Some Checks Don't Balance Anymore

Chances are that you learned a long time ago that our American federal government consists of three branches; Legislative, Executive and Judicial.  You likely also recall that our Legislative branch (Congress) is made up of two bodies, the House of Representatives, and the Senate.  But have you ever thought about how wise the founders were in their design not only of the branches of the government but also in determining how those branches are populated?

Legislative Branch - The House of Representatives

As the name implies, the House was meant to be filled with Representatives of the population.  The idea was that the population of the country would be divided up into districts of approximately the same number of people (originally 30,000).  Each state would have at least one district but could have several.  The last time districts were “re-districted”, the average population per district was set at just under 711,000 per district, so, if your state had 7 million people, you’d have 10 districts, and send 10 representatives to the House.  For the most part, state legislatures determine how to create the district lines.

More so than any other branch or body, the House is the people’s branch, because the constitution envisioned that people would vote directly for their representatives, and the number of representatives was proportional, based on population. 

Legislative Branch - The Senate

Originally, the Senate was to consist of 2 Senators per state, to be appointed by the legislature of each state.  The 17th Amendment (ratified in 1913) changed that, to allow for direct election of Senators by the eligible population of each state. 

Why have one branch of the law-making body appointed, while the other is elected?  Think about the name of the country; The United States of America.  The Constitution envisioned that individual states united to create a federal government, with enumerated powers and responsibilities.  It made sense, therefore, that the people of the states should have some say, and that the legislatures of the states have some say as well.  In fact, had power not been given to state legislatures, and only vested in the population, our country would not have been successful in creating a Union of States in 1787.
It is unclear why so many states ratified the 17th Amendment, virtually giving away the balancing power the Constitution gave them.  This check became unbalanced when the 17th Amendment was ratified.

Judicial Branch

Originally envisioned to be the Supreme Court, with other federal courts as Congress might define.  The Judicial branch was established to rule on matters related to the Constitution and federal law.  Members of the Judicial Branch were to be appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate.  The power of the President to appoint the Judiciary was balanced by the requirement for the Senate to give their consent to the appointment. 

Executive Branch

This branch consists of the President and Vice President.  According to the Constitution, these positions are filled upon the votes of Electors, appointed by each state.  We refer to this as the Electoral College and it was meant to be a compromise between having Congress (the Legislative Branch) vote for the President, and a popular vote to select the President.  It is up to each state to decide how to appoint Electors, and how the Electors will vote.  There is no provision in the Constitution to even allow citizens the opportunity to vote directly for the President or Vice President.

The practice over the years is that each political party with a candidate running for President pre-selects a slate of Electors.  Once the votes in the General Election are tallied, the slate of Electors representing the candidate who received the most votes then goes on to cast their vote in the Electoral College.  These Electors almost always vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged. 

In Order to Form a More Perfect Union

The framers of the Constitution knew that a system of checks and balances was required and that the States were to play a significant role.  In the first census for our new country in 1790, 20% of the population lived in Virginia, and only 1.5% lived in each of Delaware and Rhode Island.  The framers knew that a system that was built purely on popular vote could easily be swayed by focusing on large population centers.  The system of checks and balances (state appointment of senators and the electoral college) was meant to prevent such influences.  The 17th Amendment of 1913 eroded the strength of the system, and now another threat is on the horizon.

Every Presidential election cycle, there is talk of changing the election of the president to be by popular vote.  Choosing this option would remove yet another balance from the equation.  Today, almost 20% of the country’s population lives in 6 Metropolitan.  Given that only about 60% of people eligible to vote actually participate in an election, only a little more than 30% of the total population must vote for a candidate for them to win.  A smart candidate with a lot of money need only focus on a few key cities, and mobilize a higher number of voters, and capture a higher percentage of votes, in order to win the race.

Now, some states are even thinking of passing laws that require their Electors in the Electoral College to cast votes for the candidate that receives the most number of votes nationally.  While this is theoretically permissible, it is not at all what was intended by the framers of the constitution.

The danger is that a large amount of money and influence can be invested in a small area in order to sway the outcome.  Money already plays a far too important a role in politics.  A move to expand the power of the popular vote will not only exacerbate that problem, but it will virtually disenfranchise voters in live in areas outside the largest population centers and states.

The framers had it right by dividing power across 3 branches of government and giving different voting rights to the population and the states.  While we have problems with our election process today, I believe that has more to do with money and the influence peddlers than it does with the way we select our leaders.  I always like to ask “what problem are we trying to fix” when we talk about changing something.  If the problem is money in politics, let’s address that directly, rather than tinkering with a system designed to be balanced.  If the problem is “my candidate lost, and the system isn’t fair”, pick a better candidate next time, and get out and work for them.  The unintended consequences of changing the system to satisfy today’s desire are likely to be oppressive.

Isn’t this common sense?