YA DON'T GOTTA, BUT YA OUGHTA

By Edwin Cooney

I have a friend who, lately, not only proclaims that he won't vote for president anymore, but appears to glory in his decision. He offers two reasons:

First, although he voted for President Biden in 2020, he feels that the president appears sufficiently weak and ineffective in comparison to Donald Trump whom he considers unqualified by temperament, reason and intention. Second, he considers the electoral college undemocratic and too vulnerable to manipulation to be worthwhile. Hence, in the spirit of former President Richard M. Nixon, I make the following declaration:

"Let me make it perfectly clear," that neither my friend's patriotism nor political value is reflected by his present determination, but he still oughta vote though he ain't gotta!  (He doesn't address non-presidential election voting but, as I see it, he glories too much in his current position.)

About 2005 or 2006, a group of interested parties sought to create an electoral college compact in which a group of states whose combined electoral college votes equaled the 270 majority of votes required to elect a president would cast all of their electoral votes for the presidential candidate who had the lead in the popular vote. To change the current system, a constitutional amendment would be required that was supported by thirty-eight states. However, if the states themselves adopted this alteration or compromise, no amendment would be needed since the popular vote as agreed would prevail without any change to the Constitution.

As of now, fifteen states with a total of 195 electoral votes have agreed to this compromise or electoral workaround. One hundred ninety-five votes is 72 percent of the electoral votes needed. However, even if the electoral vote compromise is agreed to, it's more than likely that it would go to the courts for adjudication. I'd like to see this compromise adopted, but be that as it may, let me address the circumstances that justify the electoral college.

Adoption of a method for electing a president was almost the last order of business for the Constitutional Convention. These 57 delegates representing  twelve of the thirteen states (Rhode Island wanted no part of a new constitution), were tired after four months of being locked up in a windowless room to avoid there being leaks of the proceedings of their work to the press. They had already dealt with such heady issues as freedom of the press, the status of religious worship, and cruel and unusual punishment.

One source tells me that counter to surrendering to the wishes of the south, northern delegates rejected the idea of the popular vote because of the south's “three fifths” rule which added to the south's popular vote margin. They agreed to a "republican" type of voting rather than a strict popular democratic method of voting for the president. Hence, northerners, not southerners, were worried about the popular vote.

I think it's important to keep in mind that the privilege of popularly electing candidates to public office was a brand new idea in the history of humanity. By 1787, Great Britain elected its House of Commons, but it was a deliberately manipulated kind of representation that was so blatant that it would be altered in 1832, 45 years following our Constitutional Convention. Our convention went from Saturday,  May 26th, to Monday, September 17th, 1887. (Note that the only day off during that convention was — you guessed it — Wednesday, July 4th, when everyone went to Ben Franklin's home for the holiday. It must have been quite a day!)

The summer of 1787 was blisteringly hot in midtown Philadelphia and the delegates debated our future with windows closed during the day, At the close of each day, George Washington collected all speeches and notes from the delegates for reasons of national security.

As I see things, no voting process or agreed upon proposition isn't ultimately vulnerable to abandonment.

Invariably, voters choose to vote for different reasons. Some vote to motivate candidates. Still others vote to prevent the election of other candidates. The same is true of policy propositions.

In the early 1900s, progressives such as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and others urged voters to adopt three voter measures which would empower voting: initiative, referendum, and recall of community and statewide office holders. Voter participation in government is only about 234 years old and it dates back to 1789, the first year of our republic.

It can only serve a purpose if we support its strengths rather than abandoning it to its vulnerabilities. Former New York Governor Al Smith was right when he observed: “All the ills of democracy can be cured by more democracy.”

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY