Wednesday, November 16, 2016



LET ME ANSWER (again) a question that some have asked me regarding the Electoral College.

The Electoral College was created out of the philosophy studied by the Founding Fathers and their strong belief in the Natural Law.

The Natural Law is the law of morality and ethics. Its most fundamental expression of principle is that "All men ought to act according to their true conscience." This is the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas in his work, Summa Theologica and earlier expressed by Plato in his works on "Metaphysics." The term Meta means "beyond." The term Physics means "the physical world."

Metaphysics is the study beyond the physical world that we live in.

The Founding Fathers believed that an essential function of a democracy is to express the will of an "informed" majority in the interest of the Public Good.

The Founding Fathers foresaw that their might arise a situation where the will of the majority contravenes the public good or may be an expression of an act against Ethics.

An example might be where the majority (plurality) of voters have voted to abolish their democracy and vote in a tyrannical government.

To address that potential dysfunction of a democracy, the Founding Fathers created an Electoral College that casts the votes to elect the President and Vice President.

Members of the Electoral College are equal in number to each state's members of the House of Representatives and their two Senators.

It is tradition for them to cast their votes for the winner of the plurality of votes in their states.

HOWEVER, as instilled by the Founding Fathers, these members of the Electoral College are NOT mandated to cast their votes for the majority winner of their state.  Some states have enacted party rules or state statutes which attempt to mandate loyal voting or disqualify disloyal voting.  These statutes or rules are of no consequence when contemplating the historical backdrop to the formation of the Electoral College and their ethical duty to act according to true conscience. 

The members of the Electoral College are dictated by their conscience to cast their votes on behalf of their state's constituency.

IF A MEMBER of the Electoral College's true conscience does not allow them to cast their vote for the majority winner of their state, then they OUGHT to act only according to their true conscience and cast their vote accordingly.

THEREFORE, a member of the Electoral College is NOT obligated to cast their votes, except according to their true conscience.

Theoretically, the members of the Electoral College may cast their votes for Hillary Clinton or even for a third party candidate, without regard to the majority vote winner in their state.

Whether these electoral college members will cast their votes for a candidate other than their state's winning candidate is extremely unlikely. The members will vote for their state's winner, unless a catastrophic event occurs which allows them to be guided by their conscience when casting their votes.

There is no chance of the electoral college viewing the election of Donald Trump as a conscience shaking event. There is no chance that Hillary Clinton will be given the electoral votes from the states where she lost the plurality of the votes.

The Natural Law, which supercedes any conventional laws made by man, does not apply to or favor Hillary Clinton when the Electoral College casts their votes.
UPDATED: See comment below in answer to point raised on Trump's "fitness to serve."

*** [ An unfit person, is only one potential event, which can lead the EC to elect a candidate, other than the plurality winner of their state.

As I explained above, the EC is based on Natural Law principles studied by Thomas Jefferson and others. (Because we were only permitted to study primary sources, I was required to read the same original, rare text book on Natural and Politic Law, by J.J. Burlamaqui, that Jefferson studied from, in addition to studying the Letters of Thomas Jefferson.)

Any time a member of EC votes, they are duty-bound to vote their true conscience. The reality is that the EC will cast their votes for the plurality winner of their state. There is nothing in this past election that would change the minds of enough EC college members to vote otherwise. ...

BUT, a person  raised a valid point.
The  issue of whether Trump is the type of candidate that should not receive the EC vote, is problematic.

In Ethics, Trump could be deemed to be unfit to serve as president. The statement of Pope Francis that Trump "lacks the moral qualifications to lead a country," raises an ethical dilemma for the EC. Although Ethics does not arise from religious principles, the Pope clearly is an authority on ethics and morality.

In Ethics, the Pope's assessment of Trump is conclusive in recognizing that ethics dictates that  in order to act morally, "one ought not to vote for Trump." This moral dictate applies to the members of the electoral college.

Therefore, it is correct, that in Ethics, members of the EC "ought" not to vote for Trump, in order to act morally.]
Note: For further study, SEE: Fagothy, Austin. "Right & Reason."
Austin Fagothy was a modern day, world-renowned philosopher who taught at the University of Santa Clara. Prof. Fagothy's text is highly recommended. It is a concise statement of argument of the pros and cons on major ethical issues, written with incomparable clarity

No comments:

Post a Comment