Ginsburg and the Electoral College

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is the Electoral College – again. Donald Trump won the election in November, and he was confirmed to be the president-elect on December 19. Yet, some liberals continue throwing temper tantrums in an attempt to stop Trump from doing his job as President of the United States.  Others are still trying to change the Electoral College.

            One of those liberals calling for change in the Electoral College is none other than Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. Some students at Stanford University asked Ginsburg what she would like to change in the American way of life. Ginsburg answered that she would like to change the Electoral College, but she allowed that this task would be “powerfully hard to do.” She was not clear about how she would like to fix the Electoral College; she just wants it fixed.

            Jarrett Stepman at The Daily Signal writes that the most common fix wanted by liberals “has been to move toward a national popular vote selection process.” He says that this “proposal would completely undermine the carefully constructed electoral process the Founding Fathers created at the Constitutional Convention and would further erode the essential concept of federalism that lies at the heart of the republic.”

            Stepman continues his explanation by reminding his readers that the “Founders had a deep understanding of history. They knew that an unclear process of succession from one leader to another has often destroyed countries – it most certainly contributed to the downfall of the Roman Empire.”

            The Framers of the Constitution were intelligent men who had studied various nations and governments. They set about their task of establishing the United States of America knowing full well the dangers the new nation would face. They discussed and debated many different ideas before they arrived with the finished U.S. Constitution. When they finished their task, they had established a completely new kind of government – a democratic republic.

            Stepman writes that the Constitution “constructed a system that produced over two centuries of peaceful transfers of power from one administration to the next – a near miraculous feat in human history littered with civil strife and broken political systems.

            “It would be foolish to abandon this remarkably stable process without first understanding why it was created.

            The Framers did not want the presidential elections to turn into a mere popularity context. They established a democratic republic and not a mere democracy. They had good reasons to do so. I encourage you to read the rest of Stepman’s article. Then you will be prepared to defend the Constitution.