The Populist Papers

Populist #32

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 21:04:10 -0700

Centralization and Popular Elections

All of us in free societies seem to know that if a king holds all power, particularly if this power is administered directly rather than through delegated governors in regional provinces, he can and often will be, completely tyrannical with full immunity. What more of us need to acknowledge is that any form of government firmly centralized, can and will impose a violent despotism against both individuals and substantial portions of the population. Such a system of governance, by its inherent nature, must make at the very least, tax slaves of all of us!

Many have argued that establishing a national popular voting system for choosing a president will ensure that each person's vote will have equal weight and effect. While I cannot dispute this claim, I still vehemently oppose this concept because such a system is hostile to a federally structured government. In previous papers, we have discussed both the necessity of a federal system to safeguard our liberty, as well as the inherent propensity of national popular elections to speed up the never ending process of increased centralization which we labor under today. Although we have already given such topics extensive study, the nature and very essence of how our government is organized, centralized and distant versus decentralized and local, is of such great importance that further examination is clearly warranted.

Let us be reminded that we were intended to be the United States of America, and not the United People of America. Such a federal system was meant to be not merely the collective will of the People as a whole, but rather, a union of sovereign states. In a properly decentralized system, States directly elect presidents, while individuals only do so indirectly. This is done to protect the integrity of the States and foster the growth of localized government. Doing so also encourages a cohesive union of all the States because it discourages presidential candidates from focusing on just a few highly concentrated urban areas.

Since its inception, one could reasonably argue that the ensuing history of these United States has been one of a struggle between those trying to establish a decentralized society and those pushing for greater and greater levels of power and centralization. Centralists, as the word suggests, support increasing the power of a central government, while decentralists believe in localism, and tend to agree with Thomas Jefferson, when he said, "the government that governs best is that which governs least." In other words, decentralists want a central government to be as small as will possibly be compatible with societal peace.

The Declaration of Independence is an excellent example of decentralist thinking in that it clearly states that a community of people has the inherent right to rid itself of any government that has grown too strong and despotic. The United States Constitution, as originally written, was more of a mixture between centralized and decentralized government, while the Bill of Rights was included to pull power away from Washington, D.C. and put it back in the hands of the States and the People.

Experience and the entire history of the human struggle for freedom strongly suggest that a decentralized government is that which is most compatible with long-term liberty. This is why I implore you to find a deep attachment to the idea of federalism. Under this system of government, if it were ever to flourish in our country, the individual States would be the primary level of governance, while the Bill of Rights would serve as a legal boundary to protect both individuals and the States from overreaching impositions by the central government, no matter what the politicians use as justification.

There are a number of reasons in opposition to centralization and in favor of decentralized government...

Populist #31

Thu, 29 Jun 2006 20:53:03 -0700

Concerning National Popular Elections

When our federal government was being established, smaller states like Rhode Island and Connecticut feared losing their voice in the political process. Therefore, the prevalent feeling was that they would have no protection against the more highly populated states such as Massachusetts and New York. On the other hand, the lightly populated agricultural regions feared an inability to protect their interests against strong industries that dominated the more populous States along the coast. These serious concerns on how to ensure that each State and diverse region would have a voice led the framers to establish a government that would represent both the popular and federal natures of the country. And thus, they created the Electoral College in an attempt to accurately reflect this delicate balance in electing the President.

Over the years, the Electoral College hasn't necessarily functioned just how it was intended. Some still support it strongly, some oppose it strongly, while others remain on the proverbial fence. In the last few papers of this series, I have attempted to embark on an analysis of this system of electing our nation's executive. With this and coming papers, I hope to arrive at a conclusion as to just what manner of choosing a President will best preserve our liberty.

Those who strongly oppose the Electoral College often attempt to illustrate that it fails to accurately reflect the national popular will. They are quite correct on this count, in at least two respects.

-- First, the distribution of the electoral votes in the college creates a predisposition towards over-representation in rural states. This is because the number of electors for each State is determined by the number of members it has in the House of Representatives (which is meant to reflect the popular will), plus the number of members it has in the Senate (which is always two regardless of population; thus representing the federal will).

--Second, the winner-take-all system in nearly every State gives the entirety of a State's electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most votes.

One obvious effect of this method is to make it nearly impossible for third party or independent candidates to ever receive any considerable votes in the Electoral College. By thus failing to accurately reflect the national popular will, many argue, the Electoral College, therefore, has a side effect of reinforcing a two-party system. By discouraging third party or independent candidates, the college tends to restrict choices available to the People.

In the early 19th century, President Andrew Jackson wanted to remove the federal government from the control of the political elite that had ruled it since the adoption of the new Constitution. This was the mechanism Jackson favored for redistributing power away from this elite and giving it to the People....

Populist #30

Thu, 8 Jun 2006 22:52:18 -0700

Concerning Faithless Electors and Voter Turnout

Did the framers trust the People? In contrast to what is claimed, they did - fully. Just a quick reading of their writings would clearly demonstrate this fact, but even more importantly, even a casual study of both the federal and State constitutions demonstrate their trust in the People by the numerous provisions that place great powers in the hands of the citizens. Thomas Jefferson represented this position quite eloquently when he wrote:

"The people, being the only safe depository of power, should exercise in person every function which their qualifications enable them to exercise consistently with the order and security of society. We now find them equal to the election of those who shall be invested with their executive and legislative powers, and to act themselves in the judiciary as judges in questions of fact. The range of their powers ought to be enlarged."

On the other hand, they also feared too great a concentration of power in any location; regionally, or in the federal government. The separation of powers was an essential mechanism to help prevent the consolidation of government and the growth of a centralized, despotic tyranny to which all governments are susceptible. Jefferson has most often been referred to as a champion of states' rights, but his top priority was not necessarily the rights of the States themselves, but rather, it was to build a government with a proper division of powers in order to prevent the destruction of liberty that would certainly result from the growth of a centralized government bureaucracy.

One of the ways the framers tried to protect the American people from an over-centralized government was by balancing power between the sovereign people and the sovereign States. In their plan, one body of the Legislature was meant to represent the will of the majority nationwide, and the other was meant to represent the will of the majority as determined by the States. The electoral college, however effective, was an attempt to replicate this balance of powers in the election process.

My goal in this current study is to first analyze the Electoral College as it stands today; to then examine a number of proposed alternatives; and finally, to arrive at a conclusion as to which system will best ensure our liberty! As mentioned in my last paper, there are a number of reasons people give as opposition to the Electoral College; and I intend to discuss the first two here.

The first point of contention is often the potential for faithless electors. These are electors who vote for a candidate other than who that vote is pledged to. On the one hand, the Constitution has never required electors to vote for any particular candidate, and a reading of it would make it quite clear that the framers created a system where they hoped for a group of electors that would use their discretion to choose the candidates they viewed as best-qualified. This system is still intact today, and even though electors are aligned with specific candidates, it has been anything but unordinary for one to occasionally vote for someone other than the candidate chosen by a state's voters....

Populist #29

Thu, 18 May 2006 19:51:33 -0700

On the Electoral College, continued

When discussing the Electoral College, powerful calls ring out both in support and opposition, but few truly look beyond their initial motivation, and rarely choose liberty as their primary goal! To those opponent who demand a nationwide vote: You claim that our goal must be to give "one man, one vote" but, I must remind you that the United States was not created as, and must not eternally be, one singular empire; rather, a decentralization or power is the strongest step we can take towards freedom. Therefore, at minimum, our nation must be maintained instead as a union of fifty sovereign states. Any and all attempts to foster a growth of power in one centralized location can only have the eventual result of leaving our fight for liberty in ruins!

Under such a system of proper federalism, the People would decide which style of government was best for them in their area. Without an overbearing centralized power, the local governments were to have the ability to test their own policies, and the people would be free to move to those jurisdictions that would best fit their needs and beliefs. Don't like gun laws in Chicago? Move to Vermont. Want heavily regulated business? Try California or Massachusetts. Don't like state income tax? Move to Washington or Florida.

On the other side, to those who support the system in place today: Don't tell me that this is the system set up by the framers of the Constitution. It is not. Let me also warn you that the founding principles of America, or any nation, that would prevent voting rights for women and legalize slavery, must be brought into serious question! Blind worship of the Constitution, without examining its many flaws can only undermine our freedom!

Just a casual observation of our political climate should make it clear that the college is not the founders' original system. When the Constitution was ratified and the Electoral College was put into place, there were just thirteen colonies united only in the cause of mutual trade and protection from invasion. These days, there are fifty states with fundamentally different populations at a distance far too great to be administered by a single, centralized regime that siphons two trillion dollars from the People per year.

In those days, the president had just a few specific powers, and those still were subject to Congressional veto. There was no federal reserve. There was no income tax. There was no Department of Homeland Security or National Security Agency. The Supreme Court could not legislate for the states, and the states set their own immigration rules. There were no national health or retirement plans. There were no centralized rules on gun ownership, just misuse. There were no wars started by presidential order. There were no troops in hundreds of locations around the world; in fact, there was no standing army at all....

Populist #28

Thu, 4 May 2006 14:50:50 -0700

On the Electoral College

America's presidential election system is clearly the most heavily debated part of the United States Constitution, as many people and groups complain about its anti-democratic leanings. Calls have rung out from all over to change the system to a strictly popular vote method.

Although many organizations have long supported the abolition of the Electoral College, the recent protracted proceedings in Florida and Ohio, as well as the apparent disparity between the popular and the Electoral vote have added more fuel to the calls to abolish the Electoral College. However, for all of the furious invectives against the College over the last few years, there has been a scarcity of explanations for why it exists, and how it was originally designed to work.

The current rhetoric calling for an end to the Electoral College generally exposes an overall misunderstanding of the purpose of the college. Therefore, a brief review of its intention is absolutely necessary before any informed discussion about its dissolution should proceed.

"Two principles sustain our Constitution: one a majority of the people, the other a majority of the States; the first was necessary to preserve the liberty or sovereignty of the people; the last, to preserve the liberty or sovereignty of the States. But both are founded in the principle of majority; and the effort of the Constitution is to preserve this principle in relation both to the people and the States, so that neither species of sovereignty or independence should be able to destroy the other."
- John Taylor

My goal here is not simply to argue for or against the Electoral College, but rather, to examine all proposals and their propensity to ensure our liberty. Let us, then, continue this examination united in the cause of rational liberty, which, as discussed in previous papers, is increased in proportion to the amount that the federal government is decentralized.

Sadly, we have forgotten that States in our Union created the federal government and not the other way around. The Electoral College system represents an attempt, whether effective or not, to limit federal power, and preserve federalism and States' rights. This is meant to be an essential part of our federal structure, and also represents an important reminder that both centralization and bureaucratic rule are antagonistic to liberty....

Populist #27

Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:50:09 -0700

More On the Executive Branch

As a brief closure to our discussion on war powers in the Executive Branch, it's important to note that, over the years, opponents of the structure of this power in the Constitution have often compared these powers to those of the British kings in the 18th century; while proponents have referred to such accusations as preposterous. But, although it may be asserted that the King of Britain did have the express power of making peace or war, in practice, he almost never thought it wise to do so without the advice of parliament; from whom he would derive his support. Therefore, in this respect, these powers, in both the American President and the British Monarch, are substantially the same. The final paradox, if this nonsense, both theoretical and practical, long continues, will be a decreasingly democratic United States working to impose bogus democracy worldwide.

Eventually, I hope that we will come to realize that violating the Constitution in an effort to pursue Woodrow Wilson's idealism of using America's power to promote "democracy" across the globe is a seriously dangerous foreign policy. President Wilson claimed that America was spreading democracy worldwide, and yet women in the United States at that time were still not even allowed to vote.

It has been observed in a former paper, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a due responsibility to the People. The safety of a people in a free country depends on the share of proportion they have in the government. The two greatest securities they can have for the faithful exercise of any delegated power, first, the restraints of public opinion, which lose their effect without a proper level of responsibility, and second, the opportunity of punishment for those who violate their trust. Without these, there can be no true responsibility whatsoever in the executive department; an idea unacceptable in a free society.

It is the essence of the legislative branch to enact laws, or, in other words, to establish rules for the regulation of the society; while the execution and enforcement of the laws, as well as the common defense comprise the functions of the executive. Originally, the President of the United States was meant to be little more than an executive officer, with highly-limited powers restricted mostly to carrying out the legislative directives of Congress.

The President was to have only a small number of specifically-listed tasks; including the appointment of ambassadors and other federal officials, the power to veto legislation, and a small number of other functions; most of which were subject to approval from Congress. The legislative branch was meant to be superior to the President in legislation, but even this branch was meant to be inferior to the People....

Populist #26

Thu, 6 Apr 2006 19:47:38 -0700

Responsibility and War Powers

It is certainly no longer news that our elected representatives rarely read the laws they pass, let alone think through the possible applications and implications of those laws before casting their votes. Our elites thrive on an accumulation of power that results from the disintegration of our constitutional protections. Our discussion, of late, has focused on this shift from constitutional to arbitrary power in the executive branch; especially in relation to war powers. As a result of this disintegration, we can see that the interests of our rulers generally lie in a direction opposite to that of the will of the People. Thus, they have effectively automated our political system to resist fundamental change resulting in an endless drift towards despotism.

It must be admitted, that people, from king to president, down to the industrialist and the laborer, are constantly aiming at greater levels of power and importance. This self-evident propensity must be closely and constantly guarded against in the forms of government. As has been noted previously, the United States Constitution places restraints on Congress and the Executive branch so as not to wage war casually and without proper declaration. It provides no authority to spend money or lives to spread our political message around the world. But, it is an unfortunate truth that Presidents, Congresses, and political parties alike, no longer follow this clearly-defined law.

A good start to correcting the near-constant violations of the war powers clause by both the Congress and the Executive would be a strict adherence to the rule of law and the Constitution. This would bring an immediate halt to our ill-advised experiment in assuming the role of world policeman. We have been told that our undeclared wars throughout the years in places like Korea, Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, have been worth the countless lives lost, and the many thousands more wounded. I disagree; with great sadness for those who have suffered dearly, and with so little hope for future peace.

Such complacence regarding the rule of law would constitute a monstrous breach of trust if we supposed that the President and members of Congress had a duty to perform the role the Constitution assigned to them, or if we judged such behavior in light of the theory by which the administration of government in a democratic society is legitimized; the process by which laws are passed, and federal actions embarked upon, supposedly assures us that there is some connection and some degree of correspondence through "representation" and elected rulers," between what the government does and what "the People" actually think or at least want! If that process becomes a mockery, then it becomes dubious to claim that the actions of government represent the "will of the people" or even the "will of the majority." In such a situation, government is no longer "self-government" and becomes, instead, fiat imposed upon its subjects. And so it is inappropriate to dwell excessively on how war is declared, unless we begin questioning whether such acts can ever have any legitimate claim upon us or be considered as anything other than the exercise of arbitrary, unaccountable power....