— by Odysseus
Regardless of who won the presidential election of November 2012, the voting system in the United States ensured that it will not have been the product of “one person, one vote”. The Electoral College and the apportionment of seats in the United States House of Representatives is a broken system.
There has been a fair amount of controversy and hand-wringing over requiring proof of identity at the polling place. One side demands that, in order to reduce voter fraud, such as from multiple voting, illegal proxy voting, identity theft, voting by the disqualified, and multiple jurisdiction voting, proof of identity must be shown at the polling place. Proof of identity must be shown in every other part of our lives, from credit card use to boarding a plane to buying a beer. The other side claims that asking for proof of identity may dissuade or deter voters, presumably its voters who never use checks, banks, never have jobs, or disproportionately have outstanding arrest warrants.
Regardless of one’s position on providing proof of identity for voting, both sides ignore the absolutely provable fault in our current electoral process that amounts to massive voter fraud in every election. This fault is well known, well understood, and, apparently, tacitly sanctioned by both parties. The way we do reapportionment is criminal. Again, regardless of how one feels about the political redistricting that occurs through the Census and the “fairness” of the districts that are politically created, again, that is a bitterly fought and much discussed subject. However, that is not what we are addressing here. The flaw we examine here is embedded in the actual structure of the system.
In presidential election years, the number of electoral votes each state gets in the Electoral College is based on its number of seats in the United States House of Representatives plus the two seats it gets in the United States Senate. That number of seats is determined by the population of those states, as calculated every ten years in the national Census. In this way, states that have lost population lose delegates both in the United States House of Representatives and in the Electoral College. States that have gained in population, gain seats and, thereby, gain in proportional representation in the Electoral College.
Attempts to violate the United States Constitution’s requirement of a Census by employing “statistical analysis” rather than actual counting have been thoroughly fought over and largely defeated. This is fortunate because the mathematical end run around the Constitution would have doomed the Republic through “lies, damn lies, and statistics. Nonetheless, there remains a problem that creates a fatal flaw in the system.
Census numbers count all persons present in a district regardless of their legal status in the country. This is not intended as an anti-immigrant screed as this author has a strong belief in the traditional “melting-pot” model of American immigration, has frequently dissented from the recent diatribes against “illegals”, and has opted for a less enforcement-centric manner to deal with the issue. However, the issue of citizenship on the Census makes an irrefutable negative impact on the electoral process. The best way to illustrate this is through exaggeration and then extrapolation.
The state of California has 55 electoral votes in the presidential race. This represents its 53 seats in the House of Representatives and its two Senators. This number is determined based upon the most recent 2010 Census of California’s population. However, the Census carefully avoids counting only citizens, but, rather, counts any persons present in the district at the time of the counting. So, California’s Electoral College number is based, in part, not only upon the citizens in California, but upon all persons of any citizenship. If virtually every American citizen in California left the state and moved to other states and only 10 US citizens remained, then only 10 people in California could legally vote. However, if the state were filled with immigrants (both legal and illegal) to the point that the population count in the Census remained at its present figure, then California would retain 55 electoral votes and its present number of seats in the House of Representatives. So, the votes of those 10 legal citizens would have more sway in national elections than everyone in the state of Texas combined.
Our very system of representation is, at this time, broken by how our Census is conducted, and the apportionment based upon that method. Depending upon the number of their immigrant neighbors, both legal and illegal, some citizens’ votes count more than other citizens. The question is, are some political parties intentionally taking advantage of this structural defect in our system?
