![]() Order for home delivery today! |
The Way We Elect Our Presidents
|
| VOL. 34, NO. 5 | P.O. BOX 618, ALTON, ILLINOIS 62002 | DECEMBER 2000 |
| The Way We Elect Our Presidents |
|
The Electoral College is one of the legacies of the inspired genius of our Founding Fathers. It was part of the great compromise which transformed us from a bunch of rival colonies into a constitutional republic. This great compromise brought together the large states and the small by means of a national Congress based on equal representation of the states in the Senate regardless of population, and unequal representation of the states in the House of Representatives based on their unequal populations. The Electoral College is the mirror image of this same brilliant compromise: it allows all states, regardless of size, to be players in the process of electing our President. The Electoral College induces presidential candidates to gear their time, money and policies toward the whole country, not merely toward the half dozen most populous states. If we had a popular-vote process, the temptation would be irresistible for presidential candidates to offer the moon wrapped in federal dollars to the handout hunters where big-city machines can pile up extra millions of votes. The Electoral College is the vehicle that gives us a President who achieves a majority in a functioning political process. Because of third parties, it is difficult for a candidate to receive a majority (over 50 percent) of the popular vote. No U.S. presidential candidate achieved a popular-vote majority (over 50 percent) in 1948, 1960, 1968, 1976, 1992, or 1996, but we elected a President when the candidate who received a plurality in the popular vote received a majority (over 50 percent) of the whole number in the Electoral College. In his post-election strategy, Al Gore tried to claim that he should be President because he won the popular vote (as opposed to the Electoral College vote), and that therefore George Bush's election is not "legitimate." But contrary to Al Gore's whining, it really doesn't matter who wins the popular vote because the Electoral College is decisive. One can draw an analogy between the Electoral College and the World Series. The Pittsburgh Pirates won the 1960 World Series 4-3, even though the New York Yankees outscored the Pirates in runs 55-27, and in hits 91-60. No one challenged the fact that the Pirates won fair and square. Without the Electoral College, we would always be saddled with minority Presidents without an adequate basis of support for leadership. The Electoral College saves us from the fate of other nations that suffer from the complexities, uncertainties and agonies of coalition governments patched together when no candidate or party wins a majority. In the 1970s, Senators Birch Bayh (D-IN) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA) proposed a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College and instead elect Presidents who get a plurality of at least 40 percent of the popular vote. But that would pose all the same problems of recounts and legal challenges if a presidential candidate received 39.99 percent of the vote and would also contain a built-in incentive to encourage straw candidates to prevent an unwanted candidate from achieving the 40 percent. Fortunately, the Bayh-Kennedy effort was defeated in a close Senate vote in July 1979. Another advantage of our unique Electoral College is that, except as a last resort, it keeps the meddling fingers of Congress out of the election process. It serves as a buffer against federal dictatorship. The Electoral College is the only function of our national government that is performed outside of Washington, D.C. The President is elected by electors chosen in their states according to their own state election laws, who meet and cast their ballots in their own state capitals. No Senator, Representative, or other federal official is permitted to be an elector in the Electoral College. Whereas other countries handle their succession of chief executives by revolution or angry mobs, the only street ruckus during our 2000 dilemma was a little pushing and shoving by Jesse Jackson's friends. The Electoral College has served us well for more than 200 years and there is every reason to believe it can continue to serve us for the next 200.
The Electoral College is particularly advantageous in circumstances of close elections because it saves us from the calamity of having to recount votes in all 50 states. If the election of George W. Bush or Al Gore were dependent on the country's total popular vote, we would suffer demands for recounts and legal challenges in practically every state, including those states that carried big for one or the other candidate, as the parties endeavor to scrape up an additional few hundred votes. It would be very easy to make credible charges of election fraud in almost every state. Our voting procedures and mechanisms make frauds a scandal that has been waiting to burst into the open. The old-fashioned way of stuffing the ballot box was ghost voting from the graves of those who are deceased or moved away but whose names were never removed from the voting rolls (a favorite practice in Cook County, Illinois, where Gore's campaign chairman Bill Daley grew up). Now there are so many other ways: voting by illegal aliens and by felons, busing in the mentally challenged from nursing homes, hauling persons to more than one voting place for multiple voting, giving away cigarettes to induce the unregistered homeless to vote, and keeping polling places open beyond the legal closing time. Many recent "reforms" opened up other opportunities for fraud. These include same-day voter registration, motor voter registration, voting by mail, manipulation of absentee ballots, and reprogramming or fixing the counters on voting machines. Al Gore has shown us that a candidate can demand a third count of Florida ballots, not because there was any election fraud or even machine malfunction, but just because the election was close and he didn't like the outcome of the first and second counts. His strategy was to keep recounting until his Democratic partisans could scrounge up more votes. In 1960, Richard Nixon gave us an example of a presidential candidate who gracefully accepted the results of an imperfect election, declining to file a contest. Not only were there credible charges of election fraud that could have made the difference in the Electoral College, but some even argue that Nixon actually won the popular vote over John F. Kennedy. Pulitzer-Prize-winning historian Walter A. McDougall says that, whereas most sources show Kennedy with a popular-vote margin of 118,574 over Nixon (only 0.1 percent of the national total), the Kennedy total included 318,303 votes from Alabama. But Alabama elected a slate of 11 Democratic electors, only five of whom voted for Kennedy. The other six voted for Senator Harry Byrd's States Rights Party. If the votes of those pro-Byrd Democrats are subtracted from the 1960 Democratic total, Nixon won the popular vote, not Kennedy. ("The Slippery Statistics of the Popular Vote," New York Times, 11-16-00) The election frauds in 1960 that caused Kennedy to win in the Electoral College were an entirely different matter. The stuffing of the ballot boxes in Cook County, Illinois and in Texas has been so well substantiated that it is no longer disputed today. The most recent evidence that the 1960 Democratic frauds are common knowledge was a long article in the liberal Washington Post ("Another Race to the Finish," 11-17-00, p.1). It describes how the political correspondent of the New York Herald Tribune documented the facts of how the 1960 election "was stolen in Chicago and in Texas," but was removed from his investigation by his bosses. Richard Nixon refused to contest the election because he didn't want to precipitate a political crisis. A challenge to the Chicago frauds by Republicans was dismissed by a Democratic judge who was later rewarded with an appointment to the federal bench by President Kennedy. The 1976 election was even closer. A swing of just a few thousand votes would have changed the result in the Electoral College. A shift of a mere 11,950 votes in Delaware and Ohio would have resulted in a Electoral College deadlock (though Jimmy Carter still would have had a healthy 9-million popular-vote lead over Gerald Ford). If 5,548 voters in Ohio (0.14 percent) and 3,686 voters in Hawaii (1.2 percent) had voted for Ford, he would have beaten Carter in the Electoral College. In 1948 Harry Truman beat Thomas E. Dewey by 2.2 million in the popular vote, but a swing of 30,000 votes in California and Ohio would have reversed the outcome in the Electoral College. Most elections are actually quite close. The Founding Fathers were inspired in setting up the Electoral College to elect our Presidents. It's a better system than anyone else has ever suggested.
In waging his contest of the 2000 presidential
election, Al Gore's mantra is Make Every Vote Count
(except the votes of servicemen). But Gore's pious
platitude should be subject to qualifications. We want
to count only one vote per person. We want to count
only votes cast by citizens eligible to vote. We want to
count only ballots containing votes that can be
objectively read, not votes that permit election officials
to speculate about or "interpret" what may have been in
the voter's mind. We do not want to count phantom
votes or re-created votes. And, of course, we want a
scrupulously honest count monitored by observers from
both political parties.
Florida's vote for President on November 7 was very
close, triggering an automatic recount that showed Bush
the winner by 930 votes. The Gore machine, run by Bill
Daley of Chicago, went into action immediately (some
say even before the polls closed) with a dozen different
claims to garner more votes.
Gore demanded a manual recount of the ballots in
four heavily Democratic counties where he believed he
could pick up votes with Democratic election officials
making subjective determinations of voters' intent. This
opened up endless partisan wrangling, using constantly
changing standards, about how to count hanging chad,
swinging chad, three-corner chad, sunlit chad, pregnant
and dimpled chad.
Most of the chad problem was voter error, not
machine malfunction. In Palm Beach County, the
following rules were prominently displayed on every
voting station: "After voting, check your ballot card to
be sure your voting selections are clearly and cleanly
punched and there are no chips left hanging on the back
of the card."
Gore and his campaign manager Bill Daley charged
that there was something fishy about Palm Beach
County having thrown out 19,120 ballots that were
double-punched for two persons for President.
Obviously, such ballots could not be counted, but the
question is, how did they get double-punched? Gore
and Daley blamed this on seniors being confused by the
"butterfly ballot." But that ballot had been selected by
the Democrats, circulated in advance of the election
without complaint, and was satisfactorily used
nationwide by about 18 percent of U.S. voters.
There may be another explanation for Palm Beach
County's double-punched ballots, and we'll probably
never learn the truth. In Palm Beach County, Bush
received less than 65 percent of the registered
Republican vote, while Bush received more votes, on
average, than the number of registered Republicans in
all other Florida counties. It is possible that many of
these 19,120 ballots were originally Bush votes that
were secretly double-punched by an individual wielding
a stylus before the counting started. In the old days of
paper ballots, we called this the short-pencil trick; the
hand of cheaters is quicker than the eyes of election
observers.
The Miami Herald (Dec. 1) exposed the scandal that
thousands of votes in Florida were illegally cast by
convicted felons, of which 75 percent were cast by
registered Democrats. The Herald found 62 robbers, 56
drug dealers, 45 killers, 16 rapists, and 7 kidnappers who
cast ballots. One who voted is on the state registry of
sexual offenders, and his son told the newspaper, "He's
got Alzheimer's and he can't even carry on a
conversation any more." County election boards have
the duty to purge felons from the registration lists, which
can be done by running a computer match with the
Department of Corrections database. Some Florida
counties refused to do this.
Another source of concern is the skyrocketing use of
absentee ballots by people who could go to the polls on
Election Day. Fraud and intimidation by labor unions
are far easier to carry out with absentee ballots that can
be pre-marked and handed out. Absentee ballots also
make it easy for Party workers to exploit nursing home
patients.
We would like some remedy for the way some
people were discouraged from voting by the false
election-night pronouncements of the media. The most
consequential election fraud on November 7 was
probably committed by the television networks in falsely
announcing, while the polls were still open in Florida's
Panhandle (which operates on central time), that Gore
had won Florida. Many people standing in long lines, or
still on their way to vote, then went home thinking their
vote didn't matter.
That could have amounted to thousands of people,
a decisive margin in Florida. The Panhandle has ten
counties with a population of 739,523, was experiencing
a heavy turnout, and is pro-Bush in some parts by up to
four-to-one.
Many people believe that the networks ran this false
information in a deliberate attempt to discourage Bush
voters. The apologies/explanations/excuses given the
next day on CBS-TV and by the New York Times were
completely unpersuasive and tend to confirm the
widespread public perception that the media are
advocates, not reporters. The networks' announcements
later in the evening, retracting the false story, then
calling Florida for Bush, and then retracting that call,
were all after the Florida polls had closed and had no
effect on voters.
Major media spent the weekend after the election
telephoning Republican electors all over the country and
asking them two questions: Since Al Gore received the
popular vote, would you consider changing your vote
from Bush to Gore? and, Do you know you are not
legally bound to vote for Bush? Was this survey
designed to locate those who sounded uncertain in their
replies so they could be "worked over" to persuade a
handful of Bush electors to switch to Gore and give him
the margin of victory?
It's long overdue for the American people and the
media to focus on the inefficient voting systems used in
most of the country which produce error rates in excess
of automatic recount thresholds, plus so many
possibilities for cheating with so little risk.
We need a system that does not permit the counting
of phantom votes, i.e., (1) votes by people who have
died, or moved away, or don't exist, or claim invalid
addresses (such as abandoned public housing units or
warehouses), (2) votes for which there is no paper trail
to verify that they were legally cast, and (3) voting
machine counters showing more votes than there are
names of eligible voters on the registration list.
The New York Times reported in 1998 that the
percentage of registered voters who are ineligible
because they have died, moved or registered at multiple
addresses is 16.8 percent. This allows plenty of
opportunity to vote the graveyards, the nursing homes,
the absent students, and the homeless who can be
enticed with beer or cigarettes. In their book Dirty Little
Secrets, University of Virginia Professor Larry Sabato
and Wall Street Journal reporter Glenn R. Simpson
asserted that 2 million to 3.4 million "phony
registrations" were on the voting rolls in California.
We need a system that screens out illegal voters, i.e.,
(1) votes by illegal aliens (apparently a commonplace
practice in California), (2) votes by felons (the Miami
Herald reported that up to 5,000 felons may have
illegally voted in Florida, including hundreds in Palm
Beach County), (3) votes by persons who are allowed to
vote without signing the voter registration application,
and (4) votes by persons whose signature does not match
the signature on the precinct register.
Rep. Bob Dornan of California lost his congressional
seat in 1996 by 979 votes, largely because of the votes
of illegal aliens. Al Gore rushed through the
naturalization of at least 75,000 aliens with arrest
records in time to get them registered to vote Clinton-Gore in November 1996. (See the P.S. Report, Oct. 2000, p. 4,
and Sellout by David P. Schippers.)
We need a system that does not permit the counting
of re-created votes, i.e., (1) permitting election officials
to "discern" (in David Boies's word) the votes of those
who failed to vote properly by trying to imagine what
was going on in the voter's mind, a mystical reading of
chad (like tea leaves) using constantly shifting
standards, and (2) votes by the mentally incapacitated or
people in nursing homes who are voted (note the passive
tense of the verb) by the practice of "assistance voting"
with "help" from a partisan campaign worker.
We need a system that does not permit multiple
voting, i.e., (1) by persons driven from precinct to
precinct to cast several or even dozens of phantom
votes, and (2) by college students who vote at their
college location and absentee from their homes, too.
We need a system with absolute security at all times
to guard the ballots and the voting machines, with
guaranteed observation by both parties of the setting and
reading of the counters.
Here are the bare essentials to reform the way votes
are currently cast and counted.
If machines are used, they should kick out a paper
receipt so the voter can verify that his vote was properly
recorded and so that a paper record is available for a
recount. The rules for absentee voting and assistance
voting should be substantially tightened. Voting by mail
should be prohibited because it destroys the secrecy of
the ballot, and internet voting should never be permitted
because of its susceptibility to manifold fraud.
The protections against vote fraud should be as
detailed and tough as the protections every bank takes to
protect our money. We should make cheating as
difficult and dangerous as robbing a bank.
The whole process of self government is at stake if
we can't rely on the integrity of the ballot box. What
can "one man one vote" or "count every vote" possibly
mean if our votes aren't honestly counted -- or if our
votes are diluted by phantom or illegal votes?
Phyllis Schlafly has attended every Republican National Convention since
1952, most often as an elected Delegate, either from Illinois or Missouri.
She is a former First Vice President of the National Federation of
Republican Women and President of the Illinois Federation of Republican
Women. Her 1964 book A Choice Not an Echo, one of the top ten best-selling conservative books of all time, which is a history of Republican
National Conventions, is currently under revision.
|