Essential concepts III--how the framers guarded against mob rule democracy

October 29, 11:34 AMColumbia Conservative ExaminerAnthony G. Martin

Previous Next

1 comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Columbia Conservative Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

In this third segment in our consideration of 'essential concepts' we will examine how the Framers of the U.S. Constitution guarded against mob rule democracy.

And make no mistake about it, democracy is mob rule.

A simple majority vote under a democracy can result in all sorts of havoc wreaked upon civil rights, liberties, and protections of freedom explicit in the Constitution.  This is precisely why the Framers warned against democracy and did all they could to guard against it in formulating the American government.

For example, there is Benjamin Franklin's famous response to a woman who asked him on the street, 'Mr. Franklin, exactly what kind of government have you given us?'  His response was direct and to the point--'A Republic, if you can keep it.'

We have already examined the vast difference between a democracy and a Republic here and here.  The Framers made it abundantly clear that we are a Republic and not a democracy.  Democracies can easily be manipulated by demagogues who rally the masses to use the concept of 'a simple majority vote' to undo every single protection against the encroachments upon the liberties guarded by the Constitution.

Thus, the Framers instituted a myriad of safeguards that made it necessary for politicians and others to jump through several hoops before any big changes could be made to the stipulations they insisted be part of the founding documents regarding liberty.

One of these safeguards is the Electoral College.

Interestingly, progressives in the nation today attack the Electoral College as being 'out of date,' 'oppressive,' 'unnecessary,' and 'a relic of colonial-era elitism.'

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Electoral College was implemented by the Framers to guard against simple majority mob rule.

By using the system of the Electoral College, the Framers insured that citizens who live in less populated areas of the country would not be disenfranchised by the masses who live in densely populated regions.

In a simple majority direct election of a President, the votes of citizens who live in Wyoming or Montana, for example, are totally decimated, overwhelmed, and negated by the votes of citizens who live in New York City, Boston, Miami, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.  In fact, when one takes a look at a map of voter demographics, one can see clearly that in the controversial election of 2000 it was the citizens who live around the rim of the country--the coastal regions and Great Lakes (and a few other areas)--who voted for Al Gore.  The rest of the country went for George W. Bush, and, using the Electoral College system, this meant that Bush won due to the fact that he came out on top in most of the areas of the country.

Al Gore, on the other hand, won the majority of the popular vote (the simple majority) by garnering the support of the densely populated centers around the nation's rim alone.  Had he been elected, that would have meant that the votes of citizens who live in large metropolitan areas would have counted more than those who live in the rest of the country.  This gives an unfair advantage to citizens living in coastal regions and around the Great Lakes.

Thus, the Electoral College system gives citizens who live in less populated regions a bit of a boost, making our Presidential elections fairer and more even.

And what, exactly, is the concept undergirding this mandate?  It is the desire of the Framers to protect the minority from the mob rule inherent in a democratic 'simple majority' vote.

To be sure, most of the time the majority decides the election.  But in very close races an edge is given to those citizens who live in less populated regions in order to prevent their votes from being totally negated and overwhelmed by large, mega-cities.

Another safeguard the Framers included in the original Constitution was the stipulation that U.S. Senators be chosen by their state legislatures rather than by a vote of the citizens.  The Framers believed that one of the two Houses of Congress be removed from a direct, popular vote of the people.  That house was to be the Senate while the U.S. House of Representatives would be the body that was chosen by a direct election of the people.

To the Framers this accomplished 2 important objectives--to achieve a balance between direct, popular elections and a need for the stability inherent in one body of Congress being removed from the whims of the electorate.

By having the Senate chosen by the state legislatures, which were elected by the people in those states, the Framers believed that it would be more difficult for activist politicians to tamper with essential precepts of liberty that did not need to be changed.

Unfortunately, as the years progressed the people demanded direct election of Senators in addition to the House of Representatives.  That change was implemented to the detriment of liberty.  We are now in a most unfortunate scenario where both houses of Congress are under the control of activists whose only gauge of 'effectiveness' is how much legislation they passed and how much 'change' they accomplished. 

This is clearly not the mark of a good representative in Washington.  The appropriate gauge of how effective is a Senator or Congressman is how thoroughly did they protect the citizens from attempted encroachments upon their liberties.  This could well mean that they pass NO new legislation!  It could also mean much less time spent in Washington, which would save the taxpayers billions.

I would do cartwheels in my front yard if we could get through a session of Congress where not a single measure of new legislation was passed.

Yet, due to the creeping crawl of 'the Progressive Movement,' resulting in bigger and bigger government, much of the populace today neither values nor clings to the safeguards to liberty that our Founders gave us.

In tomorrow's column we will look at the specific, insidious ways the populace and the government have essentially negated many of our sacred liberties.

For commentary on other issues, visit my blog at The Liberty Sphere.