The Electoral College; the Guardian of our Rights

I just read that state lawmakers have been putting together a plan to replace the Electoral College with a mandate that all the electorals would be decided by the national popular vote. This scares me. Of all the things that have been done to the Constitution in the last fifty years this would be the worst.


Pure democracy is as bad a form of government as a dictatorship. That is why our founding fathers created a republic and not a democracy. A "majority rules" democracy creates an environment of having two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for diner. It never turns out good for the sheep. Not only are these reasons scary but there many more reasons to be scared of this idea.


The idea of the Electoral College is to weigh the voice of the majority with the rights of the minority. In a "Majority Rules" vote the large states would be the only ones heard. Candidates would be going to New York or California and by-passing the "Flyover" country because there is a greater amount of voters here to sway. What type of national leader would he be if he was elected only with the vote of large states. With the small states getting the minimum of three electorals they do end up with a stronger "per vote", but that is only if used "en masse". If not they will even themselves out. This makes a national candidate


One of the other issues that the Electoral College helps is voter fraud. Since I am from Illinois I know something about voter fraud. The state motto is "Vote Early, Vote Often!" and the Voter's Bill of Rights include right to use a death certificate as a valid ID. With the Electoral College voter fraud in Illinois does not affect the National Election except in the 21 Electorals that Illinois has. As a matter of fact, if Electorals were done by Congressional District the effect of voter fraud would be limited to the district that the fraud that is done in and the two electorals that is determined by the state's popular vote. In a vote as close as the 2000 election voter fraud could have changed that 500,000 vote defecit to a 500,000 very easily. Twenty Ttousand in this city, Twenty thousand in that city. With a national election any voter fraud affects the national numbers, and since the easiest place to create fraud is in a place with many voting places close together, large cities will end up with benefit from the voter fraud. When you hear about the percincts in some large cities that ended up with nearly 90-95% of the registered voters voting and they are almost all for the same candidate you have to wonder. And the media says that people in the inner cities are disenfranchised.



Ah, the media. With a National Election the media grows to the power of Gods in elections. Media has the power to make or break a candidate. It doesn't matter how great your message is if the Media does not cover you no one will know your name. Do you think candidates in smaller area will get any attention if it is up to national media? Where do media outlets get people to interview? Places where there are lots of people; cities and large cities at that. Again, a "Majority Rules" election is the scariest thing I can think of.



Do voters in large cities have the same priorities as a person from say, Iowa? How about Tennessee?, New Mexico?, Alaska? No, a person in the cities is not going to worry how a social welfare program is going to work in farm country. They are not going to worry about illegal immigration in New Mexico or Gun Rights in Tennesee. The the majority thinks that agricultral issues are not that important and that Global Warming would be helped if all the farmland in Iowa is turned into forests. Guns are bad and no one should own one, Majority Rules!



In each of the points I noticed that a "Majority Rules" style always benefits the large urban areas. I have also noticed that these large urban