Securing Democracy: Why We Have An Electoral College [Hardcover]

Gary L. Gregg (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: January 28, 2008

The messy presidential election of 2000 was not yet over before a number of intellectuals, politicians, and journalists were calling, once again, for the abolition of the Electoral College. The institution was, they claimed, an anachronism, an archaic remnant from a less enlightened time before we all believed in the tenets of direct democracy. But is the Electoral College really a useless and outmoded institution? The distinguished contributors to this instructive volume--including Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Michael Barone, and Walter Berns--show why it would be folly to abolish the Electoral College by explaining not only its historical and cultural significance, but also its contemporary role in instilling a measure of stability and sanity to our electoral and party systems. With an appendix that includes seminal historical material related to the establishment and defense of the Electoral College, this is the definitive volume for all those interested in the logic--and continuing importance--of this unique American political institution.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

These essays in defense of the Electoral College, edited by Gregg (The Presidential Republic), a professor of leadership at the University of Louisville, echo the conservative ethos: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Admittedly, the college is a peculiar constitutional institution; each state is given a number of "electors" who in turn vote in each state for the president, in most cases on a winner-take-all basis. So candidates actually must win states, and can as with Gore win the popular vote and lose the presidency. Peculiar indeed, but the scholars assembled here among them Walter Berns, Andrew E. Busch and Daniel Patrick Moynihan argue that the Electoral College has "done much good and very little ill in American history." The college makes of the states more than just administrative units, giving them a voice in national affairs. Bush the younger won, after all, by only one electoral vote, so each electoral vote counts and candidates must pay attention to the diverse regions of the country. Minorities are empowered as they tend to be concentrated and their influence is most felt in state voting. Parties must moderate their stances to appeal to voters across a diverse continental nation, and the winner-take-all system helps reinforce a stable two-party system. Unfortunately, the wisdom here is sullied by too much sectarian silliness. Those on a certain side of the abortion debate, for instance, are labeled "advocates of infanticide," and those questioning the Electoral College are "discontented demagogues" or "shameless demagogues." But a system in which voter turnout in presidential elections averages 50% might legitimately raise some questions, and the authors here would do well to temper their tone lest they be seen as more concerned with defending Bush's election than with the fate of the republic.

Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal

Gregg (Univ. of Louisville; The Presidential Republic) here assembles seven essays by political scholars expressing support for the Electoral College. The essays argue that the current structure of the Electoral College maintains our two-party system, keeps our federal and constitutional procedures intact, and has only failed to produce electoral mandates in four elections since 1804. Essays by Gregg and Andrew Bush (Univ. of Denver) provide a good summary of the origin of the Electoral College and then detail changes made to the procedure by the 12th Amendment and by federal statutes. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's essay offers insight into an earlier attempt to change the voting system in 1979. Contributors Paul A. Rahe (Univ. of Tulsa) and Michael M. Uhlmann (Claremont McKenna Coll.) resort to invective rather than informative language against those wanting to amend or eliminate the Electoral College. Public and academic libraries purchasing this book should also purchase Lawrence D. Longley's The Electoral College Primer (LJ 10/15/96) for a more thorough examination of the Electoral College. Joyce M. Cox, Nevada State Lib. & Archives, Carson City, NV
Copyright 2001 Reed Business Information, Inc.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 200 pages
• Publisher: Intercollegiate Studies Institute; 1 edition (January 28, 2008)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 188292665X
• ISBN-13: 978-1882926657
• Product Dimensions: 11.7 x 5.3 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 15.5 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #354,030 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Gary L. Gregg II, Ph.D. holds the Mitch McConnell Chair in Leadership at the University of Louisville where he is also director of the McConnell Center. He recently completed a $3.6 million archive and civic education gallery project on the University's Belknap campus.

Gregg did his undergraduate work at Davis & Elkins College and did graduate work at the University of Notre Dame and Miami University (Ohio). Along with working in the academy, he was also National Director of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute from 1997-1999. He has served on numerous editorial and advisory boards including The Philadelphia Society, The Bookman, and Air University.

Though he is the author or editor of a half a dozen books on history and politics, the stories related to his novel _The Sporran_ are really where his heart is these days.

Gary Gregg was born in southwestern, Pennsylvania where he grew up in the Borough of Longbranch. He lives in LaGrange, Kentucky with his wife, four children, and a golden retriever named Meg.

Gregg's websites:

www.mcconnellcenter.org

www.thesporran.com

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

17 of 18 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Perhaps it could be better titled 'Securing the Republic', April 25, 2003

By 

R. Setliff - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Securing Democracy: Why We Have An Electoral College (Hardcover)

~Securing Democracy: Why We Have an Electoral College~ is a brilliant anthology of essays, which defend the Electoral College. Contrary to popular belief, America was never founded as a "democracy," but rather as a constitutional federal republic with limits set not only on the powers of government but on that of majority rule. The founders sought to check the excesses of democracy, and the 'one-man, one-vote' ethos is not even remotely accurate in describing the nature of our representative republic. Elections within the federal system are in fact state elections as it was the states that ratified the Constitution. It is the states that ultimately decide on whether the Constitution may be amended. The founders designed the federal system with a great deal of ingenuity and profoundly realistic understanding of human nature. The Electoral College is designed to check the excesses of democracy and is one of the cornerstones of the federal system, which keeps the republic from succombing to majoritarian tyranny. In a republic, the rule of law reigns supreme, not the tumultous and turbulent changing passions of the people. Contributors include a wide cast of characters from across the political spectrum. Senator Mitch McConnell whom I had the honor of campaigning for in Kentucky writes a brilliant introduction to this book. Even Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan offers an astute essay on the Electoral College and shows how it so remarkably captures Calhoun's principle of concurrent majorities. Gary Gregg offers an informative essay on the origins and meaning of this remarkable republican institution. The Electoral College may be dismissed as an anachronistic institution of the horse-and-buggy era, but when properly understood, it testifies to the genius of the founders and the federal system they left us. As Ben Franklin declared, we have a republic if we can keep it.

15 of 17 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Won't fit on the back of a Volvo, January 17, 2002

By 

Andrew S. Rogers (Stamford, Connecticut) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Securing Democracy: Why We Have An Electoral College (Hardcover)

As editor Gary L. Gregg notes in his preface, opponents of the Electoral College can employ simple slogans -- like 'Majority Rule!' or 'Democracy!' -- to advance their arguments. Proponents of the College, however, find their arguments 'won't fit on the back of a Volvo' (as the noted thinker Linus Van Pelt said, 'There's a difference between a philosophy and a bumper sticker.'). They need books like ... well, like this one. People who support the idea of the Electoral College, or who are inclined at least to give the Founders the benefit of the doubt, will find reinforcement and useful ideas to advance their arguments. Opponents probably won't be convinced.

Part of the problem is that to grasp why we have an Electoral College requires some familiarity with America's founding, the nature and purpose of the Union, the meaning of federalism, the role of the States (are they the creatures of the central government, or vice versa, or what?), and ... heresy of heresies ... the dangers of 'democracy,' which the Founders more or less equated with mob rule. In short, some effort and discipline and time have to be put into the question, plus what Daniel Patrick Moynihan refers to as 'solemn, prolonged, and prayerful consideration' (p. 88). It's so much easier just to watch Dan Rather and get good and worked up about 'the stolen presidency.'

As with any collection of essays, this book doesn't carry a logical strain of argumentation through from page to page. The contributors approach the question of the Electoral College from various perspectives, and inevitably there is some rehashing of history and theory, and a few divergences of opinion. The overall effect, however, is positive.

The other characteristic in a collection of essays is that some contributions are better than others. That's certainly true in this case. However, I disagree with the institutional reviews of this book that suggest the 'invective' employed by some of the contributors damages their arguments irreparably. People who throw around loaded words like 'theft' and 'coup' have to expect strong language from the other side too.

In all, Gary Gregg's book goes a long way toward confirming Sen. Moynihan's belief (in the same paragraph I quoted above) that abolishing the Electoral College would be 'the most radical transformation in our political system that has ever been considered.' It's just a shame that so few Americans will expend the effort to figure that out.