FWIW #2 Pulling The Thread March 2020

The fabric holding this country together is the Constitution. It’s an interesting document, cobbled together by men who did not trust each other. That might seem outlandish, particularly since they all agreed immediately to make George Washington president of the Philadelphia Convention, convened on May 25, 1787. The initial purpose of the convention was improving the Articles of Confederation and settling disputes the colonies experienced after the revolutionary war due to the looseness of that document.

Several factions made up the delegates. There were creditors vs. debtors; rich vs poor; farmers vs merchants vs manufacturers. All of these can really be lumped under the categories Federalist and Anti-Federalists. We came to know the anti-federalists as states’ rights advocates. Each state was asked to send a delegation and exercise their right to one delegation vote on the issues put before the convention. Rhode Island did not send a delegation. The rules were that a majority of a delegation determined how that state’s vote would be cast. If a majority of a delegation was not in attendance, that delegation could not vote. A tied delegation could not vote.

The convention was scheduled to start May 14, 1787, but only two states were present on that day. Finally, on May 25, a quorum of states was represented. Quickly, it became apparent some delegates had a purpose other than strengthening the Articles of Confederation. These delegates wanted a new Constitution, written to form a new central government, so the independent state-nations currently in existence, could be stitched together as one nation with component states.

The distrust between delegates is clearly seen in the various articles of the Constitution. One such article, demanded and crafted by compromise was the method of electing the Executive (President) of the proposed nation. The less populated states knew that the more populated states would run roughshod over them if the executive was elected by popular vote. After vigorous debate the concept of the electoral college became the winning formula for appeasing everyone. Even though the most populous states had more electoral votes, they could not elect the executive on their own.

The ground rules for electing the President were set. Even the Civil War did not change them. Since 2000 there have been times when the popular vote went for one candidate; however, the electoral college majority went to the other candidate. This has happened for a variety of reasons, the most important being the popular vote in the major cities are generally skewed towards one party, while the country is more evenly divided. A secondary reason, documented in the 2016 election, is some candidates believe the coastal areas, containing the most population, and aggressive media usage are the way to get elected. It’s a testament to the framers of the U.S, Constitution that this strategy of ignoring a major portion of the country still is not successful.

Over the course of the last 30 years, one segment of the country has started to pull on what they believe is a loose thread in the country’s fabric: the electoral college. The refrain has started that Congress should begin the process of changing the Constitution’s electoral college because the provision is racist. How can that be? The advocates respond the change is necessary since the cities are multi-racial, and the rest of the country is more Caucasian. There is at least one presidential candidate proposing this change. Some proponents believe if they pick at the thread often enough, they will loosen it and remove it from the fabric, without causing permanent damage. Others know differently. They want to tug on the thread hoping it will