top of page
  • Writer's pictureCaldwell Snart

ELECTORAL COLLEGE DOES IT WORK? Variable but not equal protection

Updated: Sep 4, 2022


Our Electoral College has its origins in ancient history. From the Romans to the Visigoths, colleges of nobles would elect a leader who would then ascend to kingship. This was a step away from hereditary rulers and a step towards a republican system of government where electors who are to represent the important population, like nobility and merchant moguls, would have a say in who is to be their executive.

Even the Vatican had the College of Cardinals since 1059, and for 1,000 years have been selecting Popes. The faithful did not get to vote directly for Pope, but their representatives did.

Our founders broke away from a monarch King George, to form a Republican government; That is one where the people voted for representatives, and those reps make and vote on laws.

In our Great Compromise of 1787, the founders were faced with small states refusing to join the Union as long as the larger states could use their lager populations to injure the smaller states.

The Electoral College reflects this fairness doctrine that minority rights and minority states could not be over run. That is the basic problem with a pure democracy: It involves three wolves and two sheep deciding who’s for dinner. The sheep always looses. In a pure democracy the minority is always outvoted and is always getting the short end of any deal.

Our Constitution written by the founders, Jefferson, Hamilton, Monroe, Madison…solved this problem by giving each state senate two votes regardless of population, and in the house, the number of representatives reflect the states population.

Today our legislators or the people vote for the 538 Presidential Electors, and those electors vote in the Electoral College for choices of President.

The issue of minority rights is closely bound with Republican ideals and the electoral College. Since under the Electoral system smaller states have more voting power per person than larger states. This comports with the concept of a republic, as a system of indirect election of representatives. A system that has some respect for minority rights.

For instance in the 2016 presidential election the District of Columbia has the highest per capita Electoral College representation. And the very low population state of Wyoming has the highest representation in presidential elections.

A lot of good it does because todays large states like California, Texas, Florida have immense populations. California alone has 55 presidential electors, representing some 650,000 people each. While Wyoming has three electors representing only 200,000 people each. So we can say that Wyoming is over represented in the Electoral College, but they only have three electors so it’s not a huge gain.

Today in California we have 40 million people which is more than the thirteen colonies put together. And there is some talk of splitting the state to create more fairness for minorities.

By dividing CA we are talking about the rural areas rejecting high taxes, low morals, anti America school propaganda, safe borders, safe schools, vouchers and a host of pet conservative grievances.

Looking at the electoral college effect, we can see that in CA the big cities operate as the big states did in the 1780’s. These giant cities of CA like Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego determine nearly all political decisions. This creates a disparity of power and many rural counties and persons are underserved and under represented.

Prior to 1967 in California and many other states, Assembly seats were based per county, and State Senate seats also per county regardless of population. This was fair as the big cities could not decide for the rural counties who’s for dinner. Yet the big cities th

But in 1964 the US Supreme court led by chief Justice Earl Warren over turned itself and decided in Reynolds v. Sims,

That (2) State Senators per county was violative of the equal rights amendment stating…

”Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests.” And thus court ordered the end of two state senators per county as unconstitutional.

The Supremes made up the ruling on “one man one vote doctrine” which doesn’t exist, and totally ignored that the US Senate has two senators per state, regardless of population.

Both Erwin Chemerinsky (Dean, UC Berkeley School of Law) and Richard Pildes (NYU School of Law) named Reynolds v. Sims the "best Supreme Court decision since 1960", with Chemerinsky noting that in his opinion, the decision made American government "far more democratic and representative”

Right, the ruling meant that Democrat cities would now rule the States they were in.

Opposition to the ruling stated…

T]he forces of our national life are not brought to bear on public questions solely in proportion to the weight of numbers. If they were, the 6 million citizens of the Chicago area would hold sway in the Illinois Legislature without consideration of the problems of their 4 million fellows who are scattered in 100 other counties. Under the Court's new decree, California could be dominated by Los Angeles and San Francisco; Michigan by Detroit

And this is exactly what’s happened. The entire state of CA is now governed by Los Angeles and San Fran.

The whole point of a “Representative Government” as stated in the Constitution, is to avoid this result.

To prevent the big wolf cities from using strict democracy voting, to devour the rural areas.

We are not in a democracy, we are a Republic, or we’re supposed to be according to the Constitution.

A better system for California would be to return the California senate to the Federal system where each CA County would have one State Senator. Sure Los Angelos county would only have one senator and Santa Barbara County one state senator, but this change would reflect the true nature of a Republic; Where the big population centers would not so easily control all the counties in the State.

And each County would have a proportional number of Assembly members.

That would give a total of 116 State Senators for CA 58 counties. That would give about 23 Democrat senators and 35 Republican Senators.

The score today is 40 state senators with 900K persons each, and one assembly Person for each assembly district with about 450,000 people.

But they claim this violates the equal protection clause… and the US Senate two per state doesn’t? And what about variable taxes paid by citizens?

And what about the winner take all in Presidential Electoral voting? That to discards millions of minority votes and where is the Equal Protection from that ? Nowhere to be found…

More likely we have: Variable but not equal protection

By returning to County Senate Districts, smaller Counties throughout CA would have a voice in what the big cities want to do to them.

And for Presidential elections - Have the Presidential electors voted on by the new kinder, gentler and fairer legislatures. Made up of more rural senators than before.

And not winner take all in Presidential elections, because the rights of millions of minority Californians are being trampled each election.

How is having 35% of presidential votes in CA disenfranchised a good and fair thing? It’s not.

A State which is now substantially larger than the original 13 colonies, needs an electoral solution.

So… by having two Senators per county and a proportional Assembly, we create an electoral college styled, fairness solution for California and its counties.



Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet

Add a rating
bottom of page