Democracy Is No ‘Trump’ To The Delegate Process

by / on April 20, 2016 at 6:19 am /
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUponShare on TumblrDigg ThisDigg ThisShare via emailShare via email Share

Phil Jensen

ADVERTISEMENT

Does it drive you crazy when you hear politicians and talking heads refer to America as a “democracy”? If it does, I sympathize with you. And so do America’s founders.

DemocracyHere’s what James Madison, our fourth President and the man they call the “Father of the Constitution,” had to say about democracies:

Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths…

Rick Kriebel 2016

ADVERTISEMENT

So, despite what you have repeatedly heard, the purpose and the premise of the Constitution of the United States is the establishment of a Christian Republic under God, NOT a democracy.

Recently there have been numerous complaints about how “unfair” the primary election system is regarding the popular vote, the caucus procedure and the delegate count.   Just like there are many checks limiting our President and Commander in Chief, understandably our founders provided numerous safe guards, such as the Electoral College, for the election of this powerful office.

Aspiring Republican nominee Donald Trump has criticized the way the GOP chooses presidential party nominees as being “corrupt” and “crooked,” though according to a new NBC analysis, Trump has actually benefitted from the present system more than any other candidates.

Woodrow Wilcox

ADVERTISEMENT

The current GOP front-runner has also complained that the present system is not how a “democracy” is supposed to work!

Well, the good news is that is Trump right; our system is not how a democracy is supposed to work, because our system is not a democracy… we are a Christian Republic governed by a Constitution which is rooted in Biblical law, and in this Republic, law rules – not the majority.

Nonetheless Trump’s emphasis on democratic fairness may prove compelling to voters. According to some polls, Republican voters believe the nomination should go to the candidate with the most votes. In other words if a candidate gets 40% of the popular vote, he/she should get 40% of the delegates.  But that’s NOT how it works because the primary election system has never been a pure democracy, where the number of votes you get is transitioned into the exact same number of delegates.

In our American “federalist” system, the federal government has very limited powers given to it by the Constitution. The rest of the powers are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The political parties in each state, consisting of politicians who are elected by the people from that state, make most of the rules concerning their election process.  The delegate appointment rules in many of these primaries have been established for nearly a century.

This places the burden to navigate the rules in each state on the candidate.

“We’ve got a corrupt system. It’s not right. We’re supposed to be a democracy,” Trump told supporters Sunday in Rochester, New York.

With all due respect Mr. Trump, I hope you understand that American Law and the political process is not ruled by what you, or a majority of people you convince, determine.  In this American Republic, law “TRUMPS” the majority.

Learn more about your Constitution with Jake MacAulay and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

Forgotten_Factor_Banner_Ad_653x197

ADVERTISEMENT


This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.


Similar Posts:

Jake MacAulay serves as the Chief Operating Officer of the Institute on the Constitution (IOTC), an educational outreach that presents the founders’ “American View” of law and government. The former co-host of the syndicated talk show, The Sons of Liberty, he is an ordained minister and has spoken to audiences nation-wide, and has established the American Club, a constitutional study group in public and private schools.
Jake MacAulay
View all articles by Jake MacAulay
Print Friendly
  • retiredday

    “Well, the good news is that is Trump right; our system is not how a democracy is supposed to work, because our system is not a democracy… we are a Christian Republic governed by a Constitution which is rooted in Biblical law, and in this Republic, law rules – not the majority.”

    This is so true. And more Americans need to be taught this. However, I think too many voters are blissfully ignoring the fact that it is two powerful mega-parties that control the election process — not the Constitution. The political machinations of both the Democrat and Republican parties have a strangle hold on how We The People are allowed to choose our candidates.

    The “crooked” or “rigged” aspect of the Presidential primary is that it is owned and operated by two huge party organizations who do not want issues discussed freely, but insist on their framing of issues, their talking points and their party lines. They don’t want the free exchange of ideas. They don’t want voters to have a real choice. They don’t want to give third parties the equal opportunity to enter into the debate of issues.

    When you hear we have a “two party system” ask yourself where that fact is codified. What documents establish this system? The problem with our current two party system is the two parties. They have created this system for the purpose of holding on to political power. It has nothing to do with the will of the people.

    Look at the quality of the candidates. Are they persons of character? Do they espouse principled governance? Or are they pragmatic, issue-driven demagogues who gain votes by appealing to the self-centered interests of an irresponsible, immature electorate who wants to be taken care of by a benevolent dictator?

  • toto

    In the presidential general election, most Americans don’t ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

    The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes in the enacting states.

    Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ states that now are just ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions.

    The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
    All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

    We would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

  • toto

    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current presidential general election system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

    Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

    Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

    The National Popular Vote bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9). The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

    See NationalPopularVote

  • toto

    Now in the presidential general election, 48 states have winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes, 2 have district winner laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but enacted by states).

    The current system does not provide some kind of check on the “mobs.” There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.

    The electors are and will be dedicated party activist supporters of the winning party’s candidate who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

    The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

    There is no reason to think that the Electoral College would prevent Trump from being elected President