Mob-rule democracy versus a republic

i continue to see (supposedly) educated people seriously discuss revising the US republic into a one-person-one-vote semi-direct "democracy"... and they don't see the problem with this... it makes me want to choke some sense into people... but i'm afraid their brains aren't getting enough oxygen to begin with!

we have 50 states... that's why we're called the "United States" of America... our founders recognized that individual states will have differing needs and desires, so they are independent of each other, except where common needs overlap (such as interstate commerce).

so, let's examine the idea of what i call mob-rule democracy and compare it to what happens in our republic... first, we must understand population/demographics and the electoral college.

the population of each state determines the amount of "electors" in the electoral college... there are 538 electors... each state gets one for each Representative and one for each Senator, per Article II of the US Constitution... there are 435 Representatives, divided among the states based on population, but no less than one per state... there are 100 Senators, divided among the states equally (2 each)... there are an additional 3 electors representing the District of Columbia, as required by the 23rd Amendment.

as of 2013, the estimated population of the US is 316,128,839 people.

now, to get elected, you need 50%+1 of the electors, 270, to vote your way... due to current population trends, it takes only 11 states to get 270 electors... CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH, GA, MI, NC, & NJ.

that doesn't sound very "democratic", does it?... where 11 of 50 states, 22%, dictate to the other 39 states who will be the President of the United States... shouldn't it take 26 states (50%+1)?... wouldn't that be more "democratic"?

but there are people who want "one-person-one-vote" democracy, where it takes 50%+1 of the popular vote for presidential elections... that's their version of "fair"... but is it?... it would only take NINE states to elect the President... CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH, GA, & MI... 9 of 50 states, 18%, would then dictate to the other 41 states.

how is that "democratic"?

furthermore, some states have population centers which can easily override the rest of the state... in California, the Los Angeles - Long Beach - Anaheim area has around 12 million residents, fully one-third of the population of the state... New York City metro area has around 8 million, where the entire state has 19 million; nearly one half of the state in one area... Clark County in Nevada (home of Las Vegas) has a population of nearly 2 million, while the entire state has only 2.8 million!

by now, it should be obvious that "one-person-one-vote" is as un-democratic as possible... mob-rule is possibly the worst form of governance.

---

source:
Population of US States (plus Washington D.C.)
Distribution of Electoral Votes
Article II of the US Constitution
Map: California Home to Most Densely Populated Areas

try strengthening the electoral college

with all of the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth over the electoral college following the 2016 Presidential Election, it is highlighting the disparity of power between populous states and more rural states... it highlights the disparity of power between the House (the people's house) and the Senate (the state's house)... there are 435 representatives (divided according to the latest census) in the House, and there are 435 electoral college votes associated with their states... there are 100 senators (two per state) in the Senate, and there are 100 electoral college votes associated with their states... add three for the District of Columbia, and you have 538 electoral votes at stake during any Presidential Election.

so, the population of a state has a 2-to-1 advantage... having a state with a higher population density (or one large city like Las Vegas which overwhelms the rest of the state) causes this 2-to-1 advantage skew to a 25-to-1 advantage, such as in California... New York City controls the electoral votes of the entire state, and it's not even the state's capital city!

but, what if we were to make a small change, such as adding Senators to each state, thereby adding electoral votes, also?... how would that affect an election?

below, I have taken the electoral college votes of each state as they were cast in the 2016 Presidential Election and tallied them... then I added one vote per state and tallied them... then added two.

STATE	EV-R	EV-D	TOTAL VOTES	R+1	D+1	R+2	D+2
Alabama	9	0	2,113,963	10		11
Alaska	3	0	253,624	4		5
Arizona	11	0	2,419,555	12		13
Arkansas	6	0	1,125,778	7		8
California	0	55	10,147,220		56		57
Colorado	0	9	2,725,831		10		11
Connecticut	0	7	1,642,330		8		9
Delaware	0	3	441,535		4		5
D. C.	0	3	286,275		4		5
Florida	29	0	9,478,590	30		31
Georgia	16	0	4,085,667	17		18
Hawaii	0	4	428,827		5		6
Idaho	4	0	692,216	5		6
Illinois	0	20	5,501,217		21		22
Indiana	11	0	2,729,896	12		13
Iowa	6	0	1,564,443	7		8
Kansas	6	0	1,147,143	7		8
Kentucky	8	0	1,923,346	9		10
Louisiana	8	0	2,028,196	9		10
Maine	1	3	736,660	1	4	1	5
Maryland	0	10	2,602,561		11		12
Massachusetts	0	11	3,231,531		12		13
Michigan	16*	0	4,792,240	17*		18*
Minnesota	0	10	2,945,238		11		12
Mississippi	6	0	1,162,607	7		8
Missouri	10	0	2,776,519	11		12
Montana	3	0	492,672	4		5
Nebraska	5	0	804,386	6		7
Nevada	0	6	1,122,990		7		8
New Hampshire	0	4	731,931		5		6
New Jersey	0	14	3,774,743		15		16
New Mexico	0	5	792,328		6		7
New York	0	29	7,113,118		30		31
North Carolina	15	0	4,688,821	16		17
North Dakota	3	0	344,156	4		5
Ohio	18	0	5,380,096	19		20
Oklahoma	7	0	1,452,992	8		9
Oregon	0	7	1,939,678		8		9
Pennsylvania	20	0	6,033,161	21		22
Rhode Island	0	4	460,165		5		6
South Carolina	9	0	2,103,025	10		11
South Dakota	3	0	370,047	4		5
Tennessee	11	0	2,490,799	12		13
Texas	38	0	8,933,179	39		40
Utah	6	0	905,485	7		7
Vermont	0	3	315,065		4		5
Virginia	0	13	3,972,371		14		15
Washington	0	12	2,927,086		13		14
West Virginia	5	0	712,419	6		7
Wisconsin	10	0	2,977,295	11		12
Wyoming	3	0	255,791	4		5
Total	306	232	130,076,807	336	253	365	274

*Michigan has not been finally called, but only marginally affects the outcome.

the outcome of this thought experiment is to widen the gap between the parties... with the electoral college votes as they currently are, the gap between the parties is 74 votes, or 13.8% of the votes.

with only one additional electoral vote per state, the gap widens from 74 votes difference to 83 votes, but only changes it to 14.0% difference in the votes.

by adding two electoral votes per state, the gap goes from 74 votes difference 91 votes, which is only a 14.2% difference.

what this appears to show is that smaller states begin to have greater impact on the overall race... while each iteration only changes the electoral college results by 0.2%, it becomes evident that the candidates will need to appeal to a much more diverse group, and not solely rely on population dense areas of the country... instead of knowing the result of every election after the east coast polls close, we would need to see how many more states vote.

and, in a republic, isn't that what we want?

"Take a seat" on democracy

Goodness gracious sakes alive, does this country need a history lesson! Never in the past four years have I wanted so badly to have a class of people to teach. Teenagers or adults or senior citizens — it wouldn’t have mattered. I have seen so much appalling ignorance about our country, its history and its constitution that I have just wanted to grab the populace and shake them until they understood.

For starters, I am tired of hearing about our democracy and the popular vote. We are not a democracy, and a whole lot of people should be really glad about that, too, because in a democracy, mob rule applies. The majority is the boss of everybody, and if we had been a democracy in 1865 slavery would have never been abolished. If we had been a democracy in 1920, the women would have never gotten the vote. If we had been a democracy in 1964 and 1965, those historic pieces of civil rights legislation would never have been approved. In fact, if we had been a democracy in 1776, the Declaration of Independence would never have been adopted because the majority of the colonists were afraid to pursue independence, just like a majority of Americans opposed women’s suffrage and abolition and sweeping civil rights reform.

For the record, Abraham Lincoln did not get a majority of the popular vote in 1860, and Bill Clinton did not get a majority of the popular vote in 1992 or 1996.

“Oh, yes he did!” screamed one of my Facebook friends this week. “I know Lincoln got the most votes and so did Clinton.”

Most means plurality, y’all. A majority is 50 percent plus one. And while we are on the subject, we are not a democratic republic, either, no matter what the revisionist history books might claim. That’s just a term Andrew Jackson coined for political purposes in the 1820s and it stuck with some people. We are a republic. We have a federalist form of government where the power is supposed to be divided between the states and the central government and neither is subservient to the other. Both are supposed to get their powers directly from the people.

And by the way, the U.S. Constitution does not give any of us the right to have a say so in who becomes president of the United States. Oh, no, it doesn’t. That power is vested entirely in the Electoral College, and under the Constitution states still have the authority to decided how those electors are chosen. It wasn’t until 1842 that the last state started allowing the people to vote for those electors.

If we eliminated the Electoral College people in two-thirds of the states would be virtually disenfranchised when it came to presidential elections. All the time, money and effort would be spent wooing voters in California, New York and Florida.

Now about the transition of power. Political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution and were thought to be a dangerous thing by our founders. But parties arose almost immediately because people have always had differences of opinions about political issues. The first 12 years under the Constitution found the government in the hands of the Federalist Party. But in the election of 1800 — also called the Revolution of 1800 — Thomas Jefferson, leader of the Republican Party, was chosen to be president. When John Adams, his Federalist opponent, stepped down on inauguration day in 1801, it marked the first time in the history of the world that a group in power had relinquished power without violence or threat of violence, simply because the people said that’s what they wanted. It has worked that way ever since.

And now the people have spoken and the message is loud and clear, under the Constitution, that the people want this country to go in a new direction. And no matter how much they hated to do so, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, and President Obama did and said all the right things this week to propel us toward that smooth transition.

And yet in many of our nation’s cities, ignorant young people who have no knowledge of how this Republic is supposed to work are dying to get attention by marching in the streets and generally acting the fool — and, no, these are not the peaceful protests guaranteed by the First Amendment. You must have a grievance to protest. These are spoiled brats and attention-seekers and they should be ashamed.

And if you are interested, I have about 38 years worth of lessons stored up. Class can start as soon as everyone gets here.

---

source:
DARRELL HUCKABY: Take a seat — history class is in session | Opinion | newtoncitizen.com