The Electoral College – how its been corrupted
It goes without saying that our election system is ridiculously corrupt. That primary elections are one significant source of corruption that I’ll address in another article, but first the Electoral College and why it was a good idea but corrupted by both main political parties.
The Founding Fathers of our nation had to work to satisfy all of the states to be in or join the Union. That’s why we are The United States of America, and not America. That method was simple…
Each state would be divided into congressional districts, the size based on a ten year census population. The census included both citizens, non citizens and unlawful residents. That’s because back then, I think, just by living in America there wasn’t a discussion about who was what. You were living in America, so you were counted.
Each state district was represented by a congressperson, elected by eligible voters (not black, or women back then) and represented the people of that district, or at least the white people who could vote.
There are a fixed number of congresspeople in the House of Representatives, 435. As the size of each district changed or grew so that the number of voting congresspeople was constant. That meant states with very few people, such as the Dakotas, Wyoming and Delaware had only a few seats in the House of Representatives (Wyoming, one (at-large)) while large states, such as California (fifty-three) and New York (twenty-seven), have lots.
California and New York have lots of people; Wyoming does not.
To make the system fairer, each state regardless of size had two voting senators that sit in the Senate. That’s why we have a constant 100 senators with fifty states. If we make Puerto Rico or DC a state, we’ll add two more, or 102.
Each chamber, the House and the Senate could create bills and send them to the other group for approval and provide balance. Or that was the thinking. For example, the Senate could not create a new finance bill, so just hollows out a House bill sent to them (perhaps renaming a post office) and then changes it to be a finance bill.
Corruption in action.
The two senators used to be appointed by the state government in power, not elected by the people in each state until 1914 when the system was changed and they were then elected in each state.
The original concept was that the congresspeople were elected by the people to sit in the House of Representatives and would represent the people’s interests and the senators, the states interests. Now it’s a free for all, as the public in each state elects people they want be become senators… or so they think, but that’s another article.
Under our system, the public does not select who becomes president by popular vote. They vote in each district and, in theory, whomever wins that district is the person voted for by the Electoral Voter when the president is chosen in December.
Sadly, that system has morphed into a winner take all system in almost all states. In other words, if Georgia had more congressional districts that voted for a Republican president, then all fourteen of the Electoral Voters had to vote for the Republican president when they met in December. They select the president, not the voters.
The Supreme Court just voted that states could punish (fine) an Electoral Voter appointed by the state to cast votes for the president, after the November election. They could “punish” that person if he or she didn’t vote for the candidate that he was supposed to. Each state uses its own method of calculating the winner in that state; winner take all, or by district. That’s the theory.
If one or more didn’t vote accordingly, that was a problem.
It didn’t say that the rogue voter’s vote had to be negated and that person’s wrist slapped for being a bad boy or girl. It’s just that the state could insist on the required vote and punish the errant Electoral Voter if they wanted to, if that person did not follow the instructions as to whom to vote for.
Texas, for example has thirty-eight congressional districts or thirty-eight Electoral Votes. If in November the majority of the districts do not vote to reelect president Trump, twenty districts for example, then in theory the Democrats would win thirty-eight Electoral Votes.
If the Texas legislature and governor decides to change their system after the election ( as they don’t like who won) before the Electoral Collage voters meet it change the way it allocates Electoral Votes by district rather than winner take all. They will “save” 18 votes and those Electoral Voters will vote Republican.
In the last election, fourteen Texas districts voted for the Democratic candidate, so it may be an existential threat to President Trump’s reelection. It will only take six districts to vote Democrat to gain thirty-eight Democratic presidential Electoral Votes. I’m sure that the Republicans will think long and hard to do whatever it takes to block that. So much for free and fair elections if that happens.
Same for the other bigger states. It’s easy to calculate which states have to change their system after the election to change the results if it’s close.
Another potential issue is that if either party files state and federal lawsuits to block those states from verifying results in close races, as in Florida when Bush vs. Gore were running for president. It’s possible that those states will not be able to send their Electoral Voters to vote. Let’s say that Biden wins by 280 votes to 260, but that Texas vote Democrat for a change. Those blocked 36 votes could stop Joe Biden from officially winning during the process.
If neither party gains a minimum of 270 votes, then the president is chosen by the House of Representatives, in January, by the new Congress. The problem is that in that House election each state has a single vote, so North Dakota will have the same voting strength as California.
As you can see from the image, most states vote Republican although states are usually roughly evenly divided by congressional districts or Electoral Voters. So the losing candidate may win through manipulation of the court system and the bias of individual state governments.
In other words, it will be a mess.
So here are some more of the corruptions –
1 I think that the Founding Fathers intended that each Electoral Voter vote for the presidential candidate that was selected by each district individually. Today, only two states use that method, Maine and Nebraska.
The other forty eight states use a winner-take-all method. As in the Texas example, if a state has fifty districts and twenty-six districts vote for a Democrat then the other twenty-four electors are instructed to vote for the Democratic candidate for president even though the voters of those twenty-four districts voted for the Republican candidate to win.
Unless the majority Republican legislature changes its mind, after the election. Is that democracy or gaming the system… you decide?
Under the original allocation, this fifty Electoral Vote state should have had twenty-six, Democratic Electoral Voters and twenty-four, Republican Electoral Voters, not fifty Democratic candidate Electoral Voters.
Due to the ridiculous gerrymandering of congressional district boundaries in each state, every ten years based on the updated census, the party in power at that time makes sure that those boundaries give them more winning candidates than the opposition.
Politics as usual. The public has no idea.
2 If a state insists, in the above instance, that all Electoral Voters vote for the candidate who should not win based on the general election they can. If they know that it will sway the election so that the losing presidential candidate will be elected as president, they can after the General Election.
The Supreme Court ruling said that states could force Electoral Voters to vote the way they were instructed if they wanted to, but not require them to. So if a state with a Republican majority legislature and governor at the state level, I think that they could select Electoral Voters who would ignore the “requirement,” for example, to vote for the Democratic Party candidate and all vote for the Republican loser in that state instead.
That could create a majority for the Republican candidate to win the White House when the Electoral College Voters vote. It’s doubtful that this will ever occur, but our political system is becoming more corrupt by the year, so it’s possible.
The winner of the presidential race is known immediately, but the Electoral Voters vote “formality” is about a month later so if it’s close…
Just remember, as a member of the public, this is your sole job. See below.
