There is an old saying, generally attributed to Benjamin Franklin, to the effect of "democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
The point is that our founders were well aware of two major threats to our freedom, coming from what appear to be diametrically opposed sides of the political spectrum: authoritarianism, represented by the British Empire, and pure and unconstrained democracy, or "the tyranny of the majority."
To avoid this, our founders built many checks and balances into the Constitution, ensuring that the states, not just a simple majority of the vote of the total population, would have a role in our political deliberations.
One example is the bicameral legislature of the U.S. Congress, with a House of Representatives based on population and a Senate with two and only two Senators from each state. This ensures that even the smaller or less-populous states - such as the "flyover states" of the Midwest and West - don't lose their voices to the more heavily-populated states of the east and west coasts. We don't have a democracy, but a constitutional, representative Republic.
Another example is an institution that comes under predictable attack every four years or so, and especially during close elections: the Electoral College.
Constitutional scholar Tara Ross points out that the Electoral College system is a unique blend of democracy and federalism, constructed as a two-phase election. In the first, each state, plus D.C., holds a democratic election to determine which electors will represent that state. In the second, federalist phase, we have an election among the states to determine who will become president.
There are many advantages to this. Obtaining a meaningful majority in the Electoral College (rather than just squeaking by with 270 or 271 votes) requires national coalition-building. This system means that even the aforementioned flyover states can have a role in selecting the president. And because many states, each with distinct wants, needs, priorities and agendas, are involved, it is harder to influence the election by nefarious means. It is not as simple as gaining 51 percent of the popular vote.
Because the Electoral College is written into the Constitution, changing or abolishing it would take a constitutional amendment. But now, there is a movement afoot to simply bypass the Constitution with the "National Popular Vote compact." This potentially dangerous and legally suspect compact would require each state to dedicate all of its electors to the winner of the popular vote. It would go into effect as soon as enough states had signed it to ensure the legal minimum of 270 electoral votes needed to elect a president.
Maryland, believe it or not, became the first state to endorse this contract when an NPV bill was signed by Gov. Martin O'Malley all the way back in 2007.
Do we really want to go down this road? To do an end-run around the Constitution and make it easier to elect a president with a bare majority of the popular vote?
Do we really want to put the decision of who will lead us eternally into the hands of coastal elites in New York, New England and California? Yes, the law is already on the books in Maryland. But a law that is passed can be repealed. And we can certainly advise our friends and relations in other states not to go down this path.
Let me conclude, where I began, with Benjamin Franklin.
As he left Independence Hall in Philadelphia on the last day of deliberations at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, he was asked, "Well, Doctor, what have we got? A Republic or a Monarchy?" To which he replied, presciently, "A Republic, ma'am - if you can keep it!"
Let's hope we can.
