The United States is not a democracy. It was never intended to be one. And that’s a good thing. The very concept of ‘one-person, one-vote’ is antithetical to the ideas of the Framers of the Constitution, and for very good reasons. As Jefferson wrote:
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
In fact, it’s actually worse. With a population of 350 million, 175,000,001 can disenfranchise 174.999,999. Or, as Benjamin Franklin once quipped:
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
There are multitudinous quotes like these from the Founders. The proponents of ‘one-person, one vote’ will, no doubt, insist that this was because the Framers were trying to preserve their power, trying to disenfranchise the lower classes, and a multitude of other reasons which seek to deny the specific ideal for which they stood—liberty.
If the majority are unchecked in their power via representation and republican principles, no person’s liberty is ever safe. A majority could simply vote to deny them their rights. The left’s vaunted ‘constitutional protection of liberties’ would be at the whim of a simple majority that could amend the constitution by outvoting the minority. The Constitution explicitly, intentionally and definitively rules out any such actions. Changing it requires significant super-majorities, in the House and in the Senate, and an even larger super-majority of the states. It’s hard to change. It’s supposed to be hard to change.
That said, our system has evolved such that by Orwellian use of language, by weasel words and by naked power grabs into one where a single judge, or at worst 5 judges, determine what the Constitution says and have the final, ultimate say. This is equally problematic, since the interpretation of the text will vary from judge to judge and from time to time. We’ve created a tyranny of the judiciary in place the of the tyranny of a king. But this argument is for another time.
The United States is a Constitutional Republic, and the Constitution provides numerous safeguards for the minority, and attempts to divide power in such a way that any action requires, at a minimum, the consent of the representatives of the majority of the people, a majority of the states, and the President. All of these are elected in different ways with different constituencies. They are also bound by the Constitution and their power is limited by that document. Passing anything of substance requires satisfying majorities of all the constituencies in such a way that they can vote for it. This is an impediment to radical change, and was specifically designed to be such.
Looking first at the US House of Representatives we find that every 10 years representatives are apportioned among the states by population. In our republican form of government the purpose of the House is to represent the people. These representatives are meant to vote in the best interest of their local constituents, the approximately 650,000 (2000 census) people who live in their district. The Constitution calls for them to be directly elected by those eligible to vote in their district (the original requirement being that anyone eligible to vote for the most populous house in the state legislature was eligible to vote in federal elections, since modified by the 26th Amendment to anyone who is 18 years old). The Constitution also gives power to tax and spend to the House (all ‘money’ bills must originate here, though since bills may be amended, this is effectively moot). The House is responsible for brining indictments against elected federal officials, cabinet members and judges (‘Bills of Impeachment’).
The US Senate, on the other hand, has a fixed membership (2 per state admitted to the Union) and this may not be changed without the express consent of the state so affected (in other words, the Constitution cannot be modified to change this unless all 50 states consent). The Senators are the representatives of the states, and are meant to represent the interest of the state as a whole. Originally, they were to be elected by the state legislature (though they legislatures were given the power to modify this if they so wished), though as of the 17th Amendment Senators are popularly elected (Note – this has created a dangerous imbalance of power, something I will discuss in future posts). The Senate is responsible for providing advice and consent on treaties and on cabinet posts. The Senate sits as a jury in impeachment proceedings and determines whether or not the accused ought to be removed from office.
With regard to the Presidency, it’s important to note that per the US Constitution, there is no such thing as a ‘popular vote’ for the Presidency. Despite media reporting, despite claims by failed candidates to office, there is no such thing and any claims about it are moot, and frankly, irrelevant. There are only 538 votes available, divided proportionally amongst the states (equal to the number of Senators plus Representatives, and with the 23rd Amendment, 3 for the District of Columbia). These votes are made in the state capitol following the presidential election, where voters express their preference. Most ballots do not show slates of electors, thus perpetuating the myth of a ‘popular’ vote. According to the Constitution, though, it is the slate of electors for the state (or by district in Maine and Nebraska) who meet to vote for the President and Vice President. Nothing can force these electors to vote for any one candidate, to follow the popular vote, nor prevent them from voting for anyone who meets the basic requirements (i.e. 35 years of age, natural born, President and Vice President from separate states). All claims to the contrary notwithstanding, members of the Electoral College are elected federal officials, and as such, may act independently of any controls placed on them by the state (in the same way a state cannot force a Congressman to vote one way or another by passing a law).
Should the Electoral College not produce a candidate with a majority of votes (270 with our current 50 states and size of the House), then the House of Representatives elects the President from those candidates who received Electoral College votes, but voting by state. In other words, each state delegation determines who to vote for and they get one single vote, with 26 votes winning the Presidency. Again, nothing compels any state legislature to follow the Electoral College results from their state, nor any preference they might divine for the ‘popular’ vote in their state. The Senate would elect a Vice President, but voting individually, not by states. The point of all of this rigamarole with the Presidency is to ensure that anyone who is elected has broad-based, national support.
In fact, the entire setup of the national government is intended to ensure that laws have broad-based support-from the people as a whole and from the states as entities. Whilst many argue that it gives too much weight to small states and ‘disenfranchises’ (in some way) the citizens of the large states, that is exactly what it was intended to do! In other words, it is working as defined and changes to move to a ‘popular’ vote system for President, and the already in effect 17th Amendment, is fraught with danger. Tyranny of the majority is inching ever closer. The Framers recognized that a country like the United States could only survive if the rights and liberties of all citizens were protected from tyranny of whatever source. This entire debate was had by the Framers, resulting in the ‘Great Compromise’ giving us our current Constitution (as amended). People today seem to forget this, and do not realize what they are asking for, and why it is a problem.
Those who clamor for a true democracy are asking for a system with no protection for liberty. They want, no matter what they might say to the contrary, mob rule, and that is what they will get. The Republic requires consensus, ‘one person, one vote’ does not. Calls for a pure democracy are calls for wild swings in policy, unpredictability of government and tyranny of the majority. John Adams wrote (in 1814):
I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy. Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. … Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never.
Exactly. Democracy cannot and does not work. A Constitutional Republic can and does. We need to restore ours. Now.
About Stephen Adams