4A — Monday, March 9, 2020
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Use to get
all your bagel needs delivered!
Can’t get out of the house?
Craving the best bagels in town?
Barry Bagels
2515 Jackson Ave, Ann Arbor, MI 48103
www.barrybagels.com
734.662.2435
Hours
Monday-Friday: 7am-7pm
Saturday: 7am-5pm
Sunday: 7am-3pm
I
n the four years since the
2016 election, calls for the
dissolution of the Electoral
College have become widespread,
and ahead of the 2020 election,
the calls seem even louder.
However, the Electoral College
should remain, both to protect the
minority political opinions against
a tyranny of the majority and to
preserve our union. The founders
understood
with
unparalleled
clarity
the
importance
of
structural parallelism, and they
wrote beautifully in defense of the
Electoral College and its benefits
in “The Federalist Papers.” Calling
to dismantle the Electoral College
in the name of “one person, one
vote” is, by logical extension,
calling also for the dismantling of
our federal republic.
The
Federalist
Papers
are
perhaps the greatest political
commentary
published
in
American
history.
They’re
a
collection of 85 essays written
in 1788 by Alexander Hamilton,
James Madison and John Jay –
under the pseudonym Publius –
to persuade the American people
to ratify the Constitution. Three
specific essays illuminate the
benefits checks and balances offer,
the virtues a federalist system
protects and how the Electoral
College functions: No. 10, No. 51
and No. 68, respectively.
Before addressing the issue
of dismantling the Electoral
College,
it’s
imperative
to
understand
its
fundamental
structure and operation. First,
in every state, each party on the
ballot chooses people to serve
collectively as a slate of electors,
all pledged to vote for a particular
candidate. Critically, the number
of electors per state is identical
to the number of United States
representatives
and
senators
from that state. In November,
when voters at the polls indicate
their choice for the general
election, the vote doesn’t go to
the candidate directly, but rather
to the slate of electors previously
chosen by the candidate’s party.
In
December,
the
electors
belonging to whichever party
wins the state’s popular vote cast
their votes for president and vice
president.
As seen in 2016 – as well as
2000, 1888, and 1876 – it is possible
for a candidate to win a solid
majority of electoral votes and yet
lose the popular vote nationwide.
Since 1824, most states adopted
a
“winner-take-all”
electoral
vote system, with only Maine
and Nebraska maintaining a
proportional delegation today.
Critics argue that this system, by
which the people indirectly elect
the president and vice president,
doesn’t honor the democratic
notion of “one person, one vote,”
and places more weight on votes
in smaller states. This argument
is
easily
understandable
yet
fatefully ill-conceived.
Madison wrote famously in
Federalist No. 10 about the role
of “factions” in a federal republic:
“The influence of factious leaders
may kindle a flame within
their particular States, but will
be unable to spread a general
conflagration through the other
States.” Here, Madison defends
the
Constitution’s
federalist
system for its resistance to the
rise of powerful factions. It is
important to clarify the meaning
of “faction,” and Madison does
so, writing that “by a faction, I
understand a number of citizens,
whether amounting to a majority
or a minority of the whole, who
are united and actuated by some
common impulse of passion, or of
interest.” The Electoral College
affords
the
same
protection
against
a
powerful
faction,
that is likely geographically or
socioeconomically concentrated,
by leveraging federalist principles
identical to those so clearly
outlined in the Constitution.
A large faction that gains over
90 percent popularity in the
nine
most
populous
states
would capture a majority of the
American population. In a direct
democracy,
such
a
situation
would transform the U.S. and
endanger minority liberties at the
whim of the majority.
However, the protection of
the Electoral College extends
further. It is easy to imagine
a
benevolent
faction
that
constitutes a minority – groups
united by occupation, ethnicity,
religion, etc. In such an instance,
federalism, and by extension the
Electoral College, preserves their
liberty. For example, consider
Utah, where the majority of
residents are Mormon. Within
Utah, the popular vote is used
in state elections, which means
that state officials and legislation
likely reflect the values of the
voters, and each state’s individual
rights allow for laws to reflect
those values. For nominating
the president and vice president
in
federal
elections,
Utah
contributes six electoral votes.
If the popular vote were used
nationwide in nominating the
president, who then influences
legislation applied to every state,
it’s understandable how minority
groups could easily be stifled.
Next comes the troubling
phrase “one person, one vote.”
Nowhere in the Constitution
does this notion appear regarding
national voting. The United States
is not a direct democracy. It never
has been. We live in a federal
republic, a Union of States. As
such, federal representation is
determined on a state level – think
of Congress. A state’s Electoral
College
representation
is
identical to its total Congressional
representation. Objecting to the
Electoral College on the grounds
it violates this notion logically
entails
an
objection
to
the
structure of Congress. The same
degree of “inequality” in vote-
weight found in the Electoral
College exists in Congressional
representation.
Further,
the
only difference between state
representation in the House and
in the Electoral College is the
addition of two votes to account
for Senate seats and winner-take-
all systems. Thus, taking aim
at the Electoral College for its
“unfairness” is only truly taking
issue with Senate representation.
As adamant as people may be to
dissolve the Electoral College,
the argument doesn’t incorporate
due diligence and proponents
have seemingly looked no further
than
the
immediate
desired
effects. I certainly don’t hear
these critics calling for the end of
our bicameral legislature.
Federalism is at the core of
the U.S. and is the foundation
upon which Abraham Lincoln’s
noble aspirations to “form a
more perfect Union” reside.
States existed long before their
union under the Constitution
in 1789, and before even the
Declaration of Independence.
We embraced federalism to
become this union of states and
wrote it so in the Constitution.
The Electoral College, then,
is not an arcane, needlessly
controversial
institution;
rather, it is federalism applied
once
more.
To
dissolve
the
Electoral
College
is
to
invalidate
the
goals
of
federalism and such an act
might have great repercussions,
capable of dramatically altering
our governmental landscape
into something objectively less
desirable. The Electoral College
serves as an equalizer in the
voting process like the Senate
is to the legislature, protecting
the populace from a tyranny of
the majority, or a president’s
desires run rampant.
The
founders
understood
human nature and the nature
of government with startling
acuity. The Federalist Papers are
an expression of that knowledge
and a defense of the Constitution.
The Electoral College is one of
many inheritors of their genius,
but it embodies all that the
founders fought to preserve. Its
dissolution would be a tragedy.
A case for the electoral college
DAVID LISBONNE | COLUMN
David Lisbonne can be reached at
lisbonne@umich.edu.
W
hen
classes
ended
Friday, University of
Michigan
students
hopped in cars and caught planes to
their Spring Break destinations. Our
travels guzzled jet fuel and gasoline,
which feels somewhat contrary
to the environmentally mindful
views of the majority of the student
body. Many of us feel that climate
change and carbon emissions are
the greatest threat of our time and
necessitate immediate major action,
but if you think your choice to emit
carbon while traveling makes you
hypocritical, it’s actually these
feelings of guilt that are letting the
big oil and gas industry win.
Big corporations that are massive
emitters of carbon want you to
believe that climate change is the
fault of the individual. If it is the
general public’s fault for over-
consuming and only a change in our
behaviors can save the world, then
we reduce the responsibility big
corporations must take. The truth is
that 100 companies are responsible
for over 70 percent of global human-
caused emissions since 1988. These
companies have made huge profits
while destroying our planet yet
would love for you to believe it’s your
personal actions that are causing
the climate crisis. BP even released
its own Carbon Footprint calculator,
helping further the belief that it is
our personal actions that will be the
way to cutting carbon emissions.
Transportation is the main
source of carbon emissions for
Americans. Carpooling and biking
are great ways to reduce your
carbon footprint, but the minute
you step on a plane, your footprint
skyrockets. A roundtrip flight from
New York to San Francisco warms
the planet with about two or three
tons of carbon per person. The
average American causes about
19 tons of carbon emissions a year,
meaning about 13 percent of a year’s
worth of carbon would be emitted
in just one trip. That is a hard pill to
swallow if you’re flying somewhere
far for a quick spring break.
Is the expansion of travel
to
blame
for
our
carbon
overuse?
Many
tourist
sites
are overpopulated. People are
traveling more and further than
they ever have. The relationship
and experience we have with
tourism is so far away from that of
our parents’ generation and even
further from our grandparents’.
Though
the
degradation
of
landmarks and our experience of
them from overcrowding is tragic,
this is an issue of poor government
and
institutional
management,
not one that is solely the fault of
travelers.
Travel expands our worldviews.
The exchange of knowledge and
the experiences gained through
travel have an unquantifiable
benefit not only to society, but to
individuals. Far-reaching travel
is still financially inaccessible to
the vast majority of people in the
world, but it is also more accessible
to the general public than ever
before, making it more than for
solely the wealthy elite. To shame
people for travel now is similar to
shaming developing countries for
becoming more industrial. Just as
the United States had its industrial
revolution before carbon-limiting
agreements came to be, the über-
elite and wealthy had their time
to travel widely before the middle
class got their chance.
That
being
said,
excessive
travel should be limited as much
as possible and especially travel
done in private aircrafts. There is
no reason for a luxury that does so
much harm, and it is irresponsible
to use jet fuel to fly a plane with only
a handful of people inside. Students
on a Spring Break trip, however,
can
still
consider
themselves
environmentalists while engaging
in the occasional environmentally
harmful
activity.
Other
environmentally friendly practices
we engage in while traveling are not
canceled out due to the fact we used
jet fuel to get there.
Extreme
personal
responsibility as a requirement
to environmentalism ostracizes
those who would otherwise be
willing to support the movement.
It is not necessary to cut out red
meat, stop buying new clothes
and stop traveling to be a good
environmentalist (though all of
those actions are a great way to
help the planet). We can contribute
to the environmental movement in
the way that we see fit and should
not be shamed, or shame others, for
doing so at our own level.
There is a balance between
taking personal responsibility and
remembering
that
corporations
have a major fault in climate change.
Both lifestyle change and major
political change is necessary to
combat the climate crisis. With that
in mind, college students should be
able to explore and travel during
their Spring Break without guilt
and remain credible advocates for
the climate.
ERIN WHITE
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
ELIZABETH LAWRENCE
Editor in Chief
EMILY CONSIDINE AND
MILES STEPHENSON
Editorial Page Editors
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
ANIK JOSHI | COLUMN
The hypocrisy of Major League Baseball
O
ver the past few years,
the Houston Astros
have been a team full
of cheaters. For three years, the
team management used cameras
to record signs from the opposing
teams’ pitchers and shared them
with their players, a prohibited
move known as sign-stealing.
This behavior continued into the
postseason and the Astros won
the World Series in 2017 while
continuing to use these methods.
The team tried to address the
issue in a press conference from
hell. The team’s owner, Jim Crane,
apologized with all the sincerity of
a 6-year-old caught with his hand
in a cookie jar. Crane claimed
during the same press conference
both that he didn’t know if the
sign-stealing impacted the game
and also the sign-stealing didn’t
impact the game. Crane is a lot
of things, but he isn’t this stupid.,
though his comments at the
conference suggest that he feels
the average viewer is. Why would
a team cheat? To win, obviously.
And if they do cheat, it clearly will
impact the game.
Major
League
Baseball
finished
investigating
the
case in January 2020 and
decided to punish the team.
The punishment included a
$5-million fine and a loss of
four draft picks, as well as the
suspension of team executive
Jeff Luhnow and manager A.J.
Hinch for the 2020 season.
Crane later fired both Luhnow
and Hinch. However, not a single
player was fined or suspended
despite the fact that the players
knew about the scheme and
actively participated in it.
This
is
bizarre
when
considering the case of Pete
Rose. Rose is the all-time hits
leader in MLB and is, by any fair
measure, one of the greatest to
ever play the game. Rose played
for the Cincinnati Reds from 1963
to 1978 and then managed the
team from 1984 to 1986. During
his time as manager, he gambled
on the Reds to win. He was
later banned from the game and
thus the Hall of Fame when his
betting became known to MLB
leadership. In 2015, Rose applied
for reinstatement to the League,
which
MLB
Commissioner
Robert Manfred declined the
request on the grounds that Rose
presented a risk “to the integrity
of our sport.”
Whether or not Rose betting
on his team was ethical is not the
point, but it is laughable to argue
that Rose’s behavior is deserving
of a ban while that of the Astros
is deserving of a slap on the wrist.
For some reason, one of these
instances threatened the integrity
of the game and the other didn’t.
And finesse and draft picks are no
punishment at all.
While cheating over the past
three years, the Astros have
won the American League West
Division title every year, the
American League Championship
Series two years out of three and
the World Series once. Though it
is impossible to prove they would
have lost without the assistance,
they clearly thought they needed
it to win. Manfred suggesting this
didn’t violate the integrity of the
game is incredible and there’s no
way even he believes the nonsense
he’s hawking. Again, if people
cheat, they do it to win and that
will violate the integrity of the
sport in and of itself.
In addition, Manfred suggested
that a lack of contrition on the part
of Rose was part of the reason for
Rose’s continued suspension. How
does this square with the Astros’
Justin Verlander, who currently
pitches for the Astros, had no
problem sharing his opinions on
how MLB players want a “clean
game” after Dee Gordon, then
a player for the Miami Marlins,
was busted using performance-
enhancing drugs (PEDs). Yet for
some reason, the self-appointed
czar of cleanliness was unable
to
significantly
grapple
with
the Astros’ obvious cheating.
Verlander claims to have been
opposed to the sign-stealing,
yet he was unwilling to put his
words into action because talk is
cheap. His complete hypocrisy
about “clean games” suggests the
only thing he has ever said that is
worth listening to was “I do” to
Kate Upton, a woman far more
successful than him (who didn’t
cheat to get where she is).
Rose was punished because
they violated the game. They were
meant to act with integrity and
they didn’t. However, integrity
is a funny thing because either
it matters or it doesn’t. There
cannot be one set of rules for
Rose and another for the team
that cheated their way to the top.
Since Commissioner Manfred has
decided that the Astros’ behavior is
acceptable, there is no reason Rose
should be treated any differently.
Anik Joshi can be reached at
anikj@umich.edu.
Leah Adelman can be reached at
ladelman@umich.edu.
LEAH ADELMAN | COLUMN
Traveling for spring break as an environmentalist
Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg
Brittany Bowman
Emily Considine
Jess D’Agostino
Cheryn Hong
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Zoe Phillips
Mary Rolfes
Michael Russo
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Joel Weiner
Erin White
Lola Yang
ERIN WHITE
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
ELIZABETH LAWRENCE
Editor in Chief
EMILY CONSIDINE AND
MILES STEPHENSON
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
ANNA GETZINGER | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT GETZINGA@UMICH.EDU
To dissolve the
Electoral College
is to invalidate
the goals of
federalism.