There's a reason that the U.S. Constitution has only been amended 27 times in 224 years.
It's a brilliant document written by a group of men who had an amazing understanding of how our republic form of government could remain relevant far into the future
Before people start pressing for new amendments, or plans designed to circumvent the intent of the Constitution, they should think long and hard about what they are doing. They might be screwing up a very smart plan drafted by our nation's founders.
The Electoral College is a perfect example.
There is a growing movement in the nation to override the traditional system of electing the president and vice president. While a shocking number of people are not aware of this fact, our two top national executives are not elected by a popular vote of the people.
Under the Electoral College, the winner of the popular vote in any given state usually gets all the electoral votes from that state. For instance, Michigan had 17 electoral votes in 2008. Barack Obama won the popular vote in Michigan, so he received all of our 17 electoral votes. The candidate who gets a majority of the total number of electoral votes becomes president. The magic number is 270.
But suddenly the Electoral College system is in danger. A group called "National Popular Vote" has convinced lawmakers in nine states, plus the District of Columbia, to pledge all of their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the national popular vote.
California, with its nation-leading 55 electoral votes, joined the movement last month. That means organizers are about halfway to their goal of having states with a combined 270 electoral votes on board. If they gain the support of a few more big states, the Electoral College could be irrelevant by the 2016 election.
On the surface, it may seem undemocratic to select our nation's leader with anything but a popular vote. After all, one of our fundamental principles is "one person, one vote," and majority rule is the golden rule.
Based on everything I've read, the Founders rejected the idea of a direct popular vote because they did not trust the will of the masses. That's understandable, considering the century they lived in. Societies were completely dominated by economic elites (like the Founders) in the 1700s, and the concept of mass participation in government was untested.
In other words, the Founders wanted the voters to have their say on Election Day. But they also wanted to reserve the right to veto the choice of the people if they deemed it unwise. Hence they created the Electoral College.
Electors are pledged to the candidates that won the popular vote in their states. But they are not legally bound to vote for them. Under the Founders' theory, a majority of those electors could recognize that the voters made a terrible mistake and reject the candidate with the most popular votes.
I believe time has proven the Founders generally wrong about American voters. Indeed, if you look back over history, average Americans have chosen the right president at the right time in most crucial elections.
The Electoral College was always in place, but in most cases did not override the popular choice. There have only been four presidents in our history elected without a majority of the popular vote. They were John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison and George W. Bush (first term).
That proves the Electoral College, in practical terms, is almost always a rubber stamp of the will of the people. But I'm glad we still have it as a safety valve, for a number of reasons.
The first is balance of power between the states. Our nation is a Constitutional partnership of 50 individual units of government, all of them presumably equal. That's why the U.S. Senate is composed of two members from each state, regardless of population.
Some may point out that Al Gore received 4 million more popular votes than Bush in the 2000 election, but Bush carried the popular vote in 30 of the 50 states. If each state had one electoral vote, Bush would have won by ten votes.
Of course population is reflected in the Electoral College. States with more people get more electoral votes. But the Electoral College also provides a wise safeguard against domination by the more populous states. To win, a candidate must carry a combination of large and small states.
Do we really want heavily populated states like California and New York to dominate the presidential election process? If we go strictly by one person, one vote, then the candidates will spend all of their time on the East and West coasts.
They will pander to the wishes of people in New York City, Boston, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Los Angeles and San Francisco. And once elected, their policies would be designed to please those people, and most of the federal money would be spent on the coasts. Why worry about the needs and concerns of North Dakota when most of the votes (as well as most of the big campaign dollars) are found along the seaboards?
That would be a real problem. The last time I checked, the values and political priorities of people in Los Angeles and New York are far different than those of people in Wyoming, Kentucky or Michigan. But under the proposed system, the wishes of the people in the heart of American would become largely irrelevant.
I also agree with the Founders on one point. If we're going to have an elected national executive, it's wise to have a few built-in safeguards.
People vote for president in early November every four years. But electors do not vote until January. That means we have two months to observe the behavior and actions of the presumed winner, just to make sure we didn't make an obviously bad choice. And if it becomes clear that we did, the electors have the legal right to overturn the popular vote.
As my mother always said, better safe than sorry.
Steve Gunn, a former Chronicle staff writer, is the communications director of Education Action Group. He adds a local conservative voice to our columnist lineup. Write: Muskegon Chronicle, P.O. Box 59, Muskegon, MI 49443.