05 November 2024
At the end of the constitutional convention in Philadelphia in 1787, legend has it that a woman stopped one of the “Founding Fathers”, Benjamin Franklin, to ask him what kind of government he would live under. The answer was “a republic, madam, if you manage to maintain it.” Franklin answered “a republic” because the Founding Fathers, although they believed in government of the people, by the people, for the people, did not believe in democracy. In their opinion, democracy contained within itself the impulse to suffocate civil liberties, to the oppression of minority rights by the majority. According to them, democracy did not necessarily mean justice.
Consequently, while they inserted significant democratic elements into the Constitution, they inserted others of a completely different nature to protect freedom and prevent tyranny. They thus chose the republican form to decentralize all power, as is more than evident from the constitutional procedures provided for the choice of the president of the United States.
Today as yesterday, a direct popular vote would favor policies aimed at benefiting the most densely populated urban areas. Three large and populous states, such as California, Illinois and New York, would decide the outcome themselves. The Electoral College, the system wanted by the “Founding Fathers”, instead encourages policies aimed at winning the support of voters in less populous rural states.
Every four years, on the first Tuesday in November, the citizens of the United States in fifty-one separate elections elect a body of 538 Great Electors, one for each member of Congress assigned to each State. On the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December, without a real mandate, the Great Electors are then called to meet in their respective capitals to elect the president. This election, to become effective, must be ratified on January 6 by Congress. Finally, the electoral process ends on January 20 with the swearing-in of the new president.
However, the tendency of many candidates to accept defeat and withdraw after the elections on the first Tuesday of November effectively gave the popular vote the great relevance that the “Founding Fathers” wanted to avoid.
Given that based on the repetition of the same electoral result, there are twenty states that will certainly vote for the Democratic candidate and twenty-four that will equally certainly vote for the Republican candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris can already count on 226 electors and the former president Donald Trump out of 219. To win the majority of 270, their electoral campaigns focused on those seven states that in recent years have tended to swing between one party and another: Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
But the vote recorded in favor of the Democrats in Georgia and North Carolina is something so episodic that their electors will most likely go to Trump, bringing his candidacy to 251. On the other hand, the same thing can be said for Michigan and Wisconsin, so much so that even Harris’ candidacy should already reach 251. In this case, Nevada and Arizona would become irrelevant, since together they only reach seventeen, while Pennsylvania, with its nineteen Great Electors, would become decisive.
There are many “Wild Cards” that could alter this picture, taking away small but important portions of voters from one or the other. Two deserve particular attention. The first would favor Trump, and is identifiable in the possible refusal by the Democratic electorate of Michigan of Arab origin to vote for the vice president of an administration deemed too close to the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The second would favor Harris, and can be summed up in the difficulties, especially of a logistical nature, that that part of the Republican electorate living in the North Carolina counties devastated by Hurricane Helene must face in exercising their right to vote.
At the moment, neither of the two major contenders seems willing to recognize defeat, which on the one hand will contribute to further raising the already high level of polarization characteristic of recent years, on the other hand it will bring the choice of president back to that long and complex process wanted at the time by the “Founding Fathers”.
#heres #TrumpHarris #challenge #decided #Tempo
**Interview with Political Historian Dr. Emily Carter on the Founding Fathers’ Vision of Governance**
*By Lucio Martino, November 5, 2024*
**LM:** Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Carter. The recent discussions surrounding the electoral system in the U.S. have brought up a lot of historical context. Can you explain the Founding Fathers’ perspective on democracy and why they favored a republic?
**EC:** Absolutely, Lucio. The Founding Fathers were quite skeptical of pure democracy. They believed that unchecked democratic processes could lead to the tyranny of the majority, which might oppress minority rights. Benjamin Franklin’s response to the woman in Philadelphia emphasizes their intent to establish a system that safeguarded civil liberties while allowing for a degree of popular representation.
**LM:** That certainly sheds light on the complexity of their intentions. In what ways did they incorporate democratic elements while also ensuring protections against tyranny in the Constitution?
**EC:** They carefully designed the Constitution with a mix of democratic principles and mechanisms meant to decentralize power. For instance, the Electoral College was established not just for electing the president but also to ensure that smaller, less populated states have a voice, balancing the influence of more populous urban centers like California and New York.
**LM:** Speaking of the Electoral College, how does it influence political campaigns today, especially with recent elections focusing on swing states?
**EC:** The system creates a strategic landscape for candidates. They focus heavily on swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia, which can tilt the balance. The dynamics of the Electoral College mean that candidates cannot just focus on securing large urban populations; they must also appeal to voters in rural areas, which alters policy priorities and campaign strategies.
**LM:** You mentioned historical parallels with today’s electoral challenges – how has the acceptance of defeat by candidates changed the way we see the popular vote?
**EC:** It’s intriguing. While the Founding Fathers intended for the Electoral College to prevent a simple popular vote from dictating outcomes, the modern era’s expectations of candidates conceding has shifted the importance of the popular vote. It’s become a significant measure of legitimacy, which was not the original design. The increasing polarization of states adds complexity as well, especially in this election, where a few swing states can single-handedly determine the outcome.
**LM:** So, where do you see the future of this electoral system heading? Is reform on the horizon?
**EC:** That’s a hot topic! Many people are advocating for reform, especially given discussions around fairness and representation. However, any substantial change would require a significant national consensus, which can be hard to achieve given the current political climate. The debate over the balance between representation and protecting minority rights is likely to continue for a long time.
**LM:** Thank you, Dr. Carter, for sharing your insights. It’s clear that the founding principles still resonate deeply in our political discourse today.
**EC:** Thank you for having me, Lucio. It’s always important to reflect on our past as we navigate our political future.
