I Love the Liberal Education System
First off, let me apologize for my last few articles. I know they have all been political, but it’s a popular topic during election time. After my last article, I thought I was done with that topic until election time, but after reading The Oakland Post, Oakland University's school newspaper, something has stirred this up in me once again.
I open up the news paper today and see an article on the Electoral College; I assumed it would be yet another whiney article by some democratic student. I begin to read and notice that it is actually about a teacher’s view on the matter as covered by a student. So I figure it was coming from an educated man and thought it may be worth reading. I go through the introduction and see that the topic comes from a history professor at my school, and once again am led to believe I am going to hear an intelligent argument on the matter from someone who is supposed to specialize in the subject. Not even a paragraph into the article did my impression of what this article was going to entail change dramatically.
He starts off his argument by blaming the Connecticut Compromise for the results of the 2000 election. The writer then describes what the compromise was about. For those of you who don’t know, it is basically what created our bi-cameral government. With a Senate for equal state representation and a House for representation by population. Now, the number of electoral votes is based off of the number of house members a state has plus its’ two senators. Fair enough, you can make a tie between the two, but it was only set-up that way to promote our Federalist form of government. Now, as a history professor I expect him to go further into the history behind the process, but no, he stops his historical facts right there. He has even given a lecture titled “How the Small States Have Twisted the Outcome of Three Presidential Elections and Why We Can Blame Connecticut”. I mean I guess you could blame the whole thing on Connecticut and ignore other historical facts, but hey, it’s better than providing information that would debunk your point of view.
First of all, there is more history behind the Electoral College than Connecticut. One false impression about its creation and, according to students who heard his speech, is one he is apparently conveying in his lectures, is that the Framers of this country did not think about the affects that such a system would have on close elections and that if they knew, Presidential elections would have been done differently. You would think as a history professor, he would want to back this claim up, but once again, as done by many liberals, the plain truth is ignored for reason to complain. Before making speeches or giving opinions on what the men who created the Constitution really intended, people might find it useful to read The Federalist Papers. If he would actually take time to read it before he starts spouting off naïve beliefs, the minds if many college students may have been saved. What I’m referring to is “No. 68: The Mode of Electing the President” (Hamilton), the essay that basically tells you in simple terms what these guys were thinking upon creation of the Electoral College. After a mere thirty seconds and three pages a reader can clearly see that the Framers did not want a popular election and in all rights wanted elections to turn out the way they do. I believe the part that conveys this message most is the following: “Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of the President of the United States.” The Framers wanted the President to be decided on a majority of the States, not the majority total vote; they felt, and as do I, it is a much greater task to win the majority of the States, than a few large populated areas. It’s amazing how checking your facts can clear things up, I only wish more people would read this book before opening their self righteous mouths about what the Framers meant and/or wanted from this country.
To the next portion of his lecture, about how small states have twisted the outcome of the election; sheer ignorance. To think that just because a State isn’t heavily populated means its voice shouldn’t be heard is utterly ridiculous. People think that by having a popular vote that it makes things equal and that everyone’s vote will count; this couldn’t be more wrong. There are two fundamental problems with a popular vote. First, everyone’s’ vote will not be equal, people who live in large groups that think and believe in the same things, i.e. California and New York, will pull a tremendous weight come election time and will basically be able to decide the President themselves; power in numbers people. Secondly, a popular vote virtually eliminates small states from the election process. It’s common sense really, in a popular election system, why on Earth would a candidate campaign or care about the issues of a state with a population of 500,000 people, when he could spend more time in states like California with tens of millions of people. The small states of this countries’ voice would literally be taken away from them, they would have no representation on a Federal level in terms of the President and would be eliminated from the election process. Their issues would only come up in the Senate where even then it is hard to get something passed in your favor without the Commander in Chief’s support.
Screw
middle America
Next in the article, he complains about how smaller states are pulling more weight than they should in the election process. According to the article, he asks his audience to look at the 2000 election. He then compares the ratio between population representations of California to Wyoming as being 53 to 1, then goes on to state that if you add the two senators, or as he calls it the “bonus votes”, it changes the ratio to 18 to 1. These amazing figures lead him to one closed mind conclusion: that large states are being underrepresented and small states are being over represented. Instead of letting your overwhelming bias get in the way, why not look at it like it is? Its just part of the effort to give states equal representation in voting, and even now, as his numbers show, it isn’t completely equal, California still pulls eighteen times more weight than Wyoming in an election. Sorry that California doesn’t get to overkill the smaller states, but I think if the Framers wanted that to happen they would have just created a dictatorship; because I think it’s safe to say that if larger states did pull that much weight, Democrats wouldn’t have much competition. Though I guess that would be pretty efficient if you were a die-hard liberal like this teacher obviously is.
I really wish people would get over the fact that Gore won the popular election, but lost the White House. I too, like this professor, can do some number crunching. The fact is that Gore won the election by 539,947 votes; this may seem like a large number, but after some simple math, you see that he only won by a 0.53% margin. Now if you look at the total states won, you actually see that Bush won 60% of the states, an 18% margin over Gore. You won’t need you calculator for this one folks; I think the difference between margins of victory speaks for itself. It is up to you to decide which is more important, winning 0.53% more of the total vote or 18% more states, but as stated before by myself and the Framers, winning a majority of the States is a greater accomplishment than winning a popularity contest.
Brunner, Allison. The Oakland Post. October 13, 2004: A3, A6
Hamilton. The Federalist Papers. “No.68: The Mode of Electing The President”. 1961 P: 382. Penguin Books Ltd.
If your wondering why there aren't any references to homosexuals or sexual acts in this article it's because, aside from the first paragraph, was something that I sent to the newspaper and the teacher. I think it's pretty safe to say that simply linking the page or using my normal lingo would have instantly destroyed my credibility. I just wanted to publish a writing that owned and left the newspaper groveling.