Do States Matter?
In anticipation of a repeat of the 2016 election, in which the popular vote winner did not become President, some states are making a “popular vote” pledge, agreeing to award their electoral votes to the popular vote winner, regardless of which candidate actually wins the state. Leaving aside the obvious questions of whether such a maneuver is even constitutional, it is worth noting that the states who have made the pledge are ones in which the Democratic candidate will probably win anyway, making the gesture more symbolic than real. Nevertheless, our system of electing the president is once again under scrutiny. Is the electoral college system outmoded in the 21st century? With instantaneous communication nationwide, and the ability to travel to any part of the nation within a few hours, do state borders actually mean anything?
Most Americans may not realize that they are re-enacting the very first political debates by our Founding Fathers: how much relative power should be given to the individual states, and how much to the federal government? This fundamental question shaped the beginnings of the fledgling nation at its inception, led to a civil war less than 100 years later, led to the evolution of our two-party political system, and helped inspire not one, but but two Broadway musicals!
The desire to preserve the autonomy of the individual states can illustrated best by the name given to our country: the United States of America. Our first attempt at a constitution, the Articles of Confederation, gave most of the political power to the individual states, with a relatively weak federal government whose main purpose was to moderate disputes between individual states. Unfortunately, without the power to levy taxes or regulate commerce between the states, the new government proved ineffective, and a constitution convention was called just ten years after the Articles of Confederation were ratified.
The new constitution, of course, granted more power to the federal government, but still recognized the individual states as semi-sovereign entities. The Constitution does not grant powers to the states; rather, it recognizes that the power to govern automatically rests with the people, and that government only has those powers specifically granted to it by the people. The Tenth Amendment spells it out: “ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
Led by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, the faction that pushed for ratification of the new Constitution called themselves Federalists, and supported a strong central government. Hamilton’s biggest rival was Thomas Jefferson, who believed that a too powerful government would be oppressive. Many of our Founding Fathers, including President George Washington, were fiercely opposed to the idea of organized political parties, fearing that they would tear the new nation apart and lead to civil war, as had occurred in England. Jefferson became the leader of the new Democratic-Republican Party, formed specifically to act as a counterbalance against the Federalists. The election of 1796 was the first in which candidates for President ran as member of established parties: Jefferson ran as a Democratic Republican, and John Adams ran as a Federalist. Even then, the regional division was clear. Jefferson carried the Southern states, and Adams won in New England. Adams, of course, won the election by a narrow margin in the Electoral College, 71–68.
The differences between the agrarian South and the industrialized North continued, and grew even greater as the economy of the South became more dependent on slavery. As more states joined the Union, it became clear that the issue of slavery could not be resolved. Abolitionists in the North did not want slavery in their states, and did not want to live in a country in which such an immoral institution existed. This does not mean that racial discrimination did not exist in the North, however. Opposition to slavery in the North was at least in part based on economic, not moral, grounds. Slavery was not essential to their economy. It would be wrong to assume that all, or even most, people in the Northern states believed in racial equality.
As the nation expanded, it became clear that slavery might not be confined to the South. A coalition of anti-slavery activists met in 1840 and founded a new party, the Republican Party, and ran their first presidential candidate in 1856. They lost the election but started gaining more followers each day. By this time, most voters in the North were opposed to the expansion of slavery. By the time the next election came around in 1860, several Southern States, seeing the handwriting on the wall, threatened to secede if the Republican candidate, Abraham Lincoln, was elected.
The leaders of the states who formed the Confederate States of America believed it was their right to leave the Union. After all, less than 100 years ago, the thirteen colonies of America had declared it to be their God-given right to become independent. Everyone knows at least the first few words of the Preamble, but the Declaration goes on to say: “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” While it seems almost unfathomable today that people would be willing to secede from the country just so they could preserve their “right” to own other people, the Southern leaders nevertheless believed that they should be allowed to secede if they wished. Should the Southern states have been allowed to go their own way? The question is now moot, but Americans living in the Southern states still tend to believe that decisions should be made at the local, rather than national, level.
Before dismissing the notion of states’ rights as racist, hopelessly outmoded, or dangerous, it should be noted that both Red and Blue states today are quick to assert their rights to self determination when it suits them. Many states, for example, have legalized marijuana, despite federal laws to the contrary. Still others have allowed “sanctuary” cities within their borders, areas in which federal immigration laws are ignored. Ironically, the Republican-led administration, usually a champion of states’ rights, has condemned these actions, at least in the case of sanctuary cities, while at the same time supporting the right of individual states to regulate abortion within their borders.
We should remember also that it was the individual states, not the federal government, that led the way in marriage equality. Eventually, so many states allowed same-sex marriage that the federal government had no choice but to follow suit. Today, federal benefits, including immigration sponsorship and social security benefits, are available to all spouses, regardless of sex.
The individual states that make up our nation, it appears, do still matter. A farmer in Iowa has a completely different experience of American life than a tech worker in Silicon Valley. A coal miner in West Virginia has different priorities than a government worker in Northern Virginia. Should a presidential candidate be forced by our electoral system to consider the needs of both?
Our Founding Fathers, flawed as they were, purposely made it difficult to amend the Constitution, so future generations would have to carefully consider the consequences before making changes to the way our government operates. Do you support the idea of sanctuary cities? Do you enjoy being able to smoke weed in your state without the fear of being arrested? Are you proud that your state led the country in marriage equality? If so, you may not be as much of a federalist as you think.
