December 7, 2018: Change the Constitution, Free Your Mind Instead, Beyond the Ramparts

"You say you'll change the constitution

well, you know

we all want to change your head

you tell me it's the institution

well, you know

you better free your mind instead."

                            ----John Lennon "Revolution"

It has become commonplace, in the wake of the electoral outrages of 2000 and 2016 to call for a constitutional amendment abolishing the electoral college. 

All the usual arguments are brought to bear.  Yes, North and South Dakota with populations of 1.8 million between them have twice as many senators than California with 40 million people.  And, since the College is comprised of each state choosing the number of electors equal to the number of representatives and senators that they have in Congress, this gives undue weight to those rural expanses, mostly in the largely white rural plains and mountain states.  

Secondly, it is rightly pointed out, the College was created in order to not only provide a buffer between the raw vote and the office of the president--with some holding that the College was intended to be a deliberative body designed to cast a final judgement upon the choice of the people, but it was also created as a sop to the slave states who, under the "three fifths" provision of the constitution gave those states electoral weight equal to three-fifths of the slave population (each man declared to count as 3/5ths vote) even though they couldn't vote.  This had the effect of giving Virginia a near monopoly of the presidency in the early formative years of the republic despite the state lagging behind both New York and Pennsylvania in white male population.  The college was an inducement for the slave states to join the union and, by this reasoning, was part of the 'original sin' of the republic, the remnants of which should be abolished.

That's all well and good, but I see a few problems with the proposal. 

First, it is unlikely that the small states would give up what little leverage they now have in nominating and electing the president and vice-president.  Since it would take a supermajority in the Senate to send the amendment to the several states, it is unlikely that the proposal will see the light of day. 

Secondly, it is troublesome that this proposal should emerge in the waning years of the political dominance of the 'Generation of Swine".  As has been made clear in many entries in these columns, the record of America's worst generation has not been stellar when it comes to governance.  Indeed the Swine have made a pig's breakfast of governance.  For this reason alone, any attempts to amend the constitution must await the passing of the swine.

Third, and most importantly, it is short-sighted of liberals and Democrats to rush to judgement here. 

In an essay published in The New York Times, Michael Tomasky rightly points out that the Democrats need a rural strategy.  (1)

In the last election, Tomasky points out, "Democratic Senate candidates got 45 million votes, and Republicans just 33 million (57 to 42 per cent).  Yet Republicans will gain perhaps three seats.(They gained two).  This, concluded Tomasky, "is not a democracy". (2)

Of course it isn't.  It was never intended to be.

I remember my high school government teacher asking the assembled, "are we a democracy/"  Of course the class nodded that yes, indeed we are. 

"No we aren't" he chided us, pointing out that we are a republic, not a democracy.  That the first term has nearly fallen out of use and that if we use it at all we quickly use the second interchangeably, only ads to the confusion. 

A republic, Mr. Heifje, pointed out, is a form of representative democracy.  The closest we come to a 'democratic' governance are the New England town hall meetings where people vote directly, meetings best parodied on Bob Newhart's "Newhart", a sitcom situated in a Vermont village.  This form of governance is impractical in larger political jurisdictions, the nation simply cannot meet en masse to attend committee meetings, draw up legislation, much less vote on a proposal.  So the founders gave us a structure in which the public would speak and act through their representatives. 

What they gave us was both representative (the House) individually, and representative (the Senate) collectively through our states.  Until the late 19th century, the state legislatures, dawn from the people would elect the State's Senators.  This was far from infallible.  For instance, in 1858, Lincoln narrowly won the popular vote, but lost to Douglas in the legislature leaving Lincoln to go back home and run for president while Douglass went  back to the Senate. 

The electoral college was created because the constitution was created and authorized on the authority of the then various state governments.  And, as previously observed, it served as an inducement for the various states--especially the small ones--to join the union. 

Yes, it is true that Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh won a slim majority of the senate representing a rather pronounced minority of the voters.  It is also true that before long about 40 per cent of the electorate will control about 60-65 per cent of the senate. 

But when Jefferson, who was in Paris representing the Republic as Ambassador when the Constitution was written, returned from Europe he asked his friend John Adams why they had created the Senate.  Adams, poured his tea from his cup to his saucer and blew on it, demonstrating a method for cooling the beverage.  The founders, who had met at Philadelphia in response to Shay's Rebellion, understood the passions of the mob, and it was to cool these passions that they created the Senate--a republican, not a democratic institution--as well as the electoral college.  It would take three election cycles to have all members of the senate account to their constituency, a term that transcends the house by three fold and transcends even the terms of the presidency.  Likewise, the electoral college, another sieve through which the passions of the people would have to pass before they could be felt. 

While there are many problems with this arrangement, it is worth noting that it has generally worked.  Where it has failed is best demonstrated by the failures of the last two time the college has been at odds with the popular vote, a failure in which the body has failed to deliberate. 

All this aside, for every Dakota that the conservatives can claim, the liberals at present can claim a Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey or Delaware.  The disparity in geographical expression, if not entirely in population must be weighed in totality. 

Nevertheless, disparity exists. 

But before we rush to judgement perhaps it is wise to consider Tomasky's claim that the Democrats need a rural strategy.  And why not?  Was it not the Democratic Party that gave us Rural Electrification, price supports, soil banks, the Farm Home administration, irrigation and land management programs?  Was it not the Democrats who saved the farmers--especially in the plains of Kansas and Oklahoma--from the ravages of the Dust Bowl?   The Democrats have a long and noble history in rural America. 

Further, the Electoral College, has the salutary effect of forcing the Democratic Party into the countryside.  It is becoming increasingly apparent (as the Obama Administration so vividly demonstrated) that while you can win national elections relying on so-called 'blue' states--that is, those states largely located along the coasts and in parts of the Midwest, it is not enough to govern.  In order to effectively govern the nation, a political party must represent nearly all of it.  This is a principle further demonstrated in the reverse by the current ReSCUMlickan party, which because it is not interested in governance--indeed seeks to dismantle the administrative state, it is wholly uninterested in expanding its base--seeking instead to devise ways and means of limiting participation at the polls in order to cling to power.  They can hold the office but cannot govern but, since they are seeking only to dismantle government, geographical expansion does not have high priority. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the Democrats--if they are to salvage governance and thereby save the Republic--to do the arduous work of venturing out beyond the ramparts.

Perhaps the answer isn't to change the institution, but to change our heads instead.  Perhaps the answer is to sally forth once again into rural America and reclaim--like we must do with our industrial and commercial workers--or rightful heritage.  It is time for the Democrats to cast off their recent infatuation with Wall Street and return once again to the people who depend upon them.  I suspect that they will be greeted as newly found friends.

As for the proposals to amend the Constitution, perhaps, after the passage of the swine, the Constitution could be amended so that the electoral college would meet in the nation's capitol instead of in the several states to cast their ballots; an amendment that would duly charge the electors to act as a deliberative body.  Perhaps in this way, we could have prevented the current catastrophe.

"An' Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh"

Impeach and Imprison.

__________________

(1). Tomasky, Michael. "Democrats Need a Rural Strategy".  The New York Times. Thursday,

                       November 8, 2018.  Page A23

(2). Ibid.