Sunday, November 13, 2016

Electors

The Electoral College exists for two reasons.  The first was to make sure that large cities did not overwhelm the countryside--which after all contains most of the land in this country, most of the physical mass.  With regard to this aim, Trump's election was a logical consequence.  Most of America is red.  Most of most counties across this country are read.  Most of us are law abiding and peaceful.

Here is a good treatment of this topic: http://pjcountry.blogspot.com/2011/02/electoral-college-systemgood-or-bad.html

If the opponents of the Electoral College had it their way and we adopted the direct-election system, no candidate would ever visit the 30 smallest states (population) in the U.S., including New Mexico. Every campaign would be based around the big, urban city. If you don't live in NY City, Los Angeles, or Chicago, you wouldn’t see the candidates. The idea is to be sure all votes in a district have power. Ideally no single party, race, ethnic group, or other bloc, nationally large or nationally small, will dominate any of the districts-- which for now happen to be the 50 states plus Washington, D.C.Some political experts argue that the Electoral College robs voters of their individual power. A physicist from MIT named Alan Natapoff, in 1970, questioned that belief and he worked on a theorem that would show the people the value of our Electoral College. He worked on a mathematical explanation to identify the voters’ power in an electoral system versus a direct popular voting system. He asked himself, “What is the probability that one person’s vote will be able to turn a national election?” The higher the probability, the more power each voter commands. Almost always, he found, individual voting power is higher when funneled through districts--such as states--than when pooled in one large, direct election. It is more likely, in other words, that your one vote will determine the outcome in your state and your state will then turn the outcome of the Electoral College, than that your vote will turn the outcome of a direct national election. A voter therefore, Natapoff found, has more power under the current electoral system.
The second reason we have an Electoral College, and the reason Senators also were originally elected by the State legislatures, was to prevent mobs from being stupid.  The House is intended to be rambunctious and to be in continual revolt and turmoil.  Elections are direct, and every two years, and people's moods change often.

The Senate, in contrast, has six year terms, and was intended to be the slower, more thoughtful, counterpoint to the House.  On the one hand you give the people a very direct voice, but on the other you balance it with men who are ideally well educated, of solid character, and beyond the need for continual campaigning.  If we had kept the old system, they would not have needed to campaign at all.  Our Constitution truly is a work of political genius (with its only flaw, as I continue to say, the failure to prevent the possibility of an activist Supreme Court).

But to the point here, the intent was to prevent truly bad candidates from getting into office.  The Left, of course, argues that Donald Trump is the truly bad candidate.  But Hillary, in something which has never happened before in our country, to my knowledge, emerged as the nominee despite being clearly guilty of MANY felonies, and under CURRENT investigation for many more at the Clinton Foundation, with criminal charges on all accounts being very likely.  I do continue to wonder if Comey closed the latest server investigation only after striking a deal that she would not be President.

So even in the unlikely event 20+ Electors could be persuaded to change their votes, which would be highly unethical, and highly politically destabilizing and likely physically dangerous to themselves, they would be changing their votes to someone who may well provoke a Constitutional crisis, or at least crisis of governance, as prosecutable crimes emerge from the investigation.  I don't think there is any reasonable doubt many laws were broken, and that given evidence she thought was destroyed was in fact kept, that a solid and effective criminal case can and will be brought.

And Bill Clinton CAN be arrested.  He is no longer the President.  Hillary would have to be impeached and removed, but he could go to jail immediately, as, I'm sure, could Chelsea.

Looking at all this, it is easy to see how they may have agreed to play ball and just fade into the woods.  It would not surprise me to learn that HILLARY'S people are canvassing the Electors, to make sure they don't vote for her.  Their reign is over.



No comments: