Alan Keyes on the Wisdom of the Electoral College.

I saved this essay of Alan Keyes four years ago, which lays out point for point why the Electoral College exists, and why it should continue to exist. While it reads as somewhat dated, it is still the best explanation yet for why we need to continue to rely on this institution of security against the tyranny of the majority. This is reprinted without permission of WorldNetDaily, so I hope no one sues me, but they are the copyright holders.

The full text of this article is here. I have edited it a little, because it's somewhat long, but the rest of it is definitely worth the read. Emphasis added is mine.

The Founders' Wisdom
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com
November 13, 2000

Nothing about the current extraordinary aftermath of the presidential election has been quite as alarming as the spectacle of almost uniform ignorance among our political elites, media and citizens, of the very purpose and principled justification of the constitutionally prescribed procedure by which the United States selects its presidents.

Senator-elect Hillary appears to believe that the Electoral College is merely an archaic reflection of our elitist ancestors and their distrust of democracy. Why shouldn't the people elect the president directly, she wants to know, as she prepares to take her seat in that equally "archaic" institution, the Senate, in which, as a senator from New York, she will have precisely as much constitutional authority as senators from Wyoming and Alaska. Possibly she will soon be moved to question the "injustice" of such disproportionate representation.

There has been criticism of the system in the last several days because it is alleged that a simple and direct election of the president by means of the national popular vote would have avoided the controversy regarding the Florida totals. But the current troubles are actually a clear vindication of the wisdom of the Electoral College. It has confined the controversy to one state, because it holds the balance of the Electoral College, rather than spreading it throughout the entire country. Without the Electoral College, the entire country would be consumed by the question of the popular vote, in which Vice President Gore and Gov. Bush are separated by about 4,000 votes per state. That means that from Alaska to Florida, Maine to California, partisans of both men would be subjecting the election totals of their communities to recounts, challenges, litigation -- the inevitable temptation to fraud -- and other attempts to find the few votes that might make the difference to the national total.

I have often compared the Constitution to a nuclear reactor, with the power of self-government understood as nuclear power. If you don't have the control rods in place, if everything isn't set up properly, you don't have a controlled and useful reaction -- you have a meltdown, or the makings of a bomb. That's what democracy is like. If it is not properly structured, it is highly destructive. If it is properly structured, it is probably the best form of government we can attain to. And I think the design bequeathed us by our founders comes pretty close.

The founders understood that a government designed to respond directly, immediately and completely to the will of the majority would be extremely unstable. Among other threats to political stability in such a system they concentrated particularly on the danger of what they called "factionalism." A system that awarded political power to any group achieving simple majority status would be vulnerable to the possibility of a majority faction that would not represent the good of the whole. Regional factions, for example, might form on the basis of an interest common to residents of the region, but detrimental to the Union -- such as in the period leading up to the Civil War.

In our day, shallow, superficial and selfish "leaders" neither understand this history, appreciate the benefits it has brought, nor fear the evil its abandonment will bring. Led by Bill Clinton, they have assaulted the character of American decency and good will that alone makes self-government possible. And now they are preparing an assault on the balance and separation of powers, seeking to undermine the entire cathedral of American liberty by their selfish and childish insistence on immediate exercise of their individual will.

The Electoral College is one safeguard that was introduced in order to help stabilize the American system against factionalism by increasing the odds that a president has to attend to the whole country, not just to a particularly intense concentration of his political support within it. The Electoral College system tends to reward a candidate with modest majorities in many states, rather than a candidate with overwhelming support in a few. As we are being reminded vividly by the current election, there is no benefit to a candidate for president in having much more than a bare majority in any given state -- he gains nothing from those votes beyond the one that gives him victory in that state. It is a wise and good system promoting truly national leadership that encourages presidential candidates to seek a plurality in many states, rather than basing his support in a few states overwhelmingly committed to his cause. This is not a guarantee that candidates will be nationally-minded, of course. But it is a generally effective protection against the worst kind of regional factionalism in presidential politics. This protection is subtly accomplished by the Electoral College system in every presidential election, and we would be short-sighted indeed if we abandon it in a selfish and stupidly willful reach for direct influence of our individual votes.

In fact, resentment of the Electoral College usually reveals a deeper resentment to the principles of the American Republic. Zealots of the popular will cannot stomach the notion that every one of us has an obligation to something other than our own will -- and that as American citizens we have an obligation to seek not our own private benefit, but justice for the whole. The Electoral College system is merely one of the ways that our constitutional system requires us to accept the fruitful paradox of American statesmanship -- that higher principles than the popular will must be respected in the constitutional outcome, but that these higher principles cannot ultimately govern American politics unless they are freely accepted by the people.

Political ambition in America cannot be absolute, but must always be limited by the demands of prudence and the ultimate goal of justice. The oft-repeated but seldom understood statement that America is not a democracy but a republic reduces ultimately to this fact.

It is ironic that at the end of the most lawless administration in the history of our country, the man who stood silent in the shadow of that lawlessness and became its accomplice should demand from the American people "respect for the rule of law." But for those of us who have been defending the principle of the rule of law throughout these difficult years, it is neither ironic nor difficult for us to demand that same respect for justice here that we wanted in the case of Bill Clinton.

At the end, let us hope and pray, of the Clinton era, this amazing election has made it suddenly necessary that all Americans consider questions usually reserved for the statesman or the founder. We must remember the deep meaning of the institutions and procedures by which the Constitution helps us to replace mere popular willfulness with the considered judgments of the better angels of our national nature. And we must remember as well that such statesmanship is the duty of the citizen even in the particular and passing contests of political life, when our passions tempt us to seek triumph without due regard for justice.

This is out of control.

The RNC has had to address the AFL-CIO directly about the multitude of terrorist attacks against Republican campaign headquarters. It's even worse than *I* thought.

From the letter: On October 5th, according to news reports, witnesses, police reports and admissions of your members, the AFL-CIO, as part of a national strategy, protested at more than a dozen of our campaign and party headquarters across the country. In many locations, the protestors attempted to enter, or entered, campaign or party facilities. As one protestor said, "Actually, we're storming into an office." In Orlando, Florida, injuries and damage were sustained. Protestors forced their way into the facility, fracturing the arm of one staffer, and vandalized the office. In Michigan, protestors entered a headquarters and engaged in activities apparently intended to disrupt volunteers trying to make phone calls.

Protests by your organization come on the heels of several other incidents at Bush-Cheney '04 offices around the country, including a break-in at our Seattle office where laptop computers were stolen from the Washington State Bush-Cheney ’04 executive director and the state Republican Party 72-hour director. Just last night in Canton, Ohio, a Bush-Cheney '04 staffer was forced to lock herself in an office while another break-in was in progress. The facility was seriously damaged and property was stolen. Additionally, gun shots have been fired into Bush-Cheney '04 offices in West Virginia, Florida and Tennessee, windows broken in West Virginia and campaign staffers threatened. In Wisconsin, a supporter of the President had a swastika burned into his front yard simply because he had a Bush-Cheney '04 lawn sign.

If this were my party? I'd be absolutely ashamed. But where are the condemnations by Democrats? Where are the prominent Democrats calling for this behavior to stop? McAuliffe? Dashle? Chris Matthews? Hillary? Anybody?

It's staggering how low liberals are willing to stoop to wrest this election from Bush. I saw a news item recently of liberals offering sex for votes for Democrats. It's become obscene! Who would want to belong to a party where votes can be literally whored? Do you ever hear of conservatives doing this? Do conservatives make Web sites like Votergasm.org to try to make it trendy to link promiscuous sex with voting for liberals?

My disgust with liberals continues to grow daily in this election cycle .. as well as my sense of pride in Republicans and conservatives for not resorting to this barbaric, bottom-feeding behavior. The more liberals act up, the more people will be, like me, utterly disgusted with their extremist, hypocritical activities. What happened to, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

I know I am not the only person in the world who sees the blatant hypocrasy of liberals.

In other news, I recently received my autographed copies of "How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must)" .. so far, I love it!

Who said what to who??

Have a look at this.

Now, pay special attention to how many times Republicans are mentioned. Now see if you can find what party the one who used the offending word is.

Several paragraphs down.

Now .. if a Republican had said this .. that would be his job. No passing GO, no collecting $200. He'd be forced to resign immediately. No question, no quarter.

This guy is a Democrat. There will be no outrage from the media, no condemnations from gay groups. No calls for immediate resignation. He's a Democrat .. he can say whatever he wants. It's a free country, after all.

Paul Bremer Tongue-Lashes the MSM.

Much hay has been made this week about the report by Paul Bremer, the administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq until June 2004, when he handed the keys to the country back to the Iraqis (because the US is such an empire-building, colonizing bunch of conquerors). Mr. Bremer made comments a few days ago to the effect that Bush made two mistakes in Iraq: not sending enough troops, and not controlling the violence since Baghdad fell. Kerry and the Democrats/media immediately seized on this and started using the comments to condemn Bush's post-war Iraq plan.

One, we all know Bush is not responsible for Zarqawi's terrorists and the hundreds of innocents and American soldiers he has murdered. Making the claim that Bush is responsible for one thousand deaths there is preposterous.

Second, Bremer came out this morning swinging hard at the media for using his comments to attack Bush. He wrote this remarkable op-ed piece which ran in the Times today--the fact that it ran at all is shocking!--in which he strongly defends Bush's policies toward Iraq.

From the piece: "The press has been curiously reluctant to report my constant public support for the president's strategy in Iraq and his policies to fight terrorism. I have been involved in the war on terrorism for two decades, and in my view no world leader has better understood the stakes in this global war than President Bush."

That's because the press is curiously reluctant to report both sides of any given political issue. They will always report the liberal side .. which consistently happens to be the anti-American side, you might notice. And they will always run the DNC talking points as though they are "news".

Bravo to Bremer for calling them on their lack of objectivity. The Republicans are starting to sharpen up and get tough .. GOOD! Can't wait to see the debate tonight. I will be front row (at home, of course) with popcorn.

There they go again.

Orlando, Florida:

Protestors Ransack Bush/Cheney Headquarters In Orlando
2 People Receive Minor Injuries During Protest

POSTED: 6:05 pm EDT October 5, 2004
UPDATED: 6:57 am EDT October 6, 2004
ORLANDO, Fla. -- A group of protestors stormed and then ransacked a Bush-Cheney headquarters building in Orlando, Fla., Tuesday, according to Local 6 News.

Local 6 News reported that several people from the group of 100 Orlando protestors face possible assault charges after the group forced their way inside the Republican headquarters office.

While in the building, some of the protestors drew horns and a mustache on a poster of President George W. Bush and poured piles of letters in the office, according to the report.

"We told them to leave, they broke the law," Republican headquarters volunteer Mike Broom said.

Two protestors received minor injuries when the crowd stormed the building, including a Republican volunteer.

One of the protestors said she wanted to send a message.

"We want to send a clear message to Bush, we want him to take his hands off our overtime pay," protestor Esmeralda Heuilar said.

Local 6 News learned that most of the protestors were from the AFL-CIO and were taking part in one of 20 other coordinated protests around the country.

So now liberals are coordinating terror attacks on Republican campaign headquarters. Wouldn't you be proud to be a Democrat today?

This only makes them look like panicking cowards and they are only pushing more and more people to our side of the fence. As much as this helps our cause, though, law enforcement has got to crack down on this. This is absolutely intolerable and these "protestors" (rather like the Iraqi "protestors" who are blowing up cars and killing people) have to be dealt with severely.

Kerry/Edwards campaign slogan: TERRORISTS: If ya can't beat them, become them!

Cheney pulverized Edwards.

I love the smell of freshly minced liberals in the morning, don't you?

FactCheck's analysis of the VP debate. Their bias is definitely showing--and they do have a definite bias toward Democrats/against Republicans, they're a University after all--but if you read their analysis you see that they are trying to give Edwards a lot more benefit-of-the-doubt than they're giving Cheney. I don't see any facts checked here that tells me that Cheney was wrong. I do see a lot of distortion and misleading of the American people by Gomer--er, I mean Edwards.

Even the 9/11-Iraq connection accusation is flat wrong. Anyone with half a brain knows what Cheney was talking about when he made the quote about Baghdad and terrorism/al-Queda. He has never said there was a direct link and nobody has yet proven him wrong with his words on the record. It is common sense and common knowledge that Baghdad was a haven for al-Queda operatives and that al-Queda operatives carried out the attack on the WTC.

Overall this was a home run for the Reds (Republicans) .. Edwards looked silly and naive, Cheney was "seasoned" (Sean Hannity's word) and tough and exactly the right man for the job.

Also .. I caught Dennis Miller on Leno afterwards. They hadn't seen the debate when they taped the show, but wow, Dennis was on quite a tear. He announced confidently and with conviction that he was voting for Bush, because Kerry had no real position on the war in Iraq and couldn't be counted on to do the right thing, only go with the winds of popular opinion. He had me laughing out loud with some of his remarks. Too bad he had to be bleeped a few times, but he may have swung some votes to our side right there. Thanks Dennis!!

Can't wait to see what W is going to talk about today.

Liberals .. terrorists .. the gap is closing.

From Knoxville, TN:

Shots fired into Knox Bush/Cheney headquarters

An unknown suspect fired several shots into the Bearden office of the Bush/Cheney re-election campaign Tuesday morning.

... According to Knoxville Police Department (KPD) officers on the scene Tuesday, it is believed that the two separate shots were fired from a car sometime between 6:30 am and 7:15 am.

One shot shattered the glass in the front door and the other cracked the glass in another of the front doors.

There were no witnesses to the shooting. A customer at a nearby dry cleaning store noticed shattered glass on the sidewalk in front of the headquarters and called police.

Volunteers and staffers at the campaign office say they have no clues as to who might have committed the crime. However, they add that the shooting makes them even more enthusiastic and energized about working for their candidates.

"If I have to sleep here (at the campaign office) now, that's what I'll do," says volunteer Suzanne Dewar.

Gee, here, they just steal yard signs and spray-paint the big ones at street intersections. Theft, vandalism, now armed criminal action.

I wonder if Kerry will vote to approve body armor for Bush/Cheney volunteers.

Earth to John Kerry .. WTF, over?

This from the Kerry Spot:

3) "While John Kerry showed poise and looked presidential, I think he is still flip-flopping on Iraq and the war on terror. To summarize his comments: It's the wrong war at the wrong time, but I'm committed to winning it; We're spending too much on Iraq ($200 billion), but I'd send more troops and equipment; I'll bring in more nations to help Iraq, but the other nations currently in Iraq were coerced and do not provide much assistance; Saddam and Iraq were a grave threat, but Osama is the only terrorist worth pursuing; Terrorists are pourng into Iraq, but Iraq is a distraction to the war on terror. I still have no idea what he would do as President to fight this war on terrorism."

LOL ... see what I mean about being a sham?

The First "Debate"

I have to admit, I'm nervous. This should have been totally one-sided and Bush should have wiped the floor with Kerry. This is Bush's strength. The war on terror is the defining factor of his presidency, and damnit, Kerry walked all over him. Conservative pundits this morning are calling it a draw .. it wasn't a draw. Anyone who watched last night saw Kerry on the offensive, with Bush struggling to stay on message and point.

A few thoughts. One, Bush is a very good speaker, but when he steps out there to talk to the world, unscripted, he knows that every utterance he makes will be analyzed, critiqued, ripped apart .. and this election is more important for him and for the country than any other. In other words, the pressure is on. So he was very careful in choosing words, sticking to phrases and concepts that have already been vetted by his coachers and advisors and thinking about what he was going to say.

The fact that Jim Lehrer was moderating the first "debate" coupled with Kerry's impressive poise and delivery leads me to wonder whether Kerry hadn't seen the questions beforehand and had time to prepare. Note that Kerry spent several days in preparation for this event. Bush was in Florida .. working. Doing his job.

Several times during Bush's speaking I cheered. He delivered some outstanding messages and he did it looking right into the camera, speaking to the citizens of the United States. Kerry only once spoke to the camera and that was during his closing arguments. When he did so, he looked like a zombie. Oh my god. This man has absolutely no business being anywhere near the Oval Office. And here's why.

Kerry was all about posturing last night. No matter how many times he says, "I have always been consistent on this," it's still a lie. His saying that does not make it true! Now .. you can vote for whomever you want .. but me, I'll be voting for someone who *thinks* about what he's going to say (and do) before he says or does it, someone who operates in the real world and knows things are complicated. Kerry thinks (and says over and over) he has a plan and acts confident. The fact is, He doesn't have a plan. He won't "speak in hypotheticals." He can't: Kerry is completely uneducated about what's going on over there. He never attends Senate Intelligence breifings .. hell be barely can be bothered anymore to even do his job and VOTE on issues going through the Senate. How can we expect this guy to have any clue what's happening over there, much less come up with a plan that's better than what Bush and his team are doing?

True, Kerry looked more poised and polished than Bush did. That's because Kerry is a performer. Furthermore, he has nothing to lose by losing this election, really. Bush speaks the truth, and Bush knows that if HE loses the election, it's going to embolden the terrorists and everyone who wishes ill on this country. There's more pressure on him to win than there is on Kerry (who knows, also, that the media will naturally spin left, as a kind of safety net).

The race is still on, and it's going to get tighter now, but Bush still has the truth on his side and I just hope that the American public can see through the BS and realize that.

Kerry: the sham.
Bush: the truth.

I know who I'm voting for.