The other evening, while awaiting my table in a local restaurant, I overheard a Republican and Democrat agreeing with one another about the elimination of the Electoral College.  It's one area where many Liberals and some uninformed Republicans can reach common ground — a public swimming pool, if you will, where diverse political philosophies can frolic ephemerally together in peace and harmony.

Conservatives should not fall for this diversion, and instead stay focused on their forty—year—old march to victory. In recent years, it has become fashionable to talk about the abolition of this venerable body so, lets all take a walk on the other side of the argument.

One could argue convincingly that the College's raison d'être has not been adequately covered in positive terms in recent years.  Congress has seen over 700 proposals to change our electoral system, a fact which should worry many who support the status quo.  It is a call to arms for all who believe in the genius of our Founding Fathers and the wonderful Constitution they bequeathed us.

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 proposed the indirect election of the president (Article II, Section I of the Constitution ) through a 'College of Electors' after carefully considering all of the alternatives:

    Congress would choose the president.  This idea was rejected as having too much potential for dishonesty; divisiveness and interference from foreign powers also seemed likely.

     State legislatures would select the president.  This concept was eliminated by the 'Committee of Eleven' at the Constitutional Convention as it, too, invited corruption.  It was conceivable in their minds that a president might be indebted to a certain few states, thereby weakening the entire federation.

     The president should be elected by a direct popular vote.  This plan
was discarded to negate the election of 'favorite sons' and more importantly, to prevent the most populated states from always electing the president, without any regard to the will of the smaller states.

France, as it so often does, shows us exactly what not to do when it comes to politics, government and common sense.  The United States and its Founding Fathers were shown what is possible when unbridled democracy develops into a lynch—mob mentality, à la the French Revolution (1789—1799) . Within a short period of time that experiment spiraled downward and gave the French people Robespierre's reign of terror and ultimately, Napoleon (1799).  With this sterling failure of unrestrained democracy to help guide them, and the problems of Jefferson's election in 1800 in mind, Congress and the state legislatures quickly (189 days) ratified Amendment XII of the Constitution.  This greatly improved the original constitutional design in Article II, Section I.

The wisdom of the Electoral College  sets us apart from any other country on Earth.  And that's exactly what its detractors say: 'No other government has this election system.'  In other words, let us be more like Europe!  Right!  We too could have had fifty—seven governments since WW II, just like Italy.  Forget stability; let's have democracy, governments decreed by the popular vote, or chaotic coalitions of Communists, Socialists and the Green Party like France, Finland and Russia.  

Why liberal elitists continually use Europe as an example for the United States to emulate is questionable.  After all, didn't most of our forefathers leave that worn—out land for something better?  And didn't we pass them all by in the space of two hundred years?  It should begin to dawn on all people of intellectual honesty, that perhaps, just perhaps, our political system as initially laid out by our Founding Fathers was a stroke of brilliance and produced the best electoral process the world has seen to date.  It has been said that the 'elector' method of choosing a president was the part of the Constitution that most pleased its originators.

The Twelfth Amendment, in the minds of many at the time, would prevent the chaos of a mob—rule popular vote, the elimination of a monarchic style of rule — from which many of them had just fled, and lastly, it would thwart Congress from choosing our president.  They somehow knew these three alternatives were not what a new nation such as ours needed to fulfill a great providence.

They formed a government and then gave us a chance to protect ourselves from it — the second amendment.  Many of the same people who want to abolish our right to keep and bear arms are the very same people who want to change our electoral system.  One need only look to the recent events in Colorado to see precisely who these malcontents are.

Amendment 36 qualified for Colorado's November 2 ballot largely due to the efforts of Democrat activists and the League of Women Voters, who wanted to rescind the state's current winner—take—all (nine votes) electoral process to a proportionate distribution based on the candidate's share of the popular vote.  Initial enthusiasm for Amendment 36 was soon inadvertently dampened by one of the liberal's very own — Senator Kerry.

Polls, taken shortly before the election had shown the Senator pulling even with President Bush.  With the notion that Kerry could actually win Colorado, and with it all nine electoral votes — avarice — that sibling of the Seven—Deadly—Sins Family, suddenly appeared as a surprise guest in the minds of the Democrat hopeful.  'Why share, when we can have it all,' they surely said to themselves.  Greed soon supplanted aspiration, however, George W. won the state — 52.6% to Kerry's 46%  — and fortunately, Amendment 36 went down to defeat.

As it was originally laid out in 1787, the 'electoral' vote concept made no allowances for, and did not envision political parties or national campaigns.  The mere fact that it works in today's election process is a testament to the genius of its originators.  Is it possible that its sophisticated design is too hard for contemporary people to grasp and even remotely understand?  And if so, what does this say about the intellectual capacity of modern man?

As usual, 'liberalism generates the exact opposite of its stated intent ' and if this obtuse and dangerous element had their way and abolished the Electoral College an 'electoral degeneration' would soon become prevalent.  This prediction is based on Liberalism's track record — welfare, appeasement, secularism, busing, affirmative action, 'It Takes a Village' mentality and so many other proven failures.  Even today, they continue to gravitate toward unproductive and ineffectual beliefs such as Socialism and Solipsism.

Hamilton and Madison both believed democracies were not stable, as did many other political luminaries of that generation.  It had been proven to them that democracy eventually plummeted into tyranny and that was not an acceptable outcome to any of the Founders.  One only need look at the existing conditions in Russia to comprehend what happens with a direct popular vote process.  To the Framers, a representative republic, with an indirect presidential election process, was the answer they had been searching for.

The unique philosophy of the Constitution of the United States, as initially set forth by its creators, allowed America to become, in a short period of time, an exceptional oasis of opportunity — a place where people can act out their dreams and make them reality.  Amendment XII helped to provide a stable environment whereby people are left free to pursue their dreams without the hindrance of some despot, dictator or tyrant.  The wisdom of the Electoral College has survived for over two hundred years and will continue to do so — if contemporary man can learn to acquiesce, stand down and let intellectual brilliance continue unabated.