How Is That Noble Experiment with Popular Sovereignty Going?
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.
By James Nordin
February 21, 2021
The 2020 presidential election was more heated after the votes were counted than before voting began. The candidate with the most popular votes was also the candidate with the most electoral votes. The claims of voter fraud and stolen elections seemed interminable. Then came the attempted insurrection to overturn the vote. This followed the 2016 presidential election in which the loser of the popular vote legitimately won the electoral college vote.
How is that noble experiment with popular sovereignty going?
Let’s look for a moment at the Electoral College. Wyoming, with a population of about 579,000, has three electoral votes. California, with a population of more than 30 million, has 55 electoral votes. Doing the math, California has more than 50 times the population of Wyoming, but only about 18 times as many electoral votes. This skewing of electoral votes has led to at least four presidents losing the popular vote but winning the Electoral College vote. Two of these four occurrences have taken place in the last 20 years. In case of a tie in electoral votes, each state is allowed one vote (a total of 50 votes). Because the 25 smallest states account for less than 20 percent of the United States population, it is almost inevitable that the election will be decided by a minority of the population. The 10 most populous states account for 55% of the population but only 47.6% of the electoral votes. The 10 least populous states account for 3% of the population, but 6.3% of the electoral votes.
Why do we have such a system? It is generally conceded that the government established by the United States Constitution was different in at least three ways from governments existing at the time. First, the Constitution provided for a federal form of government in which a national government was responsible for subjects of a national and inter-state interest. Second, the national government was divided into three co-equal branches: legislative, executive and judicial—and these three co-equal branches would serve to separate power so no one branch could dominate.
The final difference is perhaps the most important and isn’t directly obvious when reading the Constitution. It is the noble experiment with the embodiment of the notion of popular sovereignty—the self-rule of the people. No longer did heredity or wealth determine who would rule. Nor would military might. The people were sovereign and ruled themselves. It would be the consent of the governed that allowed government to have legitimacy. The people, who were the rulers, would allow themselves to be governed by consenting to the acts of their elected representatives. There was no other government like this when it was created.
As a practical matter, determining who would be the elected representatives required some system of determining the “winners.” That system was majority rule. The framers of the Constitution realized they were proposing a potentially dangerous solution to what was, to them, the equally dangerous system of hereditary rule. If the majority was to rule, what was to prevent “mob rule?” How would the rights of the minority be protected? Their first response was the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. These rights were not exclusively the rights of the minority, but since they applied to all citizens, they had the effect of limiting how far the majority could go. The Federalist Papers are full of discussions about these dangers and how they could be mitigated.
In order to gain approval of this new Constitution, the framers had to obtain the support of the individual sovereign “states” (originally, the colonies). Here is where things get dicey. States like Virginia and Massachusetts were economically powerful and had large populations. States like Rhode Island and Delaware were much less powerful and had much smaller populations. And states like Georgia had very large populations, but a very large portion of that population were slaves. Less populated states were deservedly fearful that majority rule would leave them powerless and slave states, including Virginia, knew that if slaves were not somehow counted, their power would be diminished. Thus, began a series of compromises that continues to impact popular sovereignty even today.
The first compromise was in how the House of Representatives and the Senate was composed. The House would be the “people’s house;” the number of representatives was based on the population of the state with Representatives representing their “local” community. The Senate treated each state as an equal entity to all other states with each having two Senators who were to represent the entire state. The president was to represent the entire country.
The second compromise was related to the first: How to count the slaves. This was a very difficult problem: Slaves were not considered “people,” they were property. But in some states, the slave population was nearly equal to the non-slave population. Non-slaves wanted the slaves to count toward the state’s population (so the state would have more representation) but didn’t want them to be considered as equals. Ultimately, slaves were determined to be counted as 3/5 of a person.
One other seemingly small compromise also was adopted. Although the President was to be elected by all the people without regard to states, the small states were concerned that they would become irrelevant in presidential elections. Thus, the electoral college was invented. It was made up of “electors” from each state and the number of electors from each state was equal to the number of representatives in the House of Representatives plus the number of Senators (always two). Thus, small states had disproportionately more electors than large states because all states had two Senators.
With that, the Constitution was adopted. States with large populations had more Representatives in the House of Representatives and every state had an equal number of Senators.
However, nothing remains static. People moved west, changing state populations. America annexed vast amounts of land and the people who lived there. For example, California was admitted to the Union around 1850 with a population a little under 100,000. 100 years later, it was the second largest state by population.) After the Civil War, slaves were freed and made full citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments respectively, thus increasing the populations of the states that had slave populations.
Because every state has two Senators, no matter the size of the state’s population, the Senate is always controlled by a minority of the U.S. population. The 10 largest states (20 Senators) account for more than 55% of the United States population. To make the situation even fuzzier, about 40 states are controlled by either democrats or republicans. Their votes are solidly reliable for the respective parties, which means the electoral college decision is largely decided in approximately 10 states. In the 2016 and 2020 elections, those 10 states had a total population of about 28% of the United States population.
Moreover, in the 2020 presidential election, only about 70% of the eligible voters registered to vote and only 61% actually voted. That means about 31% of the eligible voters determined who would be president. In less heated elections (and in most non-presidential elections) only half the eligible voters in the United States actually cast votes. So, election winners are usually elected by about 25T of the population.
Maybe it’s time to really select our president without regard to state—by a direct vote of the sovereign people.
Author: James Nordin is an adjunct professor in the MPA program at Sonoma State University. He has taught at San Francisco State University, the University of San Francisco and Golden Gate University. He retired from the federal government after more than 33 years of service as a regional grants and financial manager and program supervisor for the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture. He has a passion for social equity and created and endowed ASPA’s annual Gloria Hobson Nordin Social Equity Award. He received his BA from Knox College, his MPA from Roosevelt University and his DPA from the University of Southern California. Nordin can be reached at [email protected].
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...
How Is That Noble Experiment with Popular Sovereignty Going?
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.
By James Nordin
February 21, 2021
The 2020 presidential election was more heated after the votes were counted than before voting began. The candidate with the most popular votes was also the candidate with the most electoral votes. The claims of voter fraud and stolen elections seemed interminable. Then came the attempted insurrection to overturn the vote. This followed the 2016 presidential election in which the loser of the popular vote legitimately won the electoral college vote.
How is that noble experiment with popular sovereignty going?
Let’s look for a moment at the Electoral College. Wyoming, with a population of about 579,000, has three electoral votes. California, with a population of more than 30 million, has 55 electoral votes. Doing the math, California has more than 50 times the population of Wyoming, but only about 18 times as many electoral votes. This skewing of electoral votes has led to at least four presidents losing the popular vote but winning the Electoral College vote. Two of these four occurrences have taken place in the last 20 years. In case of a tie in electoral votes, each state is allowed one vote (a total of 50 votes). Because the 25 smallest states account for less than 20 percent of the United States population, it is almost inevitable that the election will be decided by a minority of the population. The 10 most populous states account for 55% of the population but only 47.6% of the electoral votes. The 10 least populous states account for 3% of the population, but 6.3% of the electoral votes.
Why do we have such a system? It is generally conceded that the government established by the United States Constitution was different in at least three ways from governments existing at the time. First, the Constitution provided for a federal form of government in which a national government was responsible for subjects of a national and inter-state interest. Second, the national government was divided into three co-equal branches: legislative, executive and judicial—and these three co-equal branches would serve to separate power so no one branch could dominate.
The final difference is perhaps the most important and isn’t directly obvious when reading the Constitution. It is the noble experiment with the embodiment of the notion of popular sovereignty—the self-rule of the people. No longer did heredity or wealth determine who would rule. Nor would military might. The people were sovereign and ruled themselves. It would be the consent of the governed that allowed government to have legitimacy. The people, who were the rulers, would allow themselves to be governed by consenting to the acts of their elected representatives. There was no other government like this when it was created.
As a practical matter, determining who would be the elected representatives required some system of determining the “winners.” That system was majority rule. The framers of the Constitution realized they were proposing a potentially dangerous solution to what was, to them, the equally dangerous system of hereditary rule. If the majority was to rule, what was to prevent “mob rule?” How would the rights of the minority be protected? Their first response was the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. These rights were not exclusively the rights of the minority, but since they applied to all citizens, they had the effect of limiting how far the majority could go. The Federalist Papers are full of discussions about these dangers and how they could be mitigated.
In order to gain approval of this new Constitution, the framers had to obtain the support of the individual sovereign “states” (originally, the colonies). Here is where things get dicey. States like Virginia and Massachusetts were economically powerful and had large populations. States like Rhode Island and Delaware were much less powerful and had much smaller populations. And states like Georgia had very large populations, but a very large portion of that population were slaves. Less populated states were deservedly fearful that majority rule would leave them powerless and slave states, including Virginia, knew that if slaves were not somehow counted, their power would be diminished. Thus, began a series of compromises that continues to impact popular sovereignty even today.
The first compromise was in how the House of Representatives and the Senate was composed. The House would be the “people’s house;” the number of representatives was based on the population of the state with Representatives representing their “local” community. The Senate treated each state as an equal entity to all other states with each having two Senators who were to represent the entire state. The president was to represent the entire country.
The second compromise was related to the first: How to count the slaves. This was a very difficult problem: Slaves were not considered “people,” they were property. But in some states, the slave population was nearly equal to the non-slave population. Non-slaves wanted the slaves to count toward the state’s population (so the state would have more representation) but didn’t want them to be considered as equals. Ultimately, slaves were determined to be counted as 3/5 of a person.
One other seemingly small compromise also was adopted. Although the President was to be elected by all the people without regard to states, the small states were concerned that they would become irrelevant in presidential elections. Thus, the electoral college was invented. It was made up of “electors” from each state and the number of electors from each state was equal to the number of representatives in the House of Representatives plus the number of Senators (always two). Thus, small states had disproportionately more electors than large states because all states had two Senators.
With that, the Constitution was adopted. States with large populations had more Representatives in the House of Representatives and every state had an equal number of Senators.
However, nothing remains static. People moved west, changing state populations. America annexed vast amounts of land and the people who lived there. For example, California was admitted to the Union around 1850 with a population a little under 100,000. 100 years later, it was the second largest state by population.) After the Civil War, slaves were freed and made full citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments respectively, thus increasing the populations of the states that had slave populations.
Because every state has two Senators, no matter the size of the state’s population, the Senate is always controlled by a minority of the U.S. population. The 10 largest states (20 Senators) account for more than 55% of the United States population. To make the situation even fuzzier, about 40 states are controlled by either democrats or republicans. Their votes are solidly reliable for the respective parties, which means the electoral college decision is largely decided in approximately 10 states. In the 2016 and 2020 elections, those 10 states had a total population of about 28% of the United States population.
Moreover, in the 2020 presidential election, only about 70% of the eligible voters registered to vote and only 61% actually voted. That means about 31% of the eligible voters determined who would be president. In less heated elections (and in most non-presidential elections) only half the eligible voters in the United States actually cast votes. So, election winners are usually elected by about 25T of the population.
Maybe it’s time to really select our president without regard to state—by a direct vote of the sovereign people.
Author: James Nordin is an adjunct professor in the MPA program at Sonoma State University. He has taught at San Francisco State University, the University of San Francisco and Golden Gate University. He retired from the federal government after more than 33 years of service as a regional grants and financial manager and program supervisor for the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture. He has a passion for social equity and created and endowed ASPA’s annual Gloria Hobson Nordin Social Equity Award. He received his BA from Knox College, his MPA from Roosevelt University and his DPA from the University of Southern California. Nordin can be reached at [email protected].
Follow Us!