AN UNEQUAL PROPOSAL

There is an anti-federalist plan afoot. It is a plan that would more readily result in a minority of voters “electing” a president. As it is, we have had such results in the past. The last case was the selection of George W. Bush in the 2000 election. Since voters do not directly elect a president but choose a set of electors who serve on the constitutionally created entity, the Electoral College, the possibility remains that the winner could have fewer votes, nationally, than the losing candidate. While this is possible, such cases have been very rare. The first such case was the election of John Quincy Adams in 1824. Adams, according to his defeated opponent, Andrew Jackson, stole that election through a political deal. Besides the 1824 and 2000 elections, the elections of 1876 and 1888 resulted with the candidate with the fewer number of votes winning.

Why were these cases possible? The writers of the Constitution were not that keen on the average person having much say in selecting the chief executive. My interpretation, and not original with me, is that there were several factors involved in their decision to create the Electoral College. Besides having a reserved trust in common wisdom, the founding fathers did not see the office of the presidency being as powerful as it has become. The center of power was to be the Congress whose members represent citizens in the different areas of the country and whose main task is to determine, through the issuance of laws, what the government is to do. The job of the president was mainly to carry out the wishes of Congress. Yes, the presidency, from its beginning, was to take the lead in diplomacy and military matters. But for a young and isolated nation, these two areas of concern were not given the importance we give them today.

The other concern that led to bypassing the popular vote was to protect the integrity of the states, particularly the small states, that could be threatened by a chief executive who owed his (at the time only men where considered) selection to a national electorate. By allotting the number of electoral votes equal to the total number of representatives from each state in Congress – the number of representatives in the House and Senate – the relative strength in a presidential election between large and small states was narrowed a bit. Also, it was and is the case that there are more small states than large states. By counting electoral votes on a state by state basis, small states, collectively, can carry enough votes to make sure any candidate would not develop a platform that would be antagonistic to small state interests. Also, since each state has two senators, this, to a limited degree, limited the relative strength of one state as compared to every other state. This concern for states reflects the very federal ideal that each state is comprised of its unique people. Each has its own sense of people-hood. As individuals are equal, the founding fathers believed each “people” are also equal. We have lost this sense of people-hood, but we can still see remnants of it in the structure of the United Nations, for example, where in the General Assembly each state/nation has, no matter how large its size or population or how powerful, equal representation. This ideal is very federal. Whether it should still hold sway over the structural concerns of modern day America is up for debate.

For those who feel we are today enough of a single nation – that is, hold a visceral sense of one-ness – the argument for ridding ourselves of the Electoral College seems natural and obvious. Whether we should rely on a straight popular vote or manipulate how we select our electoral votes in order to bypass the Electoral College is a question under consideration. But there is another plan that I feel directly threatens our federalist values. It is one that is being promoted by the Republican Party in several states and has received support from national spokespersons of that party. The plan calls for determining each electoral vote not by the popular vote of a state but instead by the popular vote of each Congressional district. Most states today allocate all of their electoral votes to the candidate who wins a plurality of the vote in the state. So, for example, in Florida, if candidate X beats candidate Y, who comes in second by only one vote, Florida casts its entire 27 electoral votes for candidate X. With a bit of mathematical imagination, you can see why such a system at the national level could result in the loser of the popular vote winning the electoral vote and hence, the election. The proposed plan would base the electoral vote allocation not by who wins the state, but who wins each Congressional district within the state. With a bit more mathematical imagination, you can see that the possibility of a loser of the popular vote winning the election becomes more likely.

To explain these mathematical machinations would take more space than it deserves here, but to illustrate the point, if the last election occurred as these Republicans are proposing, Barack Obama, who received over four million votes (51%) more than Mitt Romney, would have lost the election.¹ Could that fact be motivating those who are proposing the change? What do you think? But besides having this political effect, what does this change represent to our constitutional make-up? Actually, on the face of it, not much. After all, the Constitution leaves it up to the states to determine how they will select their electoral votes. But of course, reality is never that easy.

First, such a change would counter a constitutional principle that has taken hold over the years. That is “one person, one vote.” This principle developed as a result of how state legislatures were formed in which rural areas were over-represented at the expense of the interests of urban areas. Finally, the Supreme Court mandated that states rearrange their representation models to adequately protect urban citizens. Summarizing its finding, the Court's decision has been described as issuing a “one person, one vote” principle. In terms of federalist thinking, this debate exposed a tension within that perspective in that federalism generally supports state's prerogatives. At a more fundamental level, though, that perspective is based on the ideal that governance is created at the behest of citizens, who are to be equal in terms of their legal status, coming together to formulate and populate a governmental entity to serve that citizenry – of, by, and for the people. The current Republican proposal will, in effect, disenfranchise millions of urban citizens. It is not a proposal that will prohibit people from voting, but it will in effect render the votes of millions of voters ineffectual. Basing elections on congressional districts, districts drawn to further political aims, will result in such a disenfranchisement. Proof for this assertion is found in the fact that the current House of Representatives, a product of the last election in 2012, is controlled by Republicans despite the fact that the Democrats received over one million votes more than the Republicans at the national level in those Congressional elections.

Whether we decide to keep the Electoral College or not is a very good issue to entertain in a civics class which is guided by federation theory. But of even more paramount concern is whether we should choose electoral votes based on Congressional districts. As it is, the current system, given that each state has equal representation in the Senate, under-represents the more urban states. Under-representation, in effect, disenfranchises people. Often those people, so victimized, besides being citizens who live in cities, are minorities since it is in cities where minorities disproportionally live. This is anti- federal; it is anti-democratic. Are we a nation ready to drift away from these principles that have served us so well in the past? I find it ironic that it is our conservative party promoting such a plan. I have pointed out that in midterm elections the turnout is smaller than in presidential elections; that those who vote in midterms are usually voters who more emotionally identify with one of the parties or who are upset by recently implemented polices. I think that if Republicans establish this method of choosing electors, they will anger those citizens who are disenfranchised. If they are adequately informed by the Democrats, they could very well make up a large block of angry voters. Given the proven ability of the Obama camp to organize, they might very well take out their anger on the Republicans in the 2014 midterm elections.

1The mathematics is based on the distribution of voters for one candidate or another over geographical areas. If the supporters of one candidate are concentrated in one or two Congressional districts and his/her opponent's supporters are spread over the other Congressional districts, even though the first candidate has a higher number of votes, the candidate who has a more spread out support can win with fewer votes.

COORDINATING AUTONOMY AND CIVIC VIRTUE

In order for human existence to have any sense of character or intrinsic worth, each person; each of us must have a certain degree of autonomy. We need to be able to make decisions about the challenges and opportunities that present themselves. We have to have a degree of liberty. Those who have given this quality of life serious thought have juxtaposed it against such concerns as civil stability and social responsibilities. There are those who argue that because of this promotion of self worth, liberty should be maximized – that all of us should have the highest degree of liberty possible. Others are not so sure. While liberty, for the above reason, is very important and necessary for a person's integrity, it cannot be a substitute or excuse for not exhibiting civic virtue.

Our Constitution has something to say about this whole concern. I think it is helpful to review this constitutional aspect from time to time. As one of its aims, the Constitution demands that we are to “promote the general welfare.” On their face, these few words communicate the idea that we, as a society, should establish an economic system that at minimum provides in real terms sufficient material means so that all can lead reasonable lives by the standards prevalent at a given time. The political scientist, Donald S. Lutz, through text analysis, has equated the term, “general welfare,” in the Constitution with what we today call the common good.¹ That is, this aim, specified in our founding document, challenges us to put those policies in place that provide the most good for the most numbers. I would equate this advocacy to that standard provided by utilitarians, but I do not believe the founding fathers believed in a goodness which is self-defined by individual preferences. Instead, I see the document setting up a balance among certain conditions reflecting the good. The meaning of goodness can be derived from what else the Constitution promotes: security, equality, liberty, religious freedom, freedoms of expression and association, stability, property rights, community, justice, and the like. We see these values expressed either directly in the Constitution or implicitly by the structure of government the document sets up. Furthermore, more specific values or conditions of goodness can be deduced from the more general values the Constitution contains. For example, stability and tranquility are furthered by a healthy population and by a reasonable distribution of wealth and income. But “common good” can be diminished if the people or the government seeks one aspect of the good at the unreasonable expense of other aspects. How we arrive at the balances among the demands, as long as the demands reflect constitutional values, is what one can consider a healthy political discourse. It becomes unhealthy when we seek to deny that certain values, such as a healthy distribution of income, are not part of the conversation or certain values are radicalized; that is, sought after at the expense of all other constitutional values.

If we take this balancing act to heart, we can see that individual autonomy (liberty) is not antagonistic to civic virtue. Richard Dagger² gives us a more in-depth analysis of the relationship between autonomy and civic virtue. At a more obvious level, there is the concern over corruption. Surely, our self autonomy can be seriously compromised by a system where there is widespread corruption. Even the rich and privileged can be victimized by a system in which there is little trust. We, as a nation, have toyed with high degrees of licentious attitudes and behavior. Our crime rates reflect this. “The best hope lies in 'the education of desire' or, more optimistically, in an appeal to 'the compulsion of duty'.”³ To some degree, we need to equate liberty with the more Puritanical sense that liberty means we are free to do what we should do, not necessarily what we want to do at all times. Under this conceptualization, we can easily visualize a role for civics education – one rooted in a moral base.

Another obvious connection between autonomy and civic virtue is the autonomy derived from an autonomous nation. Again, a country that is free in terms of both the freedoms it protects for its people and in terms of independence from outside forces, can maintain that freedom only through a populous that is willing and competent enough to protect that independence. Such a task can be accomplished only through a collective commitment not only for a sovereign state, but also for the idea and ideal of freedom itself. Again, civics education has a role: to promote patriotic feelings. This gets tricky. This role is not for promoting blind patriotism or nationalism – “my country, right or wrong, my country” – but a healthy disposition to favor the values we associate with democratic living, including a certain level of skepticism of public policy and public figures.

The final connection Dagger makes between autonomy and civic virtue reflects upon perhaps a false assumption we might hold about the human desire for freedom. We very readily believe that human nature strives for autonomy. To a degree this is true, but freedom contains its own challenges which can become burdensome to meet. Years ago, the social-psychologist, Erich Fromm, wrote about this sense of disconnection which accompanies “freedom from” institutional relationships – family, religion, work – and can lead one to be disposed toward associating with authoritarian ideas or an authoritarian leader.⁴ The reality is that in order to maintain a true allegiance to freedom, we must find our own individual ways to be free – to spontaneously integrate ourselves in order to act creatively within the roles we set out for ourselves. Both Fromm and Dagger emphasize that this development at the individual level demands the appropriate social connections.

The person who is completely dependent on others cannot be independent [as in lacking “freedom from”], yet even the independent person remains dependent on others in various ways. We are interdependent, in other words, and a proper understanding of autonomy and civic virtue leads us to recognize and appreciate this basic fact of life.⁵

Which various ways? By countless ways, but to name a few: providing the rule of law, providing the common defense, providing protection from diseases and disasters, providing education, and providing a general cultural promotion of individual rights. All this is done through communal institutions which are manned by willing and civic- minded citizens.

1Lutz, D. S. (1992). A preface to American political theory. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.

2Daggar, R. (1997). Civic virtue: Rights, citizenship, and republican liberalism. New York, NY: Oxford.

3Ibid., p.16.

4Fromm, E. (1941). Escape from freedom. New York, NY: Rinehart, Holt, and Winston.

5Op cit., Dagger, pp. 17-18.