidate who gets the most votes for Presidnet win? Isn't that how it is supposed to work in a democracy? Perhaps it might be, except that the United States of America is not, and was never intended to be, a democracy. We do not pledge allegiance to the "democracy for which it stands," nor do we have any patriotic song called the "Battle Hymn of the Democracy." Oh, Oatney, aren't you just playing with semantics, you may say, aren't a republic and a democracy the same thing." They are not the same thing-at least not according to our founders-and they placed certain checks within our constitution to try and insure that we would not descend into a democracy. 

 

We did away with one of those critical checks in 1913 when the 17th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified. At the time, most people thought that the direct election of Senators sounded like a good idea, and there had been a well-publicized campaign for direct election of Senators for over two decades prior-indeed the Populist Party platform of 1892 was built around the issue. It sounded great, after all-shouldn't people directly elect Senators? The purpose of the Senate, however, was to represent the interests of the respective States in Congress, while the House of Representatives was the body designed to reflect and represent the popular opinion and the day, and was and still is elected by popular vote. The great side-effect is that now we have a body of people in the upper chamber elected to six-year terms, longer than a President, who are unanswerable to anyone for five of their six years in office, and voters do tend to have short political memories. Senators were originally to be chosen by their respective State Legislatures as a representative of the government of their State, insuring the State's interest was represented while House members represented the popular will within their districts.

 

Direct election of federal Senators is a part of the Constitution now, however, so what is left to insure that individual States and their interests are effectively represented? The Electoral College. How presidential electors are apportioned is always a matter for the States to decide, but more importantly, the present system allows for the possibility that the people within their States can choose a President who doesn't win the popular vote. The winner in the Electoral College does win the popular vote most of the time, but it is presently possible for certain States to align together to insure that their candidate is chosen-there is presently a way to put a check on the "tyranny of the majority" if need be, so that rural America has a united voice if they vote as a block. If the National Popular Vote scheme is adopted, that check-and-balance within our system as it presently exists would disappear.

 

Giving way to popular sentiment is usually a good thing, but in a "complex republic" of the kind that the Founding Fathers created, there must be a way to check the will of the majority within the machinations of government-the Electoral College is that way as we have it today. National Popular Vote would permantly undermine this key protection of minority power and rural America.

 

But it sounds good, doesn't it-so democratic, no? Never mind that an important check on majority power will fade into the wind.