Is the electoral college system broken? If so, what should be done about it?

Answered by Chuck Diaz May 30th 2019

It is not broken, it is doing exactly what it was intended to do.

WE are fifty STATES that are United by a contract they made between them called the Constitution and two years later they added The Bill of Rights. There was no Washington DC or a federal government as we know it today.

It was created by the STATES, originally the thirteen colonies. Because we are 50 STATES United, each State gets a vote. In other words, the STATES elect their president, not the People.

What! You say! The People don’t vote for the president. Yes they do but at the State level. The People get to vote in the STATES election

Our Fore Fathers understood that as the population increased there would be hubs of cities that would have more and more citizens. Eventually, the few major hubs would rule a country made up of 50 STATES.

That is exactly why the Electoral College was created. It was created to solve that problem.

Constitutionally we are not ONE voting country. We are Fifty STATES with fifty State governments and each State gets the representative Electoral votes.

During the election EACH State votes using a popular vote, but nationally all STATES MUST have some say, ergo the Electoral College.

Each State gets as many votes as they have the total of Representatives in the House and Senators.

For an example California gets 55 Electoral votes and North Dakota gets 3. California has 53 members of the House because Representatives are determined by population and two for the two Senators for a total of 55 Electoral votes.

North Dakota get 1 for the House of Representatives plus 2 Senators for their total of 3. In this manner all STATES get to vote and the winner is determined by winning the most Electoral votes. It will never change because if it does there will no longer be a United STATES of America.

The Constitution was ratified by the STATES, the country was created by the STATES. Our Founders wanted the STATES to govern the People, not the Federal Government.

While the Constitution was in the ratification process, some STATES picked up on what they considered flaws in the original Constitution and while On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the Constitution. That made it officially America’s system of government. I disagree when it is said it became the law of the land. It was more the plan of how the Federal Government was to operate.

With four holdouts it was decided to clear up the problem so almost two years after it was signed by the representatives of the new STATES and almost a year after it was ratified they called a first meeting of Congress ( First Congress) to discuss the problem. They told us they did this in the first sentence of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights:

“Congress of the United STATES begun and held at the city of New York, on Wednesday, the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.”

Rather than re-writing the Constitution they decided to amend it, and they did so ten times! There were more amendments discussed at the time, but the ten that survived were collectively called the Bill of Rights.

It took two and a half more years for the Bill of Rights to be ratified, and it was done so, on December 15th 1791. The STATES hadn’t trusted the Constitution as written in 1787 and they said so in the second paragraph of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, which STATES:

“THE Conventions of a number of the STATES, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent the misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

So why was the Bill of Rights written?

They felt that, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.”

And why did they want them added?

The first phrase tells us: “in order to prevent the misconstruction or abuse of its powers.”

Whose powers?

The newly created Federal Government

With these two phrases, our forefathers were telling us why they wrote the Bill of Rights. They wanted the restrictions declared because they feared the possibility of anyone incorrectly interpreting (“misconstruction”) the Constitution. They also did not want any misconstruction to lead to the federal government abusing its limited powers. How we doing so far?

They wrote the Bill of Rights to insure the “political freedom” of the people from the newly created federal government.

Political Freedom?

Yes, political freedom, because the Constitution and Bill of Rights are political documents that define how our Forefathers would protect the political freedom for all American citizens.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights were not intended to restrict the People or the STATES in any way; it does, however, restrict the federal government. While everyone is always talking about the Second Amendment, the idea of restricting the federal government was set in cement with the Tenth Amendment, that simply STATES:

“The powers not delegated to the United STATES by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the STATES, are reserved to the STATES respectively, or to the people.”

What was previously assumed, was now written.

In today’s English, it says if any authority is not written in the Constitution, it belongs to the STATES, the People and not to the Federal Government.

This amendment is the big daddy of all amendments. It basically says that if our Forefathers forgot to restrain the federal government in the writing and words of the Constitution, any unmentioned powers and rights belong to the STATES and the People.

I call it the “big broom amendment.” Our forefathers did not want to leave any loose ends with regard to any powers that might be lying around unmentioned in the Constitution. So, they created this amendment to sweep away any idea a tyrannical entity might have of usurping the Constitution, if it’s interpreted correctly.

The final nail in the coffin of those who would interpret the Constitution in any other way comes from James Madison. When the State of New York didn’t want to ratify the Constitution, he responded by writing Federalist Paper #45, that was titled:

“Alleged Danger from the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered”

Independent Journal

Saturday, January 26, 1788

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several STATES will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” James Madison Federalist 45

For myself I need no other proof than the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, The Tenth Amendment and this statement made by Madison, in Federalist Paper 45, to convince me our Forefathers never intended for the Federal Government to interfere with the internal workings of any State.

Said another way, they had no intention of allowing the Federal Government to make any laws, rules or regulations concerning any State or the People. The Federal Governments role was to be involved with “external” issues outside the boundaries of any of the United STATES.

Think of it this way, if you and a friend are talking about any subject and you want to know if the Federal Government was intended to have any say in the matter, search for it in the Constitution. If it’s not there, the Feds have no authority.

Do you think the Left hasn’t been trying to change the meaning of all of this? It’s all they live for.

While the Constitution and Bill of Rights protect the people’s political freedom, they do not address any moral issues. Our forefathers were very cognizant of leaving out moral issues in a political document.

That’s why the Liberals, who complain that the Constitution is an old out dated document, are wrong. They want it to be a Living Document and, in a way, it already is. It can be modified via the amendment process, but the definition of our freedom will never change and must always be protected..

So, what about morality and the Constitution?

The Constitution does not say it is against the law to rob a bank.

The Constitution doesn’t say it is against the law to murder your neighbor.

The Constitution doesn’t say it is against the law to sell or use drugs.

It doesn’t say anyone has to believe in God or be a Christian.

It doesn’t say anything about marriage and it doesn’t say anything about abortion.

The Constitution is not pro-life. It is a secular political document and not the Bible. In fact, the Defense of Marriage Act was/is unconstitutional and the SCOTUS opinion was just as unconstitutional.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights weren’t written to address moral issues, on purpose. They were written to address political freedom for the people and to set limits of power and authority of the newly created Federal Government. I cannot stress enough that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are political documents, not moral ones.

Moral issues are covered by an individual’s conscience, religion and laws passed by local or state communities and can change as the moral culture changes, for better or for worse. What I mean is, our Forefathers wanted, from the federal government’s perspective, that moral issues not be addressed in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. As a result, those issues are off limits to the federal government.

Some will probably argue what “off limits” means and I believe it means exactly that. The Federal Government may not give an opinion, pass any law or regulation unless it says so in the original Constitution.

Over time, as morality changes, it is the laws enacted by the people at the community, county, and state level that are intended to handle changes in moral values. If the people of California vote to approve or ban gay marriage, the Constitution does not give the federal government any authority to intervene for or against it. Marriage is not a political freedom issue. Likewise, the federal government was not granted the power to impose itself upon any state policy regarding murder, robbery, drugs, or any other issue of moral law.

Therefore, it is given:

The Constitution was written to protect the STATES’ and the People’s political freedom from a Federal Government and restrict the authority of the Federal Government, and the Constitution is not a moral values document.

Only with this in mind can any person start to understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and why each STATE must have a vote when electing the President of the United STATES!