{17.6.20}The Supremes have agreed to take up the case of the "faithless elector" from Colorado, Michael Baca, who decided to exercise what he sees as his prerogative to vote for a presidential candidate who did not win his state's popular vote. The case is fundamental to the future of democracy in the Republic. It will determine if electors are simply functionaries of the popular will, or a political elite that actually decides who is to be El Presidente. Baca has some historical precedent on his side of the argument. The Electoral College was a late compromise by the founders who could not reach agreement on whether Congress or the states should decide a presidential election. At least one founder thought the compromise to be "excellent", if not perfect. In his distinctly aristocratic view, the College would be a dignified forum of informed and dispassionate decision makers, unswayed by the "low arts" of popularity to which the masses were vulnerable.
Supporters of the independence of electors are adherents of "originalism", which interprets the Constitution according to the original intent of the drafters, according to originalists. If that sounds circular, it is. The problem with this argument is that the founders also wanted to let states decide how to pick their electors. Colorado opted for popular sovereignty, and passed a law requiring its electors to follow the results of the popular vote. Mr. Baca violated that state law and was replaced. Adherents of "living constitutionalism" interpret the Constitution in the context of modern conditions not prevailing in the late 18th century. Certainly, no one can plausibly argue that modern voters immersed in almost instantaneous information are less politically sophisticated than their 18th century antecedents. Consequently, states should be allowed to legally bind their electors to the popular vote result, if they so desire.
The real solution to our anachronistic and deeply skewed system of electing a president is to get rid of it. The current indirect system has caused two recent elections to be inconsistent with popular sovereignty--and the negative impact of these anomalies have been lamentably experienced. More unpopular results can be expected as national political polarization produces close Electoral College vote results, in which a few faithless electors like Baca could be the difference.
 |
| Who is this man, and why is he not a democrat? |