Certainly worth watching. Click the following link:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-20-2009/good-news-bad-news---america-s-recession
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
The American Electoral College Operates Unconstitutionally
The Clover Helix
www.thecloverhelix.blogspot.com
Thursday, August 20, 2009
The use of the Electoral College for the election of the U.S. President and Vice-President has been controversial from its inception (See Federalist 55 and 68). Many have called for the abolition of the Electoral College in favor of a popular vote or other elective method. Because the Electoral College bestows a disproportional measure of electoral influence on smaller states, and these same small states would have to ratify any change, the prospect of having it eliminated via constitutional amendment is very small. However, a review of the Constitution reveals that the modern method for determining the number of Electors in the Electoral College has been conducted unconstitutionally. We can effectively address some (but not all) of the short-comings associated with the Electoral College should the Electoral College be applied constitutionally. To my knowledge, this is the first time this issue has been raised. Bear with me as I demonstrate this point by reviewing relevant sections of the Constitution.
The Constitution clearly specifies state representation in Congress:
“The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative;” Article I, Section 2, Paragraph
“Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State excluding Indians not taxed.” Amendment 14, Section 2
As seen in these two passages, the number of U.S. Representatives is equal to the population of the States (“excluding Indians not taxed”) divided by 30,000. In 2000, the population of the United States was found (via decadal census) to be 280,849,847. Therefore, by Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 2, 9,362 seats in the House of Representatives would need to be allocated for apportionment amongst the States. Here we encounter our first problem: the House of Representatives is currently composed of 435 voting members, not the 9,362 or so the Constitution calls for. This low number is due to the passage of Public Law 62-5 in 1911 and, later, the Reapportionment Act of 1929, which limited the voting membership of Congress to 435 members. These two acts of Congress have dubious constitutionality and interesting discussions of them and the politics that brought them about are easily found on the internet (e.g. www.thirty-thousand.org). Certainly, these acts do not usurp the Constitution’s provisions (cited above) mandating that the States be entitled to considerably larger House memberships. Today, the States are relinquishing their legally allotted seats in accordance with these federal statutes. Whether this congressional membership practice is constitutionally permissible or ethical is another matter and is not pursued further in this article.
“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, [chosen by the Legislature thereof], for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.” Article I, Section 3, Paragraph 1 (Bracketed text changed by the 17th Amendment)
Membership of the Congressional Senate, which is fixed at two Senators per State, regardless of population size, was not affected by Public Law 62-5 or the Reapportionment Act of 1929. As such, the constitutionality of the membership of the 100 Senators is not disputed. I now address the allotment of the Electors in the Electoral College. Read these excerpts carefully.
“Each state shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress;” Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 2
“The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for the President and Vice President,”. Amendment 12
“A number of Electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous state;”. Amendment 23, Section 1
Clearly, it was the original intent of the Constitution for each state to vote for the President and Vice-President in proportion to its representation in Congress. Thus, the number of Electors has been assumed to be equal to the total membership of both Houses of Congress (435 Representatives and 100 Senators), plus three Electors allocated to Washington, D.C., totaling 538 Electors. This is a false assumption.
Note that Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 2 declares that each “state shall appoint…a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress;”. The ‘shall’ here indicates that the States are required to appoint the full number of Electors (no more and no less) to which that state may be entitled. How many Representatives are the States entitled to? Per Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 2, States are entitled to one representative per 30,000 people. Furthermore, we know that this entitlement was not altered by either Public Law 62-5 or the Reapportionment Act of 1929. Again, the States have simply chosen to send fewer than the requisite number of Representatives to which they are entitled, in accordance with those federal statutes (perhaps unconstitutionally). Additionally, the constitutional text makes no mention of summing the House membership of each State with its Senators for establishing the College, but rather instructs each State to furnish a number of Electors that is dependant upon the number of Representatives that State is entitled to, plus the Senators. This is a very different measure. Essentially, the number of Electors selected to the Electoral College is not dependant upon the number of Representatives and Senators seated in the Congress (as is currently assumed), but rather the number is equal to the maximum number of Representatives and Senators allotted per Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 2, regardless of whether they have been seated in Congress or not. Hence, the Constitutional number of Electors apportioned amongst the States should be considerably larger (9,479) than the fixed number that is currently used (538).
The advantage afforded smaller states over larger states by the Electoral College, due to their senatorial representation, was intended to diminish as the population of the country increased over time. It is clear that the Framers of the Constitution were well aware that the House membership was poised to increase rapidly, as evidenced by James Madison in Federalist 55. To address this issue, “Article the First” became the first proposed amendment to the Constitution (as a yet un-adopted and open portion of the Bill of Rights), which proposed computational algorithms that were set to adjust the ratio of population per Representative as the population increased. The purpose of this Amendment was to prevent the House of Representatives from deteriorating into a mob when the country grew to a very large population. Unless the Constitution is properly amended, the number of Electors in the constitutional Electoral College is slated to continue increasing into the tens of thousands, whereas the currently unconstitutional Electoral College stands to disenfranchise the nation’s voters well into the future.
Interestingly, the U.S. presidential election results for 2000 would still have been awarded a very narrow electoral victory to George W. Bush (by approximately 100 electoral votes) had a constitutional Electoral College been employed. This reveals another major problem with the system: States vote as a block and do not apportion their Electors between the candidates. If States were required to constitutionally apportion their Electors according to the popular vote, then a more democratic electoral system would come into being.
www.thecloverhelix.blogspot.com
Thursday, August 20, 2009
The use of the Electoral College for the election of the U.S. President and Vice-President has been controversial from its inception (See Federalist 55 and 68). Many have called for the abolition of the Electoral College in favor of a popular vote or other elective method. Because the Electoral College bestows a disproportional measure of electoral influence on smaller states, and these same small states would have to ratify any change, the prospect of having it eliminated via constitutional amendment is very small. However, a review of the Constitution reveals that the modern method for determining the number of Electors in the Electoral College has been conducted unconstitutionally. We can effectively address some (but not all) of the short-comings associated with the Electoral College should the Electoral College be applied constitutionally. To my knowledge, this is the first time this issue has been raised. Bear with me as I demonstrate this point by reviewing relevant sections of the Constitution.
The Constitution clearly specifies state representation in Congress:
“The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative;” Article I, Section 2, Paragraph
“Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State excluding Indians not taxed.” Amendment 14, Section 2
As seen in these two passages, the number of U.S. Representatives is equal to the population of the States (“excluding Indians not taxed”) divided by 30,000. In 2000, the population of the United States was found (via decadal census) to be 280,849,847. Therefore, by Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 2, 9,362 seats in the House of Representatives would need to be allocated for apportionment amongst the States. Here we encounter our first problem: the House of Representatives is currently composed of 435 voting members, not the 9,362 or so the Constitution calls for. This low number is due to the passage of Public Law 62-5 in 1911 and, later, the Reapportionment Act of 1929, which limited the voting membership of Congress to 435 members. These two acts of Congress have dubious constitutionality and interesting discussions of them and the politics that brought them about are easily found on the internet (e.g. www.thirty-thousand.org). Certainly, these acts do not usurp the Constitution’s provisions (cited above) mandating that the States be entitled to considerably larger House memberships. Today, the States are relinquishing their legally allotted seats in accordance with these federal statutes. Whether this congressional membership practice is constitutionally permissible or ethical is another matter and is not pursued further in this article.
“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, [chosen by the Legislature thereof], for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.” Article I, Section 3, Paragraph 1 (Bracketed text changed by the 17th Amendment)
Membership of the Congressional Senate, which is fixed at two Senators per State, regardless of population size, was not affected by Public Law 62-5 or the Reapportionment Act of 1929. As such, the constitutionality of the membership of the 100 Senators is not disputed. I now address the allotment of the Electors in the Electoral College. Read these excerpts carefully.
“Each state shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress;” Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 2
“The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for the President and Vice President,”. Amendment 12
“A number of Electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous state;”. Amendment 23, Section 1
Clearly, it was the original intent of the Constitution for each state to vote for the President and Vice-President in proportion to its representation in Congress. Thus, the number of Electors has been assumed to be equal to the total membership of both Houses of Congress (435 Representatives and 100 Senators), plus three Electors allocated to Washington, D.C., totaling 538 Electors. This is a false assumption.
Note that Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 2 declares that each “state shall appoint…a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress;”. The ‘shall’ here indicates that the States are required to appoint the full number of Electors (no more and no less) to which that state may be entitled. How many Representatives are the States entitled to? Per Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 2, States are entitled to one representative per 30,000 people. Furthermore, we know that this entitlement was not altered by either Public Law 62-5 or the Reapportionment Act of 1929. Again, the States have simply chosen to send fewer than the requisite number of Representatives to which they are entitled, in accordance with those federal statutes (perhaps unconstitutionally). Additionally, the constitutional text makes no mention of summing the House membership of each State with its Senators for establishing the College, but rather instructs each State to furnish a number of Electors that is dependant upon the number of Representatives that State is entitled to, plus the Senators. This is a very different measure. Essentially, the number of Electors selected to the Electoral College is not dependant upon the number of Representatives and Senators seated in the Congress (as is currently assumed), but rather the number is equal to the maximum number of Representatives and Senators allotted per Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 2, regardless of whether they have been seated in Congress or not. Hence, the Constitutional number of Electors apportioned amongst the States should be considerably larger (9,479) than the fixed number that is currently used (538).
The advantage afforded smaller states over larger states by the Electoral College, due to their senatorial representation, was intended to diminish as the population of the country increased over time. It is clear that the Framers of the Constitution were well aware that the House membership was poised to increase rapidly, as evidenced by James Madison in Federalist 55. To address this issue, “Article the First” became the first proposed amendment to the Constitution (as a yet un-adopted and open portion of the Bill of Rights), which proposed computational algorithms that were set to adjust the ratio of population per Representative as the population increased. The purpose of this Amendment was to prevent the House of Representatives from deteriorating into a mob when the country grew to a very large population. Unless the Constitution is properly amended, the number of Electors in the constitutional Electoral College is slated to continue increasing into the tens of thousands, whereas the currently unconstitutional Electoral College stands to disenfranchise the nation’s voters well into the future.
Interestingly, the U.S. presidential election results for 2000 would still have been awarded a very narrow electoral victory to George W. Bush (by approximately 100 electoral votes) had a constitutional Electoral College been employed. This reveals another major problem with the system: States vote as a block and do not apportion their Electors between the candidates. If States were required to constitutionally apportion their Electors according to the popular vote, then a more democratic electoral system would come into being.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)