|
||||||
|
Hitler was elected. Within a few short years he had dismantled every vestige of public control of government and established the most notorious totalitarian regime in memory. As this is being written, Vladimir Putin, recently elected as president of Russia after the collapse of communism is in the process of dismantling Russia’s democratic institutions and who can doubt that, before long a new totalitarian regime will emerge I hope that a similar conquest of democracy could not occur in modern America. Nor is my hope a pipe dream. My hope is based on the system our forefathers established that pits interest against interest, avarice against avarice, and the greed for power against the greed for power If the president of the United States were to “postpone” elections as Hitler did, the Congress of the United States would go ballistic. Hopefully, because we are a people in love with self rule, the public would not sit idly by as did the Germans and Russians and allow a frontal assault to our republican institutions. But if we look a little deeper we will discover the institutional structure that puts a backbone into the American opposition and the structural mechanisms that allow that opposition to be truly effective The reason for an animated opposition is the fact that each elected official in our government has a different constituency than all the rest. Consider this. Each member of the house of representatives has a different constituency from all others. Since his chances for reelection do not depend on the popularity of positions not affecting the well being of his constituency he is likely to provide a healthy opposition to projects destructive to the common good and ongoing political health of the nation that he might be tempted to favor if it directly benefitted his constituency. More importantly, he is likely to fight hard to prevent dilution of the political influence of his constituency. Hence, the bitter wrangling we see over redistricting each ten years Likewise each U.S. Senator has a different constituency from all the others. (Even senators from the same state have different constituencies because while elected by the entire electorate of the state, their 6 year terms are staggered thus creating a different although somewhat similar constituency) A senator from Nevada is not likely to care what the voters in Massachusetts think of the policies he pushes. He too would not condone any attempt to lessen his voice or the influence of his constituency. In similar fashion, each member of the House of representatives represents a unique constituency which greatly influences his votes in a fashion differently from all his colleagues Finally the president. His constituency is the nation at large. But wisely not simply a majority of the mob. This is where the electoral college comes in. Much maligned in recent years by ignorant pundits, the electoral college is neither an anachronism, nor a detriment to democracy If the president could be elected simply by the popular vote a candidate could focus all his attention on the large population centers and the issues important to them and completely ignore less populated regions and states. But given the electoral college system, the one who would be president must carry a significant number of the high population states who hold the lion’s share of electors, but he also needs those few votes that come from a Wyoming or Hawaii. This need for electoral vote and not just popular vote forces the president, whom the founders recognized as the one most likely to amass power to himself, to the middle of the road, to moderation in position and conduct so as not to offend even that electorate whose few electors he may need for election Because each elected official represents a different constituency, each has a moderating influence on all the others, pushing government to the middle of the road and making it less able to infringe on the rights of citizens. Each representative also has incentive to vigorously protect the influence of his constituency thus preventing one person or a small group from amassing power The structural mechanisms that give teeth to that animated opposition is what we refer to as the checks and balances and separation of powers. While checks and balances built into the constitution provide the mechanism for effective opposition, it is the varied constituencies that breath life and vigor into that opposition. More on checks and balances later. |
||||||